The ritiism of ethial utilitarianism annot esape by denying this truth

 Ritique of utilitarianism and the reform of Ethi and of Eonomi. This ombined identity and differene of the useful and of the moral, of the eonomi and of the ethi, explains the fortune enjoyed now and formerly by the utilitarian theory of Ethi. It is in fat easy to disover and to show a utilitarian side in every moral ation; as it is easy to show an aestheti side of every logial proposition. The ritiism of ethial utilitarianism annot esape by denying this truth and seeking out absurd and inexistent examples of useless moral ations. It must admit the juicy couture baby fluffy utilitarian side and explain it as the onrete form of morality, whih onsists of what is within this form. Utilitarians do not see this within. This is not the plae for a more ample development of suh ideas. Ethi and Eonomi annot but be gainers, as we have said of Logi and Aestheti, by a more exat determination of the relations that exist between them. Eonomi siene is now rising to the animating onept of the useful, as it strives to pass beyond the mathematial phase, in whih it is still entangled; a phase whih, when it superseded historiism, was in its turn a progress, destroying a series of arbitrary distintions and false theories of Eonomi, implied in the onfusion of the theoretial with the historial. With this oneption, it will be easy on the one hand to absorb and to verify the semi-philosophial theories of so-alled pure eonomy, and on the other, by the introdution of suessive ompliations and additions, and by passing from the philosophial to the empirial or naturalisti method, to inlude the partiular theories of the politial or national eonomy of the shools.  Phenomenon and noumenon in pratial ativity. As aestheti intuition knows the phenomenon or nature, and philosophi intuition the noumenon or spirit; so eonomi ativity wills the phenomenon or nature, and moral ativity the noumenon or spirit.

The spirit whih desires itself, its true self, the universal whih is in the empirial and finite spirit: that is the formula whih perhaps defines the essene of morality with the least impropriety. This will for the true self is absolute liberty.In this summary sketh that we have given, of the entire philosophy of the spirit in its fundamental moments, the spirit is oneived as onsisting of four juicy couture sale moments or grades, disposed in suh a way that the theoretial ativity is to the pratial as is the first theoretial grade to the seond theoretial, and the first pratial grade to the seond pratial.Why wilt thou grieve over the loss of thy daughter? writes Sulpicius to Cicero. Great, renowned cities and empires have passed away, and thou behavest thus at the death of an homunculus, a little human being! Where is thy philosophy? The idea of man as an individual was to the ancients a secondary one, attained through the idea of the species. Though they thought highly of the race, highly of the excellences of mankind, highly and sublimely of the intelligence, they nevertheless thought slightly of the individual. Christianity, on the contrary, cared nothing for the species, and had only the individual in its eye and mind. Christianity  not, certainly, the Christianity of the present day, which has incorporated with itself the culture of heathenism, and has preserved only the name and some general positions of Christianity  is the direct opposite of heathenism, and only when it is regarded as such is it truly comprehended, and untravestied by arbitrary speculative interpretation; it is true so far as its opposite is false, and false so far as its opposite is true. The ancients sacrificed the individual to the species; the Christians sacrificed the species to the individual. Or, heathenism conceived the individual only as a part in distinction from the whole of the species; Christianity, on the contrary, conceived the individual only in immediate, undistinguishable unity with the species. To Christianity the individual was the object of an immediate providence, that is, an immediate object of the Divine Being The heathens believed in a providence for the individual only through his relation to the race, through law, through the order of the world, and thus only in a mediate, natural, and not miraculous providence; It is true that the heathen philosophers also, as Plato, Socrates, the Stoics see eg. J. Lipsius, Physiol. Stoic.  diss. xi, believed that the divine providence extended not merely to the general, but also to the particular,  the individual; but they identified providence with Nature, law, necessity. The Stoics, who were the orthodox speculatists of heathenism, did indeed believe in miracles wrought by providence Cie. de Nat. Deor.  and Do Divinat. ; but their miracles had no such supranaturalistic significance as those of Christianity, though they also appealed to the supranaturalistic axiom: Nihil eat quod Dens efficere non possit. but the Christians left out the intermediate process, and placed themselves in immediate connection with the prescient, allembracing, universal Being; , they immediately identified the individual with the universal Being,. But the idea of deity coincides with the idea of humanity. All divine attributes, all the attributes which make God God, are attributes of the species  attributes which in the individual are limited, but the limits of which are abolished in the essence of the species, and even in its existence, in so far as it has its complete existence only in all men taken together. My knowledge, my will, is limited; but my limit is not the limit of another man, to say nothing of mankind; what is difficult to me is easy to another; what is impossible, inconceivable, to one age, is to the coming ace conceivable and possible.

My life is bound to a limited time. not so the life of humanity. The history of mankind consists of nothing else than a continuous and progressive conquest of limits, which at a given time pass for the limits of humanity, and therefore for absolute insurmountable limits. But the future always unveils the fact that the alleged limits of the species were only limits of individuals. The most striking, proofs of this are presented by the history of philosophy and of physical science. It would be highly interesting and instructive to write a history of the sciences entirely from this point of view, in order to exhibit in all its vanity the presumptuous notion of the individual than he can set limits to his race. Thus the species is unlimited; the individual alone limited. But the sense of limitation is painful, and hence the individual frees himself from it by the contemplation of the perfect Being; in this contemplation he possesses what otherwise is wanting to him. With the Christians God is nothing else than the immediate unity of species and individuality, of the universal and individual being God is the idea of the species as an individual  the idea or essence of the species, which as a species, as universal being, as the totality of all perfections, of all attributes or realities, freed from all the limits which exist in the consciousness and feeling of the individual, is at the same time again an individual, personal being.