IfMill’sdoctrineleadstoanimpossiblestrictnessinonedirection，itleadstolessedifyingresultsinanother。Wehaveomitted’motive’andcometothecriticalquestion，How，afterall，isthemoralcodetobeenforced?Byoverlookingthisquestionanddeclaring’motive’tobeirrelevant，wegettheparadoxalreadyacceptedbyBentham。Hisdefinitionofvirtueisactionforthegoodofothersaswellasofourselves。Inwhatwayistheexistenceofsuchactiontobereconciledwiththisdoctrine?Whatarethemotiveswhichmakemencountthehappinessofotherstobeequallyvaluablewiththeirown?or，intheUtilitarianlanguage，Whatisthe’sanction’ofmorality?AfterallBentham’sinsistenceuponthe’self-preferenceprinciple’andMill’saccountofselfishnessinhispoliticaltheory，wearesuddenlytoldthatmoralitymeansaloftyandrigidcodeinwhichthehappinessofallistheoneend。HereagainMillisentangledbythecharacteristicdifficultyofhispsychology。Toanalyseistodivideobjectsintoseparateunits。Whenhehastodowithcomplexobjectsandrelationsapparentlyreciprocal，heisforcedtorepresentthembyasimplesequence。Thetwofactorsarenotmutuallydependentbutdistinctthingssomehowconnectedintime。Oneresultishisaccountof’ends’or’motives’thetwo，asheobserves，aresynonymous。142Theendissomethingtobegainedbytheact，the’association’ofwhichwiththeactconstitutesa’desire。’This，wehaveseen，alwaysreferstothefuture。143Inacting，then，Iamalwaysguidedbycalculationsoffuturepleasuresorpains。IbelievethistobeoneofthemostunfortunatebecauseoneofthemostplausibleofUtilitarianfallacies。Ifwearedeterminedbypainsandpleasures，itisinonesenseascontradictorytospeakofourbeingdeterminedbyfuturepainsandpleasuresastospeakofourbeingnourishedto-daybyto-morrow’sdinner。The’futurepleasure’doesnotexist；theanticipatedpleasureactsbymakingthepresentactionpleasant；
　　andwethenmoveasitissaidalongthelineofleastresistance。Certainconductisintrinsicallypleasurableorpainful，andthefuturepleasureonlyactsthroughthepresentforetaste。When，however，weregardthepleasureasfutureandassomehowaseparablething，wecanonlyexpresstheseundeniablefactsbyacceptingapurelyegoisticconclusion。Weare，ofcourse，movedbyourownfeelings，aswebreathewithourownlungsanddigestwithourownstomachs。Butwhenweacceptthedoctrineof’ends’thisharmlessandself-evidenttruthispervertedintothestatementthatour’end’mustbeourownpleasure；thatwecannotbereallyordirectlyunselfish。Theanalysis，indeed，issodefectivethatitcanhardlybeappliedintelligibly。
　　Humeobservesthatnomanwouldresthisfootindifferentlyuponastooloragoutytoe。Theactionitselfofgivingpainwouldbepainful，andcannotbeplausiblyresolvedintoananticipationofan’end。’This，again，isconspicuouslytrueofallthetrulysocialemotions。Notonlytheconscience，butthesenseofshameorhonour，orprideandvanityactpowerfullyandinstantaneouslyaspresentmotiveswithoutnecessaryreferencetoanyfutureresults。TheknowledgethatIamgivingpainorcausingfuturepainisintrinsicallyandimmediatelypainfultothenormalhumanbeing，andthesupposed’analysis’isthroughoutafiction。Mill，however，likeBentham，takesitforgranted，butperceivesmoreclearlythanBenthamthedifficultytowhichitleads。How，fromatheoryofpureselfishness，arewetogetamoralityofgeneralbenevolence?Theanswerisgivenbytheuniversal’association。’Wearegoverned，heholds，byourownemotions；ourendisourownpleasure，andwehavetoconsiderhowthisenddictatesadesireforgeneralhappiness。Heexpoundswithgreatvigourtheprocessbywhichtheloveoffriends，childrenandparentsandcountrymaybegraduallydevelopedthroughtheassociationofourpleasureswiththefellow-creatureswhocausedthem。J。S。Millregardshisexpositionas’almostperfect，’144andsaysthatitshowshowthe’acquiredsentiments’——themoralsentimentsandsoforth——maybegraduallydeveloped；maybecome’moreintenseandpowerfulthananyoftheelementsoutofwhichtheymayhavebeenformed，andmayalsointheirmaturitybeperfectlydisinterested。’JamesMilldeclaresthattheanalysisdoesnotaffecttherealityofthesentimentsanalysed。Gratituderemainsgratitude，andgenerositygenerosity，justasawhiterayremainswhiteafterNewtonhaddecomposeditintoraysofdifferentcolours。145Hereoncemorewehavethegreatprincipleofindissolubleassociationormentalchemistry。
　　Grantingthattheemotionssogeneratedmaybereal，wemaystillaskwhethertheanalysisbesufficient。
　　JamesMill’saccountofthewayinwhichtheyaregeneratedleavesadoubt。
　　Moralityisfirstimpresseduponusbyauthority。Ourparentspraiseandblame，rewardandpunish，thusareformedassociationsofpraiseandblamewithcertainactions。Then，weformfurtherassociationswiththecausesofpraiseandblameandthusacquirethesentimentsof’praise-worthiness’
　　and’blame-worthiness。’Thesensibilitytopraiseandblamegenerallyformsthe’popularsanction，’andthis，whenpraise-worthinessisconcerned，becomesthemoralsanction。146Hereweseethatmoralityisregardedassomehowtheproductofa’sanction’；thatis，oftheactionofpraiseandblamewiththeirusualconsequencesupontheindividual。
　　Hissensibilitycauseshimthroughassociationtoacquirethehabitswhichgenerallybringpraiseandblame；andultimatelythesequalitiesbecomeattractivefortheirownsake。Thedifficultyistoseewherethelineiscrossedwhichdividestrulymoraloraltruisticconductfrommereprudence。
　　Admittingthatassociationmayimpelustoconductwhichinvolvesself-sacrifice，wemaystillaskwhethersuchconductisreasonable。Associationproducesbeliefinerroraswellasintruth。IfIloveamanbecauseheisusefulandcontinuetolovehimwhenhecannolongerbeuseful，amInotmisguided?
