Heseemstoassumethatinstitutionscan’create’theinstinctsbywhichtheyareworked：ortoforgetthattheyprimarilytransmitinsteadoforiginatingpower，thoughindirectlytheyfosterorhinderthedevelopmentofcertaintendencies。Millwouldguardagainsttheabuseofpoliticalpowerbydividingitamongtheseparateindividuals。Hethenperceivesthatheisonlyredistributingthistremendouspowerinsteadofdiminishingitsintensity。Byisolatingthe’individual’hehascondemnedhimtonarrowviewsandpettyideals，buthasnotpreventedhimfromimpressingthemuponthemassofhomogeneousunits。Hence，heisalarmedbytheinevitable’tyrannyofthemajority。’HehasputatremendouspowerintothehandsofDemos，andcanonlysuggestthatitshouldnotbeexercised。
Itis，ifIamright，theacceptanceofthisantithesis，putabsolutely，the’individual，’assomethingnaturalononeside，andlaw，ontheotherside，asabondimposeduponthesociety，whichateverystephampersMill’sstatementofanyvitaltruths。
Hecannotuponthesetermsdrawasatisfactorydistinctionbetweentheindividualandthesociety。Whenmanistakenforaready-madeproduct，whilehissocialrelationcanbe’made’
off-handbythesovereign，itisimpossibletogiveasatisfactoryaccountoftheslowprocessesofevolutioninwhichmakingandgrowingareinextricablyunited，andtheindividualandthesocietyareslowlymodifiedbythegrowthofinstinctsandcustomsunderconstantactionandreaction。Thedifficultyofcourseisnotsolvedbyrecognisingitsexistence。Noonehasyetlaiddownasatisfactorycriterionoftheproperlimitsofindividualresponsibility。Theproblemistoovastandcomplextoadmitofanyoff-handsolution；andMill’serrorlieschieflyinunder-estimatingthedifficulty。
ThecontrasttoComteissignificant。Theinventorof’sociology’hadseeninthe’individualism’oftherevolutionaryschoolatransitoryandnegativestageofthought，whichwastoleadtoareconstructionofintellectualandsocialauthority。
MillcouldseeinComte’sfinalUtopianothingbuttherestorationofaspiritualdespotisminaformmorecrushingandall-embracingthanthatofthemedievalchurch。Theywenttogetheruptoacertainpoint。Comteheldthat’contradiction’
and’antagonism’werenotultimateends，thoughtheymaybeinseparableincidentsofprogress。Intheintellectualsphereweshouldhopefortheemergenceofarationalinsteadofanarbitraryauthority，andasettlementoffirstprinciples，notapermanentconflictofopinion。Thehopeofachievingsomepermanentconciliationisthejustificationofscepticisminspeculationandrevolutionsinpolitics。Comtesupposedthatsucharesultmightbeachievedinsociology。Ifthatsciencewereconstituted，itsprofessorsmighthavesuchanauthorityasnowpossessedbyastronomersandteachersofphysicalsciences。
Societymightthenbereconstructedonsoundprincipleswhichwouldsecuretheresponsibilityofrulerstosubjects，andtheconfidenceofthesubjectsinrulers。Millinhisearlyenthusiasmhadadmittedthenecessityofa’spiritualpower’tobefoundedonfreediscussion。61*Hehad，withComte，condemnedthemerelycriticalattitudeoftherevolutionaryschool。WhenhesawComtedevisinganelaboratehierarchytogovernspeculation，andevendepreciatingthereasonincomparisonwiththe’heart，’
herevolted。Comtewasagreatthinker，greater，even，hethought，thanDescartesorLeibniz，62*buthadplungedintoabsurditiessuggestiveofbraindisease。Theabsurditieswere，indeed，flagrant，yetMillstillsympathiseswithmuchofComte’sdoctrine；withthepositivistreligion；andthegeneralsocialconceptions。Evena’spiritualauthority’is，hethinks，desirable。Butitmustbedevelopedthroughfreediscussionandthegradualapproximationofindependentthinkers，notbyprematureorganisationandminutesystematisation。63*Theregenerationofsocietyrequiresamoralandintellectualtransformation，whichcanonlyberegardedasadistantideal。