andindecidingthequestionwhetheranydivergencefromthiscodeistoberecommended，mustconsiderchieflytheimmediateconsequencesofsuchdivergence，uponasocietyinwhichsuchacodeisconceivedgenerallytosubsist。Nodoubtathoughtfulandwell-instructedUtilitarianmayseedimlyacertainwayahead，andhisattitudetowardsexistingmoralitymaybetosomeextentmodifiedbywhathesees。Hemaydiscerninthefuturecertainevilsimpending，whichcanonlybeeffectuallywardedoffbytheadoptionofnewandmorestringentviewsofdutyincertaindepartments:
while，ontheotherband，hemayseeaprospectofsocialchangeswhichwillrenderarelaxationofotherpartsofthemoralcodeexpedientorinevitable。ButifhekeepswithinthelimitsthatseparatescientificprevisionfromfancifulUtopianconjecture，theformofsocietytowhichhispracticalconclusionsrelatewillbeonevaryingbutlittlefromtheactual，withitsactuallyestablishedcodeofmoralrulesandcustomaryjudgmentsconcerningvirtueandvice。
If，then，wearetoregardthemoralityofCommonSenseasamachineryofrules，habits，andsentiments，roughlyandgenerallybutnotpreciselyorcompletelyadaptedtotheproductionofthegreatestpossiblehappinessforsentientbeingsgenerally；andif，ontheotherband，wehavetoacceptitastheactuallyestablishedmachineryforattainingthisend，whichwecannotreplaceatoncebyanyother，butcanonlygraduallymodify；itremainstoconsiderthepracticaleffectsofthecomplexandbalancedrelationinwhichascientificUtilitarianthusseemstostandtothePositiveMoralityofhisageandcountry。
Generallyspeaking，hewillclearlyconformtoit，andendeavourtopromoteitsdevelopmentinothers。
For，thoughtheimperfectionthatwefindinalltheactualconditionsofhumanexistence——wemayevensayintheuniverseatlargeasjudgedfromahumanpointofview——isultimatelyfoundeveninMoralityitself，insofarasthisiscontemplatedasPositive；still，practically，wearemuchlessconcernedwithcorrectingandimprovingthanwearewithrealisingandenforcingit。TheUtilitarianmustrepudiatealtogetherthattemperofrebellionagainsttheestablishedmorality，assomethingpurelyexternalandconventional，intowhichthereflectivemindisalwaysapttofallwhenitisfirstconvincedthattheestablishedrulesarenotintrinsicallyreasonable。Hemust，ofcourse，alsorepudiateassuperstitiousthataweofitasanabsoluteorDivineCodewhichIntuitionalmoralistsinculcate。
Still，hewillnaturallycontemplateitwithreverenceandwonder，asamarvellousproductofnature，theresultoflongcenturiesofgrowth，showinginmanypartsthesamefineadaptationofmeanstocomplexexigenciesasthemostelaboratestructuresofphysicalorganismsexhibit:hewillhandleitwithrespectfuldelicacyasamechanism，constructedofthefluidelementofopinionsanddispositions，bytheindispensableaidofwhichtheactualquantumofhumanhappinessiscontinuallybeingproduced；amechanismwhichno`politiciansorphilosophers’couldcreate，yetwithoutwhichtheharderandcoarsermachineryofPositiveLawcouldnotbepermanentlymaintained，andthelifeofmanwouldbecome——asHobbesforciblyexpressesit——``solitary，poor，nasty，brutish，andshort’’。
Still，asthisactualmoralorderisadmittedlyimperfect，itwillbetheUtilitarian’sdutytoaidinimprovingit；justasthemostorderly，law-abidingmemberofamoderncivilisedsocietyincludesthereformoflawsinhisconceptionofpoliticalduty。Wehavethereforetoconsiderbywhatmethodhewillascertaintheparticularmodificationsofpositivemoralitywhichitwouldbepracticallyexpedienttoattempttointroduce，atanygiventimeandplace。Hereourinvestigationseems，afterall，toleaveEmpiricalHedonismastheonlymethodordinarilyapplicablefortheultimatedecisionofsuchproblems——atleastuntilthescienceofSociologyshallhavebeenreallyconstructed。IdonotmeanthattherudimentsofSociologicalknowledgewhichwenowpossessareofnopracticalvalue:forcertainlychangesinmoralitymightbesuggested——andhaveactuallybeenproposedbypersonsseriouslyconcernedtobenefittheirfellow-creatures——whichevenourpresentimperfectknowledgewouldleadustoregardasdangeroustotheveryexistence。ofthesocialorganism。
