NewThoughtLibrary.com / DivineLibrary.org

a selfish, immoral world, for the true constitutional links of a higher, a holier, state.

There are, however, theories which strive to combine these two, and while, in the last analysis, they are utilitarian in their principles, they keep aloof from the avowal, and include elements which only logically belong to an intuitive philosophy. Utilitarianism relies on the happiness afforded by correct action as the sole motive to it, and falls short of ethics in not being able to impose any line of action with authority, or to enforce one form of enjoyment in preference to another. Indeed, it has no sufficient standard by which to decide between pleasures, and to prefer one class above another. The question of the actual satisfaction experienced by different persons in different lines of action must, like that of physical tastes, be left with the individual, and if he prefer physical, to intellectual and social enjoyments, one cannot, under a mere law of highest gratification, impose on him the opinions of others. I do not need to inquire of a philosopher as to which apple is sweet and which sour, which agreeable and which disagreeable; nor shall I much respect his view if it differs from my own. Thus, in all questions of pure pleasure, each man has his bias, and is not likely to yield it to a speculation that runs counter to his own experience, the final interpreter to him of the nature and quality of enjoyments.

An effort to obviate this difficulty has been made by affirming the superior character of moral pleasures, and from this supreme quality reflecting back on the actions which secure it a sense of obligation. Herein is found the stolen element of a better theory. If we rely on the good which diverse lines of conduct produce to define and enforce our action, then we are entitled to these several kinds and degrees of satisfaction to direct and establish conduct, and to no more. Let all the sources of pleasure, making the