death of the individual is neither happiness nor unhappiness: it is a fact or event. [Sidenote: _Critique of the subordination of pleasure to morality._] Finally, the theory that _subordinates_ pleasure or happiness, utility or economy, to duty, to virtue, to moral activity, is to be rejected. The subordination of the one term to the other is not possible on this side of morality, because only one of the two terms is present; and in like manner it is impossible in the moral circle, because, though the terms are certainly two, they are two in one, not one above and the other below; that is to say, they are distinct terms that become unified. Morality has complete empire over life, and there is not an act of life, be it as small as you will, that morality does not or ought not to regulate. But morality has no _absolute empire over the forms or categories of the spirit,_ and as it cannot destroy or modify itself, so it cannot destroy or modify the other spiritual forms, which are its necessary support and presupposition. [Sidenote: _No empire of morality over the forms of the spirit._] Hence is apparent the remarkable fatuity of those who pretend to regulate morally the _function_ of art, of science, or of economy and profess _moralistic_ theories of art and philosophy and a _moralized_ economic science. The poet, the man of science, the business man, must be as honest as others, but it is not given to them to tear in pieces the nature of poetry, of science and of industry, in the madness of honesty. Indeed, were this done or attempted, and the poet were to introduce extraneous elements into his work of art, through his failure to understand morality, or the philosopher to veil or alter the purity of truth, or the man of business foolishly to bring his own business to ruin, then and only then, would they be dishonest. To substitute the _single acts_ of life that appertain to morality, for _the universal forms of the spirit,_ and to predicate of these what should be predicated only of those, is so evident an absurdity that it could not be committed by anyone accustomed to philosophical distinctions. But what nonsense is so evident that idle babblers and elegant men of letters do not know how to cover with their ratiocinative and æsthetic flowers and to present to society or to the academic world as truth, or at least as a theory worthy of reflection and discussion? [Sidenote: _Inexistence of other practical forms and impossibility of subdivision of the two established._]