第1章

InofferingtothepublicanewbookuponasubjectsotriteasEthics，itseemsdesirabletoindicateclearlyattheoutsetitsplanandpurpose。Itsdistinctivecharacteristicsmaybefirstgivennegatively。Itisnot，inthemain，metaphysicalorpsychological:atthesametimeitisnotdogmaticordirectlypractical:itdoesnotdeal，exceptbywayofillustration，withthehistoryofethicalthought:inasenseitmightbesaidtobenotevencritical，sinceitisonlyquiteincidentallythatitoffersanycriticismofthesystemsofindividualmoralists。Itclaimstobeanexamination，atonceexpositoryandcritical，ofthedifferentmethodsofobtainingreasonedconvictionsastowhatoughttobedonewhicharetobefound——eitherexplicitorimplicit-inthemoralconsciousnessofmankindgenerallyandwhich，fromtimetotime，havebeendeveloped，eithersinglyorincombination，byindividualthinkers，andworkedupintothesystemsnowhistorical。

IhaveavoidedtheinquiryintotheOriginoftheMoralFaculty——whichhasperhapsoccupiedadisproportionateamountoftheattentionofmodernmoralists——bythesimpleassumption(whichseemstobemadeimplicitlyinallethicalreasoning)thatthereissomethingunderanygivencircumstanceswhichitisrightorreasonabletodo，andthatthismaybeknown。Ifitbeadmittedthatwenowhavethefacultyofknowingthis，itappearstomethattheinvestigationofthehistoricalantecedentsofthiscognition，andofitsrelationtootherelementsofthemind，nomoreproperlybelongstoEthicsthanthecorrespondingquestionsastothecognitionofSpacebelongtoGeometry。Imake，however，nofurtherassumptionastothenatureoftheobjectofethicalknowledge:andhencemytreatiseisnotdogmatic:allthedifferentmethodsdevelopedinitareexpoundedandcriticisedfromaneutralposition，andasimpartiallyaspossible。Andthus，thoughmytreatmentofthesubjectis，inasense，morepracticalthanthatofmanymoralists，sinceIamoccupiedfromfirsttolastinconsideringhowconclusionsaretoberationallyreachedinthefamiliarmatterofourcommondailylifeandactualpractice；still，myimmediateobject-toinvertAristotle’sphrase——isnotPracticebutKnowledge。Ihavethoughtthatthepredominanceinthemindsofmoralistsofadesiretoedifyhasimpededtherealprogressofethicalscience:andthatthiswouldbebenefitedbyanapplicationtoitofthesamedisinterestedcuriositytowhichwechieflyowethegreatdiscoveriesofphysics。ItisinthisspiritthatIhaveendeavouredtocomposethepresentwork:andwiththisviewIhavedesiredtoconcentratethereader’sattention，fromfirsttolast，notonthepracticalresultstowhichourmethodslead，butonthemethodsthemselves。Ihavewishedtoputasidetemporarilytheurgentneedwhichweallfeeloffindingandadoptingthetruemethodofdeterminingwhatweoughttodo；andtoconsidersimplywhatconclusionswillberationallyreachedifwestartwithcertainethicalpremises，andwithwhatdegreeofcertaintyandprecision。

Ioughttomentionthatchapteriv。ofBooki。

hasbeenreprinted(withconsiderablemodifications)fromtheContemporaryReview，inwhichitoriginallyappearedasanarticleon``PleasureandDesire’’。AndIcannotconcludewithoutatributeofthankstomyfriendMr。Venn，towhosekindnessinacceptingthesomewhatlaborioustaskofreadingandcriticisingmywork，bothbeforeandduringitspassagethroughthepress，Iamindebtedforseveralimprovementsinmyexposition。

Inpreparingthisworkforthesecondedition，Ihavefounditdesirabletomakenumerousalterationsandadditions。Indeedtheextentwhichthesehavereachedissoconsiderable，thatIhavethoughtitwelltopublishtheminaseparateform，fortheuseofpurchasersofmyfirstedition。OnoneortwopointsIhavetoacknowledgeacertainchangeofview；whichispartlyatleastduetocriticism。Forinstance，inchap。iv。ofBooki。(on``PleasureandDesire’’)，whichhasbeenagooddealcriticisedbyProf。Bainandothers，althoughIstillretainmyformeropiniononthepsychologicalquestionatissue，IhavebeenledtotakeadifferentviewoftherelationofthisquestiontoEthics；andinfact§；1ofthischapterasitatpresentstandsdirectlycontradictsthecorrespondingpassageintheformeredition。Soagain，asregardsthefollowingchapter，on`Free-Will’，thoughIhavenotexactlyfoundthatthecommentswhichithascalledforthhaveremovedmydifficultiesindealingwiththistime-honouredproblem，IhavebecomeconvincedthatI

oughtnottohavecrudelyobtrudedthesedifficultiesonthereader，whileprofessedlyexcludingtheconsiderationofthemfrommysubject。InthepresenteditionthereforeIhavecarefullylimitedmyselftoexplainingandjustifyingtheviewthatItakeofthepracticalaspectofthequestion。

