THE MORALITY OF HAPPINESS. 383 



been followed does not in reality indicate changed conduct. It rec- 

 onciles the actual conduct of the better sorts of men with rules de- 

 rived from observed facts and laws in regard to the development of 

 conduct, and would tend to reconcile their conduct with their words, 

 if men in general would but recognize the folly and danger of a sys- 

 tem by which they have one set of rules on their lips and another for 

 their actual guidance. As Mr. Herbert Spencer well puts it, the general 

 conclusion to which we have been led, " though at variance with nomi- 

 nally accepted beliefs, is not at variance with actually accepted beliefs ; 

 while opposed to the doctrine which men are taught should be acted 

 upon, it is in harmony with the doctrine which they do act upon and 

 dimly see must be acted upon. . . . The laborer looking for wages in 

 return for work done, no less than the merchant who sells goods at a 

 profit, the doctor who expects fees for advice, or the priest who calls 

 the scene of his ministrations a * living,' assumes as beyond question 

 the truth that selfishness, carried to the extent of enforcing his claims 

 and enjoying the returns his efforts bring, is not only legitimate but 

 essential. Even persons who avow a contrary conviction prove by 

 their acts that it is inoperative. Those who repeat with emphasis the 

 maxim,' Love your neighbor as yourself,' do not render up what they 

 possess so as to satisfy the desires of all as much as they satisfy their 

 own desires. Nor do those whose extreme maxim is, ' Live for 

 others,' differ appreciably from people around in their regards for 

 personal welfare, or fail to appropriate their shares of life's pleasures. 

 In short, that which is set forth above as the belief to which scientific 

 ethics lead us, is that which men do really believe, as distinguished 

 from that which they believe they believe — or pretend they believe." 



"Which is better ? — to proclaim with our lips rules of conduct 

 which none of us really follow, and to denounce those who show that 

 the rules which the best-minded among us really strive to follow are 

 such as tend most to improve the condition of the body social, or 

 frankly to recognize the just and equitable rules of conduct which 

 after all are the real guides of the actions of all well-meaning men ? 

 Is it well or wise to discredit these fair and proper rules by setting up 

 others which seem more self-sacrificing, but which none except a few 

 abnormally-minded persons of no influence (objects of ill-concealed 

 contempt among those who applaud such rules) actually strive to fol- 

 low — rules, moreover, which if widely followed would inevitably bring 

 misery on the community ? For my own part I believe that the sys- 

 tem by which rules no sane man follows are set up as the real laws of 

 conduct, works most serious mischief, by discouraging many from the 

 attempt to be consistently fair and just to those around them as well 

 as to themselves. Of what use, they feel (rather than consciously 

 think), is any attempt to be merely just and considerate, when still we 

 fall far short of the standard set up for our guidance ? Apart from 

 this lies the direct mischief to character which necessarily arises from 



