 We can identify two different ways of linking the personal good and the common good. One way is from the outside-in, arguing that the common good is explanatorily prior to the personal good and that the good of individuals is just whatever is contributory to the good of some collective, whether that be God, humanity, or some more local community. Another way is from the inside-out, arguing that the personal good is more complete when it includes the right sort of association with others and includes the pursuit of a common good. Framed this way, there’s a strong case to be made for the inside-out reading of Green’s ethics. As we’ve seen, the structure of the argument in Books II–III of the Prolegomena has this inside-out character. This interpretation is reinforced by claims Green makes in his “Freedom” essay. Recall that Green identifies true freedom with determination by practical reason and perfect self-realization. He distinguishes between Christian (Pauline) and Kantian conceptions of freedom, on the one hand, and a Hegelian conception, on the other hand (Works II 312–15). The principal difference seems to be in whom freedom is realized. Green thinks that the Christian and Kantian see the individual as the locus of freedom, whereas Hegel treats the state as the locus of freedom. In this debate, Green sides with the Christian and Kantian.