Ihavefurtherbeenled，throughstudyoftheTheoryofEvolutioninitsapplicationtopractice，toattachsomewhatmoreimportancetothistheorythanIhadpreviouslydone；andalsoinseveralpassagesofBooksiii。

andiv。tosubstitute`well-being’for`happiness’，inmyexpositionofthatimplicitreferencetosomefurtherendandstandardwhichreflectionontheMoralityofCommonSensecontinuallybringsintoview。Thislatterchangehowever(asIexplainintheconcludingchapterofBookiii。)isnotultimatelyfoundtohaveanypracticaleffect。Ihavealsomodifiedmyviewof`objectiverightness’，asthereaderwillseebycomparingBooki。chap。i。§；3withthecorrespondingpassageintheformereditionbuthereagainthealterationhasnomaterialimportance。InmyexpositionoftheUtilitarianprinciple(Bookiv。chap。i。)Ihaveshortenedthecumbrousphrase’greatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’byomitting——asitsauthorultimatelyadvised——thelastfourwords。Andfinally，IhaveyieldedasfarasIcouldtotheobjectionsthathavebeenstronglyurgedagainsttheconcludingchapterofthetreatise。Themaindiscussionthereincontainedstillseemstomeindispensabletothecompletenessofthework；butI

haveendeavouredtogivethechapteranewaspectbyalteringitscommencement，andomittingmostoftheconcludingparagraph。

Thegreaterpart，however，ofthenewmatterinthiseditionismerelyexplanatoryandsupplementary。

IhaveendeavouredtogiveafullerandcleareraccountofmyviewsonanypointsonwhichIeitherhavemyselfseenthemtobeambiguouslyorinadequatelyexpressed，orhavefoundbyexperiencethattheywereliabletobemisunderstood。ThusinBooki。chap。ii。IhavetriedtofurnisharathermoreinstructiveaccountthanmyfirsteditioncontainedofthemutualrelationsofEthicsandPolitics。Again，evenbeforetheappearanceofMr。LeslieStephen’sinterestingreviewinFraser(March1875)，Ihadseenthedesirabilityofexplainingfurthermygeneralviewofthe`PracticalReason’，andofthefundamentalnotionsignifiedbytheterms`right’，`ought’，etc。WiththisobjectIhaveentirelyrewrittenchap。

iii。ofBooki。，andmadeconsiderablechangesinchap。i。Elsewhere，asinchaps。vi。andix。ofBooki。，andchap。viofBookii，Ihavealteredchieflyinordertomakemyexpositionsmoreclearandsymmetrical。ThisispartlythecasewiththeconsiderablechangesthatIhavemadeinthefirstthreechaptersofBookiii。；butIhavealsotriedtoobviatetheobjectionsbroughtbyProfessorCalderwoodagainstthefirstofthesechapters。

ThemainpartofthisBook(chaps。iv——xii。)hasbeenbutslightlyaltered；

butinchap。xiii。(on`PhilosophicalIntuitionism’)，whichhasbeensuggestivelycriticisedbymorethatonewriter，Ihavethoughtitexpedienttogiveamoredirectstatementofmyownopinions；insteadofconfiningmyself(asIdidinthefirstedition)tocommentsonthoseofothermoralists。

Chap。xiv。againhasbeenconsiderablymodified；chieflyinordertointroduceintoitthesubstanceofcertainportionsofanarticleon`HedonismandUltimateGood’，whichIpublishedinMind(No。5)。InBookiv。thechanges(besidesthoseabovementioned)havebeeninconsiderable；andhavebeenchieflymadeinordertoremoveamisconceptionwhichIshallpresentlynotice，astomygeneralattitudetowardsthethreeMethodswhichIamprincipallyoccupiedinexamining。

Inrevisingmywork，Ihaveendeavouredtoprofitasmuchaspossiblebyallthecriticismsonitthathavebeenbroughttomynotice，whetherpublicorprivate。Ihavefrequentlydeferredtoobjections，evenwhentheyappearedtomeunsound，ifIthoughtIcouldavoidcontroversybyalterationstowhichIwasmyselfindifferent。

WhereIhavebeenunabletomakethechangesrequired，Ihaveusuallyreplied，inthetextorthenotes，tosuchcriticismsashaveappearedtomeplausible，orinanywayinstructive。Insodoing，Ihavesometimesreferredbynametoopponents，whereIthoughtthat，fromtheirrecognisedpositionasteachersofthesubject，thiswouldgiveadistinctadditionofinteresttothediscussion；butIhavebeencarefultoomitsuchreferencewhereexperiencehasshownthatitwouldbelikelytocauseoffence。ThebookisalreadymorecontroversialthanIcouldwish；andIhavethereforeavoidedencumberingitwithanypolemicsofpurelypersonalinterest。ForthisreasonIhavegenerallyleftunnoticedsuchcriticismsashavebeenduetomeremisapprehensions，againstwhichIthoughtIcouldeffectuallyguardinthepresentedition。