Butsuchchangesforthemostpartinvolvechangesinpositivelawaswell:
sincemostoftherulesofwhichtheobservanceisfundamentallyimportantforthepreservationofanorganizedcommunityareeitherdirectlyorindirectlymaintainedbylegalsanctions:anditwouldbegoingtoofarbeyondthelinewhich，inmyview，separatesethicsfrompolitics，todiscusschangesofthiskindinthepresentbook。Theruleswithwhichwehaveprimarilytodeal，inconsideringtheutilitarianmethodofdeterminingprivateduty，arerulessupportedbymerelymoralsanctions；andthequestionofmaintainingormodifyingsuchrulesconcerns，forthemostpart，thewellbeingratherthantheveryexistenceofhumansociety。Theconsiderationofthisquestion，therefore，fromautilitarianpointofview，resolvesitselfintoacomparisonbetweenthetotalamountsofpleasureandpainthatmaybeexpectedtoresultrespectivelyfrommaintaininganygivenruleasatpresentestablished，andfromendeavouringtointroducethatwhichisproposedinitsstead。
Thatthiscomparisonmustgenerallybeofaroughanduncertainkind，wehavealreadyseen；anditishighlyimportanttobearthisinmind；butyetweseemunabletofindanysubstituteforit。Itisnotmeant，ofcourse，thateachindividualislefttohisownunassistedjudgmentindealingwithsuchquestions:thereisamassoftraditionalexperience，whicheachindividualimbibesorallyorfrombooks，astotheeffectsofconductuponhappiness；butthegreatformulaeinwhichthisexperienceistransmittedare，forthemostpart，soindefinite，theproperrangeoftheirapplicationsouncertain，andtheobservationandinductiononwhichtheyarefoundedsouncritical，thattheystandincontinualneedoffurtherempiricalverification；
especiallyasregardstheirapplicabilitytoanyparticularcase。
ItisperhapsnotsurprisingthatsomethinkersoftheUtilitarianschoolshouldconsiderthatthetaskofhedonisticcalculationwhichisthussetbeforetheutilitarianmoralististooextensive:andshouldproposetosimplifyitbymarkingoffa``largesphereofindividualoptionandself-guidance’’，towhich``ethicaldictation’’doesnotapply。Ishouldquiteadmitthatitisclearlyexpedienttodrawadividinglineofthiskind:butitappearstomethatthereisnosimplegeneralmethodofdrawingit；thatitcanonlybedrawnbycarefulutilitariancalculationappliedwithvaryingresultstothevariousrelationsandcircumstancesofhumanlife。Toattempttherequireddivisionbymeansofanysuchgeneralformulaasthat`theindividualisnotresponsibletosocietyforthatpartofhisconductwhichconcernshimselfaloneandothersonlywiththeirfreeandundeceivedconsent’[3]
seemstomepracticallyfutile:since，owingtothecomplexenlacementsofinterestandsympathythatconnectthemembersofacivilisedcommunity，almostanymateriallossofhappinessbyanyoneindividualislikelytoaffectsomeotherswithouttheirconsenttosomenotinconsiderableextent。
AndIdonotseehowitisfromautilitarianpointofviewjustifiabletosaybroadlywithJ。S。Millthatsuchsecondaryinjurytoothers，ifmerely``constructiveorpresumptive’’，istobedisregardedinviewoftheadvantagesofallowingfreedevelopmenttoindividuality；foriftheinjuryfearedisgreat，andthepresumptionthatitwilloccurisshownbyexperiencetobestrong，thedefiniteriskofevilfromthewithdrawalofthemoralsanctionmust，Iconceive，outweightheindefinitepossibilityoflossthroughtherepressionofindividualityinoneparticulardirection。[4]
