that because pleasure-pains are the effects or results of acts they are therefore also the causes.

12. The Pleasure of the Race as the Motive.But perhaps our opponents will say, We do not mean that the pleasure of self is the end or motive, but the pleasure of the race, the greatest happiness of the greatest number.1

We may urge the same objections against this view as against the other. It cannot be proved that all human beings strive after the pleasure of the race, that the idea of racial pleasure is the motive of human action. And to say that they unconsciously strive after the happiness of the race is as objectionable, in a certain sense, as to say that they unconsciously strive after their own pleasure.

13. Pleasure as the End realized by All Action. — Our conclusion, then, is this: If by the assertion, Pleasure, or happiness, is the end of life or the highest good, we mean that feelings of pleasure-pain, in some form or other, are the motives of human action, the theory cannot stand. Let us now interpret hedonism in a different sense.2 Let us take it to mean that pleasure is the end or purpose of all action in the sense that all living beings realize pleasure, and that the realization of pleasure is the object of their existence.

But the first question which forces itself upon us here is this, Is pleasure really the result of all action? It will have to be proved not only that

1 Mill, Utilitarianism, pp. 22-23. 2 See chap. viii, § 1 (2).

pleasure is a result of action, but the result, i.e., that all animals get more pleasure out of life than pain. We have already seen that Aristotle regards pleasure as the consequence or concomitant of normal or natural activity, while pain is linked with abnormal or injurious action. Spencer declares that "pains are the correlatives of actions injurious to the organism, while pleasures are the correlatives of acts conducive to its welfare." By conducive and injurious he means "tending to continuance or increase of life," and the reverse.1 Bain teaches that "states of pleasure are connected with an increase, and states of pain with an abatement, of some or all, of the vital functions."2 Although there are differences in expression, all these statements evidently mean the same, namely, that "pleasure is significant of activities which are beneficial, and pain is significant of what is harmful, either to the total organism of the individual or of the species, or to the particular organ primarily involved." 3

Although this theory is not free from objections,1 let us accept it for the sake of argument. Let us assume that pleasure accompanies beneficial activity, and that pain is the concomitant of all action that is harmful and dangerous. Functions, then, which are

1 Psychology, § 124; Data of Ethics, § 33.

2 The Senses and the Intellect, 4th edition, chap. iv, § 18, p. 303. 8 Ladd, Psychology, p. 191. See also Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics, pp. 177 ff.; Külpe, Psychology, English translation, pp. 267 ff.; Marshall, Pleasure, Pain, and Esthetics, especially pp. 169 ff. 4 See Ladd, Külpe, Sidgwick, Marshall.

useful are followed by pleasure, while those which are injurious have pain as their consequence. But would this prove that pleasure is the end of all animal existence, either in the sense in which we speak of vision being the end or purpose of the eye, or in the sense that God or some intelligent principle in nature has set up as the goal the pleasure of living beings?

When we speak of ends we may merely mean that a certain result is obtained, that life, for example, is tending in a certain direction. Thus, we say that an organ realizes a purpose. The eye is a purposive or teleological mechanism; it has a function to perform which is useful to the animal, it serves a purpose, realizes an end.

Now, is pleasure the end of life in this sense? Pleasure or happiness is a result of human existence, one of the results, a result among others. But how can we say that it is the highest end, that all other factors and functions are means to this? We can say that perception, imagination, reasoning, willing, etc., are means to pleasure, but can we not say with equal right that pleasure is a means to these? How can we prove that pleasure is the final goal of life? Why pick out one element of psychic life and say that the realization of this element is the goal toward which everything is making, the end-all and be-all of animal existence? Would it not be like claiming that seeing is the highest goal because normal beings possess an organ of sight? Would it not be more

R

reasonable to say that the different organs of the body are means to a higher end-the life of the entire body, of which the organs are parts; and that therefore every organ is a means to bodily life, and in so far as life consists of its organs, a partial endin-itself? And would it not also be more reasonable to say that the realization of all mental states is the end, rather than that one element, which never exists alone in consciousness, is the end? It would be absurd to say that the whole body and its organs, the whole mind and all its functions, are the subordinate means to pleasure. It would be like saying that all the organs of the body are merely means of seeing, that vision is the end of life. Would it not be more plausible to reverse the statement and say, Vision is a means of life, and pleasure and pain are both means of preservation ?

14. Pleasure-Pain as a Means of Preservation.

-We can say that pain serves as a warning, pleasure as a bait. When the animal feels pain it makes movements of defence or flight. Pleasure and pain may be conceived as primitive forms of the knowledge of good and evil, as Paulsen expresses it. When the dangerous object is near at hand, the danger to life is greatest, and pain, therefore, most easily aroused. We find greater sensibility to pain in direct touch than in indirect touching like seeing and hearing. 1

1 See Nichols, article on "Pleasure and Pain," Philosophical Review, Vol. I, pp. 414 ff.

It seems, also, that as we pass from lower to higher forms of organic life (from lower animals to man, and from the lower organs to the higher), pleasure and pain gradually fall into the background. In the lowest forms the animal must come into direct contact with objects before it can feel and know how to act with regard to them. Tactual sensations plus feelings of pleasure and pain would assist the animal in preserving itself. In the course of time, however, organs are developed which enable the animal to become aware of helpful and dangerous things without coming into such close contact with them. By means of the organs of taste, smell, hearing, and sight, the animal practically touches objects at a greater and greater distance, and the farther away the object of sense is, the less pain and pleasure does it arouse.

I see no better way of interpreting such facts as these than by conceiving the feelings of pleasure and pain as means to an end-preservation.

We may reach a similar result by considering the function which memory performs. Even though it were true that every sensation had to be felt originally as pleasurable or painful in order to inform the animal of the nature of the object before it, and to release the appropriate movement with reference to it, we can understand how an animal possessing the power to retain its experiences could learn to act without being prompted by feelings of pleasure and pain. The touch or sight of the object might call