I believe that philosophers should continue to discuss the proper aim of social policy in the light of the experience of the past fifty years. Instead of confining themselves to discussing the ‘nature’ of ethics, of the greatest good, etc. they should think about such fundamental and difficult ethical and political questions as are raised by the fact that political freedom is impossible without some principle of equality before the law; that since absolute freedom is impossible, we must, with Kant, demand in its stead equality with respect to those limitation of freedom which are unavoidable consequences of social life and that on the other hand the pursuit of equality especially in its economic sense, much as it desirable in itself may become a threat to freedom. […] And similarly, they should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship, and the proposal that we should replace it by a more modest and realistic principles – the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy while the increase of happiness should be left in the main to private initiative.

Rational criticism replaces justification. Criticism curbs the imagination but does not put it in chains.

A minute criticism of minute points without an understanding of the great problems of cosmology, of human knowledge, of ethics and of political philosophy and without a serious and devoted attempt to solve them, appears to me fatal.