sense would be falling into the error of the theorists who invented the social contract. We should be first setting up a fictitious human being who would if left to himself have no morality, and account for his morality by an equally fictitious process which would make of it a manufactured article.

The real method is prescribed by the progressive character of the moral distinction. Given that a phenomenon is in perpetual and continuous change, the process by which any one stage of it arises out of the stage immediately preceding gives the law of the origin of the phenomenon in general. And it is in this sense that its history gives us an insight into its moral nature. Since morality obeys this condition, we must discover the origin of morality by showing what the agency or process is by which a new ideal supervenes upon an old: we must re-discover, in other words, the significance of the moral distinction by a reference to the manner in which it arises. Now moral changes take place in two different ways. Either they grow up insensibly, or they are the result of overt reform. In the former case, though there is always a change in the nature of the objects which persons set before themselves, acting with a consciousness of their meaning, the change is not a matter of reflection. But when a reformer proposes a new scheme, he not only offers what to himself is an object of reflection, but holds it up for the consideration of others. The growth of morality will thus be most easily seen by considering the more reflective process: just as we may learn how species develope in nature by noticing the law under which they change when the conditions are under control and are known, as they are in domestication and breeding.

2. (b.) Incidents of Reform.—Suppose, then, a reformer introduces, it may be, like Christ or Pythagoras, a new plan of life, it may be only the alteration of some single

trivial institution. His reform comes into contact with many other wills, all of which act out their law, or live according to their ideal, whether they consciously realise their ideal as a whole, or whether only their actions are such as imply this ideal. Some will be good men, whose ideals are therefore instances of the whole social ideal; some will be bad, whose plan of life is different from that prescribed. Its contact with all these wills may prepare for the reform very different fates. Sometimes the reform meets with general acceptance because it agrees with the tendencies of all in their respective positions. It will be adopted as part of the moral code at once, and this is what happens every day with slight reforms which every one feels to be necessary, to be what they want.

At other times the new act, representing the change of ideal, comes into hostility with the ideals of others, and finds no response but opposition. The whole society reacts upon it, and condemns its author as a bad man. But the example of his conduct or teaching remains a few others carry on in the face of opposition the work he has begun. As time goes on the reform lays greater hold of people's minds, bringing over greater and greater strength to its side, till at last, as in the case of the Christian code, it prevails and wins acceptance. Those who conform to the new ideal are now pronounced good: those who reject it are called bad. The ideal may not establish itself in the form in which it was originally acted upon, but may be altered to suit the forces brought to bear against it. It was perhaps too crudely conceived at first, and drawn on too sharp lines: though intended to be a social law it did not take account of the persons to whom it was to be applied. It wins over adherents partly by modifications in itself, partly by the growth of other minds to meet it. When it prevails, it does so in a form in which it is suited to the aims of those who accept it.

In the process there are forces of innumerable kinds

which determine the resisting persons to accept the new ideal. Some adopt it on deliberate conviction of its value, to others it appeals they know not why, because it is the articulate expression of their dumb wants. Affection or respect for authority may determine others. The conversion of Constantine gave a great impetus to the reception of Christianity, and the early missionaries began by preaching their doctrine to courts. A mere fashion in the clothes, again, is sure of success when a great personage can be induced to adopt it. Sometimes the motive is the mere strength of the movement in favour of the reform which convinces a person that he must yield; sometimes he may feel that, dislike the measure as he may, the forces which it represents will damage him so much if he resists that it is reasonable to yield. A measure may be introduced which impairs his privilege or property, but he accepts it as the expression of a prevailing want with which he must find his account. And the influences which act on a man are not simply his own wishes, but those which spring from his relation to others. But whatever his reason is, when he accepts the reform, his code of conduct changes to suit it, though it was before in resistance. Thus where contrivances exist for determining the strength of an opinion, the opponents of a measure express their dislike by their vote, but obey loyally when it is passed.

3. The chief importance of pleasure and pain lies in the way they enter into the actual determination of the end. We may now explain their participation in the process of moral change. Pleasure and pain produced by an action are the tests of the act being suitable or the reverse to the character (in the widest sense) of the agent. The acceptance of a reform must therefore plainly depend on the pleasures and pains produced by it. If it does not suit my character and aspirations it will cause me pain, and urge me to remove the pain by resistance. When a reformer is condemned, or even, as happens with

the authors of the greatest and most comprehensive reforms, is sacrificed, he does but suffer the reaction of the society which he has injured from the point of view of their own character. On the other hand, when the reform is accepted, it must be that it gives pleasure to the persons concerned. But in saying this we have to remember the distinction of pleasures and pains. as ethical (or effective) and pathological (or incidental) pleasures and pains. The total reaction of a man's character upon a stimulus is pleasant to him on the whole, but the pleasure results from a mixture of pleasures and pains. Whatever accords with his bent pleases, whatever resists it pains. Hence when he is face to face with a new form of conduct, he is affected by a variety of feelings. If on a fair trial, weighing one feeling against another, the result is pleasant, his response to the reform will take the form of acceptance. His effective pleasure will lie in the direction of the proposed ideal, and he approves. If the result is painful, he will reject it, or will act so as to lead to its modification. His effective pleasure will lead him in the contrary direction, and he disapproves.

The balancing of pleasures and pains is effected in the way with which every one is familiar, not by a reflective consideration, but by a kind of intuitive act, in which all degrees of reflection are involved according to the temperament of the person. The poet, in virtue of his poetic gift, combines into a single picture ideas which the unimaginative mind may interpret by following many lines of thought, or the philosopher may express by abstract arguments, or the prosaic reader may make intelligible to himself as allegories, all of which may be foreign to the poet's own mind. In the same way, each man's approbation or judgment upon the pleasures or pains is a collective act, in which only subsequent reflection may be able to disentangle the intricate web of sentiments to which the action makes appeal.

4. How he will act depends then on his feeling, as he is affected at all the places where he is exposed to the new forces. Of this feeling he is the only judge, and the result cannot be predicted. Thus, supposing a reform to be adopted by the society, so as to be part of the moral law, it is because conformity to it produces pleasure to all those who are good, the pleasures in question being the ethical pleasures, which may be at a very low point of intensity, but involve at least contentment. On the other hand, if the balance of pleasures and pains produced by a reform (the balancing being effected in the only way it can) be on the side of pain, the resultant actions will be antagonistic, and the reform abandoned. Practically we know that in considering a change we ask ourselves whether it is likely to produce happiness or not, because we know that happiness is the test by which we measure the success of a reform in meeting the real wants of our fellow-men.

It is necessary, however, to repeat what was before shown (in Book II.), that though the approval or disapproval of a reform is settled by the pleasures and pains it causes, this pleasure of approval is not the cause or ground of the reform being accepted, or the pain of disapproval the cause of its rejection: they are simply the fact of its acceptance or rejection. The cause of a reform being accepted is the nature of the reform itself: the proposed mode of life has a quality which suits the qualities of the men who are to live it, and all the pleasures and pains out of which the reaction of those persons is determined arise from the congruity or incongruity of the reform with the various properties of their natures. Hence the approval is the fact of the suitability of the reform as a whole, and it is the effect of the reform being what it is.

5. When the new ideal is definitely established those who do not obey it are bad, those who do are good. But the incidence of the distinction between good and