Wemaydreamofastateofthingsinwhichevenpoliticalauthorityshallbefoundeduponreason：inwhichstatesmanshipshallreallymeananapplicationofscientificprinciples，andrulersberecognisedasdevotedservantsofthestate，EvenanapproximationtosuchaUtopiawouldimplyachangeinmoralinstincts，andinthecorrespondingsocialstructure，tobeworkedoutslowlyandtentatively。YetMillisequallyover-sanguineinhisownway。Heputsanexcessivefaithinhuman’contrivances，’representationofminorities，andtheforcesof’antagonism’and’individuality。’IfComte’sschemereallyamounts，asMillthought，toasuppressionofindividualenergy，Mill’sdoctrinetendstoletenergywasteitselfinmereeccentricity。Asoriginalityofintellectisusefulwhenitacceptsestablishedresults，soenergyofcharacterisfruitfulwhenitisbackedbysympathy。Thedegreeofbothmaybemeasuredbytheirpowerofmeetingopposition；butthepositivestimuluscomesfromcooperation。Thegreatpatriotsandfoundersofreligionhaveopposedtyrantsandbigotsbecausetheyfeltthemselvestobethemouthpieceofanationorawholesocialmovement。And，therefore，superlativeas。maybethevalueofenergy，itisnotgeneratedinachaoswhereeveryman’shandisagainsthisneighbour，butinasocialorder，wherevigorouseffortmaybesureofasufficientbacking。Whentheindividualisregardedasanisolatedbeing，andstateactionasnecessarilyantagonistic，thissideoftheproblemisinsufficientlytakenintoaccount，andthequestionmadetoliebetweensimpleantagonismandenforcedunity。
VIII。ETHICS
Theproblemmustbelefttoposterity。Mill’sdoctrine，ifI
amright，isvitiatedratherbyanexcessiveemphasisupononeaspectoffactsthanbypositiveerror。Heseemsoftentobestrugglingtoexpresshalf-recognisedtruths，andtobehamperedbyaninadequatedialect。Ihavealreadytoucheduponthemoralitymoreorlessinvolvedinhispoliticalandeconomicviews。Hisethicaldoctrineshowsthesourceofsomeofhisperplexitiesandapparentinconsistencies。HispositionisgiveninthelittlebookuponUtilitarianism，whichisscarcelymore，however，thananoccasionalutterance。64*Inamoresystematictreatisesomedifficultieswouldhavebeenmorecarefullytreated，andassumptionsmoreexplicitlyjustified。Themainlines，however，ofMill’sUtilitarianismareplainenough。ThebookissubstantiallyaprotestagainsttheassertionthatUtilitarianmoralityisinferiortoitsrivals。’Utilitarians，’
hesays，’shouldneverceasetoclaimthemoralityofself-devotionasapossessionwhichbelongsbyasgoodarighttothemastotheStoicortotheTranscendentalist。’65*TheUtilitarianstandardis’nottheagent’sownhappiness，butthehappinessofallconcerned。’TheUtilitarianmustbe’asstrictlyimpartialasadisinterestedandbenevolentspectator’indetermininghiscourseofaction。Thespiritofhisethicsisexpressedin’thegoldenruleofJesusofNazareth。’Millinsistsasstronglyaspossibleupontheparamountimportanceofthesocialaspectofmorality。Societymustbefoundedthroughoutuponjusticeandsympathy。Everystepincivilisationgeneratesineachindividual’afeelingofunitywithalltherest。’66*
CharacteristicallyhereferstoComte’sPolitiquePositiveinillustration。Thoughhehasthe’strongestobjections’tothesystemofmoralsandpoliticstheresetforth，hethinksthatComtehas’superabundantlyshownthepossibilityofgivingtotheserviceofhumanity，evenwithouttheaidofbeliefinaProvidence，boththepsychicalpowerandthesocialefficacyofareligion。’Nay，itmay’colourallthought，feeling，andaction，inamannerofwhichthegreatestascendencyeverexercisedbyanyreligionmaybebutatypeorforetaste。’Thedangeristhattheascendencymaybesomarkedastosuppress’humanfreedomandindividuality。’Theloveoftherightistobecomeanall-absorbingpassion，andselfishmotivesadmittedonlysofarassubordinatedtodesireforthewelfareofthesocialbody。
