T HAT there is nothing fundamental is now regarded as such a truism that fundamentals have ceased to have even respectable standing in the sphere of "enlightened" action. It is no longer necessary to prove the assertion; to mention it is quite sufficient. The proposition meets with ready assent among intelligent people. Nevertheless, the statement needs interpretation. That there is no absolute fundamental is true but it does not follow from this that nothing is fundamental. There may be something that is fundamental even though there is nothing that is absolutely fundamental. The fundamental is not necessarily an antiquated ethical term because of the present logical status of absolutes. Thus it is still legitimate to talk about Good, Right, Virtue and Justice, recognizing the fact that their absolutes have been thrown out of court. It will be a sorry day for the world when these moral concepts are no longer a fit subject for inquiry and so with the Fundamental. The fundamental occupied a most important place in systems of absolute ethics. To believe in God and to obey the Ten Commandments were once fundamental. They were fundamental to salvation. Salvation having become an obsolete goal for humanity from the standpoint of the "intellectuals," these fundamentals have been thrown overboard and with them have perished all fundamentals in many instances. With the relegation of absolutism in ethics along with absolutism in politics to the scrap heap has gone the banishment of fundamentals. The fundamental born of absolutism has no place in democratic morals. But was not democracy itself born of absolutism? Why reject the fundamental because of its ancestry and proclaim democracy as the only legitimate heir to the throne of absolutism?