Butfurther:evensupposingthatwecouldmarkoffthe``sphereofindividualoptionandself-guidance’’bysomesimpleandsweepingformula，stillwithinthisspheretheindividual，ifhewishestoguidehimselfreasonablyonutilitarianprinciples，musttakesomeaccountofallimportanteffectsofhisactionsonthehappinessofothers；andifhedoesthismethodically，hemust，Iconceive，usetheempiricalmethodwhichwehaveexaminedinBookii。And——topreventanyunduealarmatthisprospect——wemayobservethateverysensiblemaniscommonlysupposedtodetermineatleastalargepartofhisconductbywhatissubstantiallythismethod；itisassumedthat，withinthelimitswhichmoralitylaysdown，hewilltrytogetasmuchhappinessashecanforhimselfandforotherhumanbeings，accordingtotherelationsinwhichtheystandtohim，bycombininginsomewayhisownexperiencewiththatofothermenastothefelicificandinfelicificeffectsofactions。Anditisactuallyinthiswaythateachmanusuallydeliberatese。g。whatprofessiontochooseforhimself，orwhatmodeofeducationforhischildren，whethertoaimatmarriageorremainsingle，whethertosettleintownorcountry，inEnglandorabroad，etc。
Nodoubtthereare，aswesaw，otherendsbesidesHappiness，suchasKnowledge，Beauty，etc。，commonlyrecognisedasunquestionablydesirable，andthereforelargelypursuedwithoutconsiderationofulteriorconsequences:butwhenthepursuitofanyofthereendsinvolvesanapparentsacrificeofhappinessinotherways，thepracticalquestionwhetherunderthesecircumstancessuchpursuitoughttobemaintainedorabandonedseemsalwaysdecidedbyanapplication，howeverrough，ofthemethodofpureempiricalHedonism。
AndinsayingthatthismustbethemethodoftheUtilitarianmoralist，Ionlymeanthatnoothercannormallybeappliedinreducingtoacommonmeasurethediverseelementsoftheproblemswithwhichhehastodeal。Ofcourse，indeterminingthenatureandimportanceofeachofthesediverseconsiderations，theutilitarianartofmoralitywilllayvarioussciencesundercontribution。Thus，forexample，itwilllearnfromPoliticalEconomywhateffectsageneralcensureofusurers，ortheordinarycommendationofliberalityinalmsgiving，islikelytohaveonthewealthofthecommunity；itwilllearnfromthephysiologisttheprobableconsequencestohealthofageneralabstinencefromalcoholicliquorsoranyotherrestraintonappetiteproposedinthenameofTemperance；
itwilllearnfromtheexpertsinanysciencehowfarknowledgeislikelytobepromotedbyinvestigationsoffensivetoanyprevalentmoralorreligioussentiment。Buthowfartheincreaseofwealthorofknowledge，oreventheimprovementofhealth，shouldunderanycircumstancesbesubordinatedtootherconsiderations，IknownoscientificmethodofdeterminingotherthanthatofempiricalHedonism。Nor，asIhavesaid，doesitseemtomethatanyothermethodhaseverbeenappliedorsoughtbythecommonsenseofmankind，forregulatingthepursuitofwhatouroldermoralistscalled`NaturalGood’，i。e。ofallthatisintrinsicallydesirableexceptVirtueorMorality，withinthelimitsfixedbythelatter；theUtilitarianhereonlyperformssomewhatmoreconsistentlyandsystematicallythanordinarymenthereasoningprocesseswhicharecommonlyadmittedtobeappropriatetothequestionsthatthispursuitraises。Hisdistinctivecharacteristic，asaUtilitarian，isthathehastoapplythesamemethodtothecriticismandcorrectionofthelimitingmoralityitself。Theparticularsofthiscriticismwillobviouslyvaryalmostindefinitelywiththevariationsinhumannatureandcircumstances:IhereonlyproposetodiscussthegeneralpointsofviewwhichaUtilitariancriticmusttake，inorderthatnoimportantclassofrelevantconsiderationsmaybeomitted。