Thereis，however，onefundamentalmisunderstanding，onwhichitseemsdesirabletosayafewwords。Ifindthatmorethanonecritichasoverlookedordisregardedtheaccountoftheplanofmytreatise，givenintheoriginalprefaceandin§；5oftheintroductorychapter:andhasconsequentlysupposedmetobewritingasanassailantoftwoofthemethodswhichI

chieflyexamine，andadefenderofthethird。ThusoneofmyreviewersseemstoregardBookiii。(onIntuitionism)ascontainingmerehostilecriticismfromtheoutside:anotherhasconstructedanarticleonthesuppositionthatmyprincipalobjectisthe`suppressionofEgoism’:athirdhasgonetothelengthofapamphletundertheimpression(apparently)thatthe`mainargument’ofmytreatiseisademonstrationofUniversalisticHedonism。

Iamconcernedtohavecausedsomuchmisdirectionofcriticism:andI

havecarefullyalteredinthiseditionthepassageswhichIperceivetohavecontributedtoit。ThemoralitythatIexamineinBookiii。ismyownmoralityasmuchasitisanyman’s:itis，asIsay，the`MoralityofCommonSense’，whichIonlyattempttorepresentinsofarasIshareit；Ionlyplacemyselfoutsideiteither(1)temporarily，forthepurposeofimpartialcriticism，or(2)insofarasIamforcedbeyonditbyapracticalconsciousnessofitsincompleteness。Ihavecertainlycriticisedthismoralityunsparingly:butIconceivemyselftohaveexposedwithequalunreservethedefectsanddifficultiesofthehedonisticmethod(cf。especiallychaps。iii。，iv。ofBookii。，andchap。v。ofBookiv。)。Andasregardsthetwohedonisticprinciples，IdonotholdthereasonablenessofaimingathappinessgenerallywithanystrongerconvictionthanIdothatofaimingatone’sown。Itwasnopartofmyplantocallspecialattentiontothis``DualismofthePracticalReason’’asIhaveelsewherecalledit:butIamsurprisedattheextenttowhichmyviewhasperplexedeventhoseofmycriticswhohaveunderstoodit。IhadimaginedthattheywouldreadilytraceittothesourcefromwhichIlearntit，Butler’swell-knownSermons。

IholdwithButlerthat``ReasonableSelf-loveandConsciencearethetwochieforsuperiorprinciplesinthenatureofman’’，eachofwhichweareundera``manifestobligation’’toobey:andIdo，not(Ibelieve)differmateriallyfromButlerinmyvieweitherofreasonableself-love，or——theologyapart——ofitsrelationtoconscience。Nor，again，doIdifferfromhiminregardingconscienceasessentiallyafunctionofthepracticalReason:

``moralprecepts’’，hesaysintheAnalogy(PartII。chap。viii。)，``arepreceptsthereasonofwhichwesee’’。MydifferenceonlybeginswhenIaskmyself，`Whatamongthepreceptsofourcommonconsciencedowereallyseetobeultimatelyreasonable’aquestionwhichButlerdoesnotseemtohaveseriouslyput，andtowhich，atanyrate，hehasgivennosatisfactoryanswer。TheanswerthatIfoundtoitsuppliedtherationalbasisthatIhadlongperceivedtobewantingtotheUtilitarianismofBentham，regardedasanethicaldoctrine:andthusenabledmetotranscendthecommonlyreceivedantithesisbetweenIntuitionistsandUtilitarians。

InthisthirdeditionIhaveagainmadeextensivealterations，andintroducedaconsiderableamountofnewmatter。Someofthesechangesandadditionsareduetomodificationsofmyownethicalorpsychologicalviews；butIdonotthinkthatanyoftheseareofgreatimportanceinrelationtothemainsubjectofthetreatise。

Andbyfarthelargestpartofthenewmatterintroducedhasbeenwritteneither(1)toremoveobscurities，ambiguities，andminorinconsistenciesintheexpositionofmyviewswhichthecriticismsofothersormyownreflectionhaveenabledmetodiscover；or(2)totreatasfullyasseemeddesirablecertainpartsoraspectsofthesubjectwhichIhadeitherpassedoveraltogetherordiscussedtooslightlyinmypreviouseditions，andonwhichitnowappearstomeimportanttoexplainmyopinions，eitherforthegreatercompletenessofmytreatise，——accordingtomyownviewofthesubject，——orforitsbetteradaptationtothepresentstateofethicalthoughtinEngland。Themostimportantchangesofthefirstkindhavebeenmadeinchaps。i。andix。ofBooki。，chaps。i——iii。ofBookii。，andchaps。i。，xiii。，andxiv。ofBookiii。:underthesecondheadImaymentionthediscussionsoftherelationofintellecttomoralactioninBooki。chap。iii。，ofvolitioninBooki。chap。v。，ofthecausesofpleasureandpaininBookii。chap。vi。，ofthenotionofvirtueinthemoralityofCommonSenseinBookiii。chap。ii。，andofevolutionalethicsinBookiv。chapiv。(chiefly)。

Imayaddthatalltheimportantalterationsandadditionshavebeenpublishedinaseparateform，fortheuseofpurchasersofmysecondedition。