He starts with the thesis that _both_ sorts of morality are strong enough to hold their own, without supernatural aid; and when we look to see on what ground he holds they are, we find it to consist in the following explanation that _one_ is.

'_Given_,' he says, '_a society of human beings under certain circumstances, and the question whether a particular action on the part of one of its members will tend to increase the general happiness or not, is a question of natural knowledge, and as such is a perfectly legitimate subject of scientific inquiry....

If it can be shown by observation or experiment, that theft, murder, and adultery do not tend to diminish the happiness of society, then, in the absence of any but natural knowledge, they are not social immoralities._' Now, in the above passage we have at least one thing.

We have a short epitome of one of those classes of answers that our positive moralists are offering us.

It is with this class that I shall deal in the following chapter; and point out as briefly as may be its complete irrelevance.