motive a feeling of pain, as in the examples first mentioned, you are in error; not all acts are thus produced. (2) If by the feeling of pain you mean the feeling of uneasiness which accompanies an impulse, you are wrong again, for (a) this feeling is not an essential antecedent to every act, and (b) it cannot be said to precede the impulse and set it in motion, it is the impulse itself intensified.1

10. Unconscious Pleasure-Pain as the Motive. Psychology makes against the view that pleasure and pain, in any of the forms discussed above, are the sole motives to action. We are determined in our conduct not merely by pleasure and pain, or the hope or fear of pleasure and pain. Convinced of this fact, and yet unwilling to abandon his general proposition, the hedonist might say: True, the will is roused to action not merely by conscious pleasure or pain, or by a conscious idea of pleasure and pain, but by unconscious pleasure and pain, or by an unconscious presentation of pleasure and pain. That is to say, I am guided in many of my doings by unconscious pleasure and pain. My will is directed toward pleasure without knowing it. I strive after wealth, honor, fame, for the sake of the pleasure they will bring, without, however, always being aware of it. Wealth, honor, and fame, like the food which we eat, are sought after for the pleasure which they procure, though we may not be conscious of the fact.

1 Külpe, Psychology, p. 267.

This, it seems to me, is rather a weak basis upon which to rest a theory. What happens in the realm of the unconscious I have no means of telling; indeed, I do not even know whether there is such a thing as an unconscious soul-life. When the hedonist has recourse to the unconscious he has recourse to the metaphysical; he shifts the problem from psychology to philosophy. As Sidgwick says: "The proposition would be difficult to disprove.

When once we go beyond the testimony of consciousness, there seems to be no clear method of determining which among the consequences of any action is the end at which it is aimed. For the same reason, however, the proposition is at any rate equally difficult to prove."1

But suppose we permit the concept of the unconscious to enter into our discussion. The hedonist claims that man blindly strives after pleasure, that he is unconsciously determined by pleasure or pain, or the idea of pleasure and pain. This assumption must be proved in some way. How can the hedonist prove it? How can he show us what takes place behind the curtain of the unconscious? By referring to the effects or results of the blind striving? That is, shall we say, Pleasure is the invariable effect of unconscious striving, hence pleasure is the unconscious motive? But even if the premise were true, would that make the conclusion true? Besides, is the premise true? Can we prove that pleasure 1 Methods of Ethics, p. 53.

is the invariable effect or consequence of all blind striving?

I believe not. In the first place many results follow our impulses: movements, sensations, feelings of pleasure and pain, feelings of satisfaction due to the realization of the impulse, ideas, other impulses, etc. The realization of every impulse is accompanied and followed by elements of thinking, feeling, and willing. Now why should I pick out one of these and say that it is the unconscious choice of the mind? Besides, waiving this point, does the pleasure always come? Say that I am striving after wealth. My ostensible aim is the money; but, says hedonism, the real aim is pleasure. Pleasure, which is the secret power behind the throne, invariably follows the realization of desire. Is this true? I work and struggle and accumulate money, but am I ever satisfied?

Hedonism in this form consists of nothing but a lot of unproved suppositions :

(1) That there are unconscious states of mind; (2) That there can be unconscious pleasures and pains, or unconscious ideas of pleasure-pains ;

(3) That pleasure-pains are the only unconscious motives that can lead to action;

(4) That pleasure and pain are the universal accompaniments of action.

11. The Psychological Fallacies of Hedonism. — I believe that we may now say without fear of contradiction that psychology makes against the

We

view that pleasure is the sole motive to action. are not prompted to action solely by feelings of pleasure and pain, or ideas of pleasure and pain. It is a psychological fallacy to claim that we are. Generally speaking, this fallacy is based upon the following misconceptions :

(1) Hedonistic psychologists hold that all feelings must be either pleasurable or painful, and that pleasure-pain constitutes the only class of feeling. This hypothesis, however, has not been proved to the satisfaction of a large number of psychologists.

(2) Hedonistic psychologists confuse impulses and desires with pleasurable and painful feelings. There is frequently present in consciousness, as we have pointed out, a more or less distinct idea of movement, together with a tendency toward it, a feeling of impulsion toward it, "a pressure from within, outward." This impulsion is felt as pleasurable until it reaches a certain point, when it may become painful. According as we unduly emphasize either the pleasurable or painful aspects of such states of consciousness as these, we shall assert either that pleasure or that pain is the invariable antecedent of action. But we must guard against wholly identifying the feeling of impulsion with pleasure or pain; the impulse contains more than these elements, as we have pointed out above. Whether the physiological cause of the feeling-impulse is a nervous current running from the brain, or whether it is the excita

tion produced in the brain by the resulting movements in the muscles, joints, and skin, or whether it is both, does not concern us here. One thing seems certain: the impulse on its mental side is more than pleasure and pain.

(3) Hedonistic psychologists also identify the affirmation or fiat of the will with pleasure, and the negation or veto with pain. They find that when the mind decides a case, there is a "tone of feeling" present, which, since pleasure-pains are the only feelings possible, must be a form of pleasure or pain. But though pleasures and pains are frequently fused with the state of consciousness which characterizes an act of will (in our sense), they are not the only elements contained in it, nor are they the all-important ones.

(4) Hedonistic psychologists also notice that the cognitive elements preceding an act are always changing, while the feeling-element remains the same. Hence they come to regard the feelings as the invariable antecedents of acts, and set them up as the motives of action. They make two mistakes

here They regard all feelings as tones or shades of pleasure-pain; and they conclude that because a certain aspect of consciousness precedes action, it must be the motive or cause of action.

(5) Hedonistic psychologists also believe that all acts are accompanied or followed by pleasure-pains, and therefore conclude that these must be the motives. But, as we have shown, it does not necessarily follow