_Which is the rightful owner of land, the community or the individual?_ To state the problem in another form: Should private land ownership be abolished? _Who should be entitled to vote?_ This of course is a question similar to woman suffrage, but it is much broader. It deals not only with the qualification of sex, but of age. Should any one under twenty-one have the vote? The validity of property and educational qualifications should also be considered. _How should the relations of the sexes be regulated?_ Put in slightly narrower and perhaps less objectionable form: What would be just laws governing marriage and divorce? _What is the effect of attempted State interference with the law of supply and demand?_ Does the unrestricted working out of this law forward ultimate justice? Just what is the validity and the meaning of the expression “The _law_ of supply and demand”? The question could be taken up in connection with minimum wage laws, railroad rate regulations, “extra crew” laws, etc. _Which is the best policy: free trade, revenue tariff, or protective tariff?_ Or under what conditions is each best? With what classes of commodities? _What would be an equitable and sound currency system?_ This question is somewhat technical, and would have to be considered in the form of a number of subsidiary problems. Ought money to have an intrinsic value? What is the effect of “fiat” paper currency on money of intrinsic value and on prices? The effect of credit? The effect of fluctuations in the supply of gold? Ought there be a double standard or a multiple standard? etc. _Should conduct be judged by the pleasure or happiness it yields?_ Stated in another form, almost a different problem: Is utility a good moral guide? _Should conduct be judged by its tendency to produce individual well-being, or should it be judged by its tendency to produce the well-being of all humanity, or of all sentient beings?_ This problem cannot be lightly dismissed in favor of universal well-being. This becomes apparent when we attempt to give an undogmatic and non-question-begging answer to the query: Why should a man act for the benefit of others? No science is more provocative of thought than ethics. The question of whether acts should be declared good or bad as they tend to produce pleasure or happiness, either individual or in humanity as a whole, or whether “virtue” or “morality” is an end in itself, is one of the most subtle and elusive we can attempt to solve; no matter which answer we give we are brought into logical and psychological dilemmas from which it seems impossible to escape. This is also true of the problem of whether our knowledge of what constitutes right and wrong comes from experience or from intuition. The broadest form of the ethical problem, which includes the two preceding italicized problems, is: