others." "This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow-creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilization." That is, I desire the happiness of others, ! because I have social feelings, or sympathy.

Both Mill and Bentham, therefore, agree that the greatest good of the greatest number is the goal of action and the standard of morality. But according to Bentham, self-interest is the motive, while according to Mill, sympathy or social feeling is the mainspring of morality.

There is, however, as we have seen, another point of difference between Bentham and Mill. The former regards those pleasures as the best which last the longest and are the most intense, making no qualitative distinction between them. ..The quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry." Mill, on the other hand, distinguishes between the quality of pleasures; some are more desir able and more valuable than others, and the highest pleasures are to be preferred. "According to the Greatest Happiness Principle," he declares, “the ultimate end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people) is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, 1 Utilitarianism, chap. ii, p. 46.

and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole of sentient creation." 1

13. Sidgwick and Contemporaries. - We reach another phase of the theory in Henry Sidgwick.2 According to him, the greatest happiness is the ultimate good. By this is meant the greatest possible surplus of pleasure over pain, the pain being conceived as balanced against an equal amount of pleasure, so that the two contrasted amounts annihilate each other for purposes of ethical calculation.4

There are certain practical principles the truth of which, when they are explicitly stated, is manifest.5 One of these is the principle of rational self

love or prudence, according to which one ought to aim at one's own happiness or pleasure, as a whole; that is, reason dictates "an impartial concern for all parts of our conscious life," an equal regard for the rights of all moments, the future as well as the present, the remote as well as the near. The present pleasure is to be foregone with the view of obtaining greater pleasure or happiness hereafter. "Hereafter is to be regarded neither less nor more than Now."

Another such principle, the principle of the duty of benevolence, teaches that the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view of the universe, than the good of any other. One is morally bound to regard the good of any other individual as much as one's own, except in so far as we judge it to be less, when impartially viewed, or less certainly knowable or attainable. As a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally, not merely at a particular part of it. When the egoist puts forward, implicitly or explicitly, the proposition that his happiness or pleasure is good, not only for him, but from the point of the universe as, e.g., by saying that "nature designed him to seek his own happiness," it then becomes relevant to point out to him that his happiness cannot be a more important part of good taken universally, than the equal happiness of any other person. And thus, starting with his own principle, he may be brought to accept universal happiness or pleasure as that which is

absolutely without qualification good or desirable; as an end, therefore, to which the action of a reasonable agent as such ought to be directed.1

Another principle is the principle of justice; whatever action any one of us judges to be right for himself he implicitly judges to be right for all similar persons in similar circumstances. It cannot be right for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A; merely on the ground that they are two different individuals, and without there being any difference between the natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a reasonable ground for difference of treatment.2

Other contemporary exponents of the hedonistic school are: Alexander Bain, Alfred Barratt,4 Shadworth Hodgson, Herbert Spencer, Georg von Gizycki, and Thomas Fowler.8

1 Methods, p. 418.

5

2 p. 380.

8 The Senses and the Intellect, 1856; The Emotions and the Will, 1859; Mental and Moral Science, 1868. See chap. ii, § 6 (7). 4 Physical Ethics, 1869. 5 Theory of Practice, 2 vols., 1870. 6 Principles of Ethics: Part I, "The Data of Ethics," 1879; Part II, "The Inductions of Ethics," 1892; Part III, "The Ethics of Individual Life," 1892; Part IV, "Justice," 1891. "There is no escape," says Spencer, "from the admission that in calling good the conduct which subserves life, and bad the conduct which hinders or destroys it, and in so implying that life is a blessing, and not a curse, we are inevitably asserting that conduct is good or bad according as its total effects are pleasurable or painful."Data of Ethics, chap. iii, p. 28.

7 Grundzüge der Moral, 1883, translated by Stanton Coit; Moralphilosophie, 1889.

8 Progressive Morality, 1884; Fowler and Wilson, Principles of Morality, 1886-1887.

14. General Survey. In conclusion let us briefly survey the history of the theories of hedonism, and note their development. In Greek hedonism the tendency was at first to regard bodily pleasure and the pleasure of the moment as the highest good and motive of action (Aristippus). A closer study of the problem led to the gradual modification of this conception. Instead of the pleasure of the moment, the pleasure of a lifetime; instead of violent pleasure, repose of spirit, a happy frame of mind, came to be regarded as the ideal of conduct (Theodorus, Democritus, Epicurus). The element of prudence or reason was also more strongly emphasized in the course of time. It was pointed out that happiness could not be secured without prudence or forethought; that the desire for pleasure had to be governed by reason (Democritus, Epicurus). Then it was shown that mental pleasures were preferable to bodily pleasures, that the ideal could not be realized through sensuous enjoyment, but only by the exercise of the higher intellectual faculties (Democritus, Epicurus). The commonly accepted virtues were also included among the means of happiness, and a moral life insisted on as necessary to the realization of the highest good. Indeed, the controversy between hedonism and the opposing school finally reduced itself to a dispute concerning the fundamental principle underlying morality; both schools practically recommended the same manner of life, one because it led to