　　IfIweararaggedcoat，becauseitwasoncesmart，myconductiseasilyexplainedasaparticularkindoffolly。IfIamgoodtomyoldmotherwhenshecannolongernurseme，amInotguiltyofasimilarfolly?Inshort，amanwhoinferredfromMill’sprinciplesthathewouldneverdogoodwithoutbeingpaidforit，wouldbehardlyinconsistent。Yourassociations，Millwouldsay，areindissoluble。Hemightanswer，Iwilltry——itissurelynotsohardtodissolveatieofgratitude！Granting，inshort，thatMillgivesanaccountofsuchvirtueasmaybemadeofenlightenedself-interest，hedoesnotsucceedinmakingintelligibletheconductwhichalonedeservesthenameofvirtuous。Thetheoryalwayshaltsatthepointwheresomethingmoreisrequiredthananexternalsanction，andsupposesachangeofcharacteraswellasawidercalculationofpersonalinterest。
　　Theimperfectionofthistheorymaybetakenforgranted。Ithasbeenexposedbyinnumerablecritics。
　　Itismoreimportanttoobserveonecauseoftheimperfection。Mill’sargumentcontainsanelementofrealworth。Itmaybeheldtorepresentfairlythehistoricaldevelopmentofmorals。Thatmoralityisfirstconceivedasanexternallawderivingitssanctityfromauthority；thatitisdirectedagainstobviouslyhurtfulconduct；andthatitthusservesasaprotectionunderwhichthemoregenuinemoralsentimentscandevelopthemselves，I
　　believetobeinfullaccordancewithsoundtheoriesofethics。ButMillwasthroughouthamperedbytheabsenceofanytheoryofevolution。Hehadtorepresentaseriesofchangesastakingplaceintheindividualwhichcanonlybeconceivedastheproductofalongandcomplexsocialchange。
　　Heisforcedtorepresentthegrowthofmoralityasanaccretionofnew’ends’duetoassociation，notasanintrinsicdevelopmentofthecharacteritself。Hehastomakemoralityoutofatomicsensationsandideascollectedinclustersandtrainswithoutanydistinctreferencetotheorganicconstitutionoftheindividualorofsociety，andassomehoworotherdeduciblefromtheisolatedhumanbeing，whoremainsaconstant，thoughhecollectsintogroupsgovernedbyexternalsanctions。Heseesthatmoralityisformedsomehoworother，buthecannotshowthatitiseitherreasonableoranessentialfactofhumannature。Here，again，weshallseewhatproblemwassettohisson，Finally，ifMilldidnotexplainethicaltheorysatisfactorily，itmustbeaddedincommonjusticethathewashimselfanexcellentexampleofthequalitiesforwhichhetriedtoaccount。Alifeofdevotiontopublicobjectsandaconscientiousdischargeofprivatedutiesisjustthephenomenonforwhichaclusterof’ideas’and’associations’seemstobeaninadequateaccount。How，itmighthavebeenasked，doyouexplainJamesMill?Hismainpurpose，too，wastolaydownaruleofduty，almostmathematicallyascertainable，andnottobedisturbedbyanysentimentalism，mysticism，orrhetoricalfoppery。If，intheattempttofreehishearersfromsuchelements，herantheriskofreducingmoralitytoalowerlevelandmadeitappearasunamiableassoundmoralitycanappear，itmustbeadmittedthatinthisrespecttoohistheoriesreflectedhispersonalcharacter。
　　Notes：
　　1。Foranaccountofthesewritersandtheirrelationtothepre-revolutionaryschools，seeLesIdé；ologuesbyF。Picavet1891。
　　2。MacveyNapier’sCorrespondence，p。424。
　　3。CharlesFranç；oisDominiquedeVillers1767-1815wasaFrenchofficer，whoemigratedin1792，andtookrefugeatLü；beck。HebecameprofoundlyinterestedinGermanlifeandliterature，andendeavouredtointroduceaknowledgeofGermanspeculationtohiscountrymen。HischiefbookswerethisexpositionofKantandanessayupontheReformationofLuther1803，whichwentthroughseveraleditions，andwastranslatedbyJamesMillin1805。
　　AninterestingaccountofVillersisintheBiographieUniverselle。
　　4。SeeCockburn’sMemorialsforagoodnoticeofthis。
　　5。Stewart’sWorks，iv，345。
　　6。LadyHolland’sLifeofSmith，ii，388。
　　7。InquiryintotheRelationsofCauseandEffectthirdedition，pp。178，180，andpartiv，sec。
　　6。
　　8。ExaminationofHamiltonfourthedition，p。379。
　　9。CauseandEffect，pp。184-87。
　　10。CauseandEffect，p。197。
　　11。Ibid。，p。239seq。
　　12。Ibid。，p。244。
　　13。Ibid。，p。150。
　　14。Ibid。，p。357。
　　15。CauseandEffect，p。313。
　　16。CauseandEffect，p。482。Brownthinksthatwecanlogicallydisprovetheexistenceofmotionbythehareandtortoiseargument，andshouldthereforedisregardlogic。
　　17。Brown’sLecture，1851，p。167，Lect。xxvi。