ClearlythisisaloftierlinethanBentham’sattempttoevadethedifficultybyignoringthepossibilityofaconflictbetweenprivateandpublicinterest。Theonlyquestion，then，isastothelogic。CanMill’sconclusionsbededucedfromhispremises？
WemustfirstobservethatMill’sargumentisgovernedbyhisantipathytothe’intuitionist。’TheintuitionistwaspartlyrepresentedbyhisoldantagonistWhewell，whoinaponderoustreatisehadsetforthatheoryofmoralityintendednotonlytogivefirstprinciplesbuttoelaborateacompletemoralcode。
MillattackedhimwithunusualseverityinanarticleintheWestminsterReview。67*Whewell，intruth，appearsatonetimetobefoundingmoralityuponpositivelaw——adoctrinewhichisatbestastrangeperversionofatheoryofexperience；andyethedenouncesUtilitariansbytheoldarguments，andbringsinsuchan’intuitionism’asalwaysrousedMill’scombativepropensities。MilldefendsBenthamagainstWhewell，andhisUtilitarianismstartsessentiallyfromBentham’sfamoussaying，’Naturehasplacedmankindunderthegovernanceoftwosovereignmasters，painandpleasure。’Happiness，saysMill，isthe’soleendofhumanaction’；to’desire’istofindathingpleasant；tobeaversefromathingistothinkofitaspainful；and，ashappinessgivesthecriterionofallconduct，itmustgive’thestandardofmorality。’68*To’prove’thefirstprinciplemaybeimpossible；onecanonlyappealtoself-consciousnessingeneral；butitseemstohimsoobviousthatitwill’hardlybedisputed。’69*Itstillrequiresexplicatestatementinordertoexcludeadoctrineheldbymanyphilosophers。Mill70*
referstoKant，whoseformulathatyouaretoactsothattheruleonwhichyouactmaybelawforallrationalbeings，isthemostfamousversionofthedoctrinewhichwoulddeducemoralityfromreason。Itreallyprovesatmost，asMillsays，theformaltruththatlawsmustbeconsistent，butitfails’almostgrotesquely’inshowingwhichconsistentlawsareright。Absoluteselfishnessorabsolutebenevolencewouldequallysatisfytheformula。ForMill，then，allconductdependsonpainandpleasure；everytheoryofconductmustthereforebebaseduponpsychology，orconsequentlyuponexperience，notuponabstractlogic。Everyattempttotwistmoralityoutofpurereasonisforedoomedtofailure；logicalcontradictioncorrespondstotheimpossible，nottotheimmoral，whichisonlytoopossible。Thatisafirstprinciple，whichseemstome，Iconfess，tobeunassailable。
Itfollows，inthenextplace，thatMill’sargumentissubstantiallyaninterpretationoffacts，asketchofascientifictheoryofcertainsocialphenomena。Wefindthatcertainrulesofconductareasamatteroffactgenerallyapproved；andwehavetoshowthatthoserulesarededuciblefromtheassumedcriterion。Therule，’actforthegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber，’coincideswiththeconductapprovedintherecognisedmorality，andweneedandcanaskfornofurtherexplanationofthe’criterion。’Millanswerstheusualobjections。Thecriterion，itissaid，canonlyjustifythe’expedient’notthe’right。’TheUtilitarianmustactfromacalculationof’consequences，’andconsequencesaresouncertainthatnogeneralrulecanbeframed。Tothis，asurgedbyWhewell，Millrepliedthathisadversaryhadprovedtoomuch。71*Theargumentwoulddestroy’prudence’aswellasmorality。Wecanmakegeneralrulesabouttheinterestsofthegreatestnumberaseasilyasaboutourownpersonalinterests。And，ifitbeurgedthatsuchgeneralrulesalwaysadmitofexceptions，allmoralistshavehadtoadmitexceptionstomoralrules。Exceptions，however，asJamesMillhadsaid，canonlybeadmittedinmorality，whentheexceptionitselfexpressesageneralrule。Allmoralistsadmitoflyinginsomeextremecases，butonlywheretheobligationtospeaktruthconflictswithsomehigherobligation。