idea, has an extraordinary and irrational effect on the great majority, for the sole reason that not single individual in this multitule is able to oppose a real ego, accessible to and sounded by himself, to the general pale fiction, and thereby to destroy it.
106
‘’Against the definitions of moral aims.’’—On all sides we hear the goal of morality defined in about the following way: it is the preserving and raising of humanity, but this only expresses a wish to possess a formula, and nothing else. Preserving wherein? Raising whereto? is the question whiclı at once rises on our lips. Is not the most essential part, the answer to this Wherein ? and Whereto? omitted in the formula?Is there anything we could thereby determine as to the theory of duty that is not already tacitly and instinctively understood? Can we clearly deduce therefrom whether we shall have to keep in view the longest possible existence of mankind, or a possible disanimalisation of mankind ? How different would the remedies,that is, the practical morals, have to be in the two cases! Suppose that the greatest possible rationality was to be given to mankind: this certainly would not warrant the longest possible existence for them. Or, suppose that their greatest happiness was thought to be the Whereto ? and Wherein?: do we thereby imply the highest stage which individuals may gradually attain,
