If there were such a thing as a “higher nature,” it should clearly manifest itself in morals and religion. In the sphere of moral conduct we should be able to discern particular drives that are worthy of invariable and unqualified approval. Ethical philosophy long endeavored to discover such pure springs of action, but without success. It is true, likewise important, that some broadly general types of policy, such as neighborliness, truthfulness, and industry, are usually safe guides. Yet, when my improvident neighbor asks me for a loan, or when an oppressor would use my truthfulness as an instrument with which to reach an innocent victim, or when I endeavor to apportion my time between work and play, then not one of these policies suffices as a basis for decision. “Love beauty” is good advice, but there are times when we have to decide whether to rest our eyes upon the curves of beauty or upon the harsh lines of actuality. “Pursue truth”; certainly, but just when is the moment for action upon the basis of present light, perhaps twilight? “Do as you would be done by”; of course, but how, under some circumstances, would I be done by? That is to say, in all such cases, the background-problem is, What sort of “I” do I want my self and others to be? Is it not true that good men are forever getting in the way of the good? Consider any half dozen social changes that history has proved to be wholesome, and then count over the men who opposed them at the time they were made. You will perceive that the mental clumsiness of bad men has an exact parallel in the moral awkwardness of good men.