It has always been a matter of great philosophic import to clarify the relation of law to morality. There have been times, however, when the philosophical interest in clarifying this relation has become more intense because of a sense of urgency created by contemporary political upheaval. The present is such a time. One of the difficulties of philosophizing within a context defined by a sense of urgency is that prevailing political conditions and one's own immediate commitments concerning these conditions often lead one to philosophical extremes which do more to confound the philosophical issues involved than to clarify them. This confounding of issues is not only philosophically depressing but a cause for practical alarm since the practicing philosopher usually attracts some followers, if only among his students, who tend to act in accord with the espoused ideology. Given the fact that one either chooses or is forced to engage in direct political action because of the prevailing sense of urgency, the connection between one's philosophical position and his overt political action becomes rather intimate, more so than when one is lulled into inactivity by general conditions of social equilibrium. Unfortunately, sometimes a misguided ideology can discredit an entire position containing many valid points of real social significance which could stand without the accompanying ideology. In my judgment, many persons defending political anarchism at the present time, simply by virtue of their defense of that position, have done more to impede what otherwise are sound points of social criticism than they might have by simply remaining silent. What is particularly depressing is that some of the criticisms which they believe valid are ones which I believe to be valid. I am not urging that one disguise what he believes to be a correct political ideology for' reasons of political expediency, though in the appropriate circumstances such behavior might be quite desirable. What upsets me is that