CHAPTER II.

KNOWLEDGE OF MORAL DISTINCTIONS.

(UTILITARIAN THEORY.)

1. THE Development theory, which seeks first to rise from Sensation to Intelligence, endeavours next, with the aid of Intelligence, to reach a knowledge of moral distinctions. The power to observe and reason about our Sensations being granted, the development theory undertakes to distinguish between right and wrong in action.

2. As the foundation of the intellectual theory is laid in Sensation, the foundation of the moral theory is laid in the pleasurable and painful experience characteristic of our Feelings. The Ethical Theory may be summarized thus: 'Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.'-Mill's Utilitarianism, p. 9. In view of this, the theory is named 'The Happiness Theory,'-Eudæmonism (from evdaμovía, happiness), Hedonism (dový, pleasure). Of the two designations, the former indicates a view of happiness higher than the latter. Bentham thinks that the word happiness is not always appropriate,' because 'it represents pleasure in too elevated a shape.'-Deontology, I. 78.

In accordance with the Sensational basis, we must look first at pleasure and pain as opposites, then at different kinds of pleasure and pain, then at the reasons for seeking pleasure

and shunning pain, next at the reasons for preferring one pleasure to another, and finally, we must consider whether the tendency or fitness of an action to produce happiness or misery, determines the rightness or wrongness of that action.

3. That pleasurable and painful feelings are experienced by us is matter of agreement. The range of facts with which we have to deal is also well defined. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.'-Mill's Util. p. 10. Pleasures and pains of all kinds are here included, whether connected with Sensations, Feelings, or Intellectual Activity.

4. The rise of pleasure, as connected with the functions of our life, admits of a twofold explanation. It is the natural accompaniment of our Sensations, or of the exercise of our energies. In the one case it attends upon our 'Passivity or Receptivity,' as in the warmth of the body, or the cooling influence of the breeze. In the other case, it attends upon our Activity, or Voluntary use of powers, as in the exercise of our muscles, or of our reasoning power. The former belongs

to sentient existence; the latter to active existence, whether physical or intellectual, or both combined.

Besides these forms of pleasure, there is another, which does not here call for special note, namely, pleasure in the possession of objects of value.

Pain comes either through injury inflicted upon the Sentient organism, or through unnatural restraint upon the energies when brought into exercise. Pain is not merely a negation, or want of pleasure, but a positive experience, opposite in kind. 5. Pleasure being a form of experience naturally attendant upon the use of our sensibilities or energies, is not the end of their use. This is the obvious exposition of the previous paragraph. Pain being attendant upon the injury or restraint of our powers is not the product of their natural use. Pleasure and pain are the index of the natural and the unnatural in the use of powers; of conformity with the law of their exercise, or

violation of that law. As Feuchtersleben has said, 'Beauty is in some degree the reflection of health,' so pleasure is the symbol of natural exercise. Pleasure and pain are respectively as the smooth play or the irksome fretting of machinery, but neither is the end for which it is kept moving. Consciousness of simple pleasure and nothing more is unknown. A capacity or faculty whose function it is to produce pleasure and nothing more is unknown. Pleasure may thus be generalized as the common accompaniment of all natural exercise.

6. Pleasures differ in kind according to the capacities or faculties on whose exercise they attend, and they vary in quality according to the quality of mental exercise, of which they are the natural accompaniment.

In accordance with the first statement, we speak of the pleasure of the senses, of the affections, of the intellect, of the imagination. In accordance with the second, we speak of the pleasures of the senses as lower than those of the intellect, and sensualism is a term of reproach applied to the indulgence of the appetites, in neglect of the restraints of understanding and conscience. As the active transcends the passive, so does the happiness of activity surpass in value all the pleasures which spring from mere sensibility. And, as among the active powers, some transcend others, the attendant pleasures are graduated accordingly.

Mr. John S. Mill has insisted, with peculiar felicity, on the diversity of quality among pleasures. It is one of his highest distinctions as an expounder of Utilitarianism and a leader of thought, that he has given prominence to the superior quality of some pleasures in comparison with others. Thus he has dwelt upon the important fact, that 'a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy . . . than one of an inferior type.' So also he points to the fact that those equally capable of appreciating and enjoying all pleasures, 'give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties.'-Util. p. 12. This is admirable, both as

indicating the relations of pleasures to the faculties employed, and the superior quality of the pleasure, according to the quality of the faculty in exercise.

7. Pleasure, as agreeable to our nature, is a common object of desire. Pain, as disagreeable to our nature, is a common object of dislike.

The natural desire of pleasure stimulates to the use of our powers, gives zest to their continued employment, and contributes largely to mental development, and to continuance in a life of activity.

The natural aversion to suffering acts as a check upon unnatural use of power, and warns of the danger which attends ipon an unhealthy state or undue action of any power.

That pleasure is agreeable, and as such desirable, is simple matter of fact, and needs no proof. 'What proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good?'-Util. p. 6.

8. Passing now from pleasure and pain as forms of experience, to the capacities or faculties upon whose exercise they attend, it is evident that the experience of pleasure or pain is largely dependent on use of our own faculties, that is, upon our own actions. That the experience of either is altogether dependent on our own actions cannot be affirmed, for there are both pleasures and pains experienced which are not determined by our own acts. For example, the pleasure of a bracing atmosphere on a clear morning, and the depressing influence of a thick, damp atmosphere, on a dull morning. But, that our pleasure or pain is dependent mainly on the use of our faculties, is admitted.

9. Actions may be classified according as pleasure or pain attends upon them. They may be described as pleasurable or painful actions. That pleasurable actions are agreeable to the agent, and painful actions disagreeable, is only another mode of saying that pleasure is agreeable, pain the reverse. That pleasure may be described as good, and suffering as evil, is equally obvious, but no additional meaning is thereby con

veyed. Good and evil cannot here be taken in a moral sense, for we have no evidence of the presence of anything more than the agreeable or disagreeable; and moral quality belong's to actions, whereas neither pleasure nor pain is a personal action.

10. In actions classified as pleasurable, the action is not identified with the pleasure, but the pleasure as a passive experience, attendant on the action, and dependent upon it, is often described as the consequence of the action. It is the consequent, not the subsequent. It is dependent upon the action for its existence, but does not follow after the action when it is past. On account of this relation between action and pleasure or pain, the theory of moral distinctions based upon it is named the Theory of Consequences.

11. Passing from actions which have an exclusively personal reference, to actions which affect the experience of others, these actions also may be classified according as they produce happiness or unhappiness to others. Such happiness or unhappiness on the part of others may be either the incidental and undesigned accompaniment of our action, or it may be the direct and designed result of our conduct. In the former case, the experience of others is an attendant result of our action. In the latter, the experience of others is the contemplated end of our action. If that end be the happiness of another, the motive is benevolent, the act is beneficent, the result is a definite amount of happiness to the person concerned. If the end contemplated be the unhappiness of another, the motive is malevolent, the act is injurious, the result is a definite amount of misery to the person concerned.

In this description of these actions, we simply extend the application of agreeable and disagreeable to the experience of another, which we take to be an experience analogous with our own; and in accordance with this application, we describe our motive and act, as wishing good or doing good, wishing evil or doing evil, understanding that the terms good