DEVELOPMENT OF PLEASURE AND PAIN 61 



siderations from accepting the algedonic theory of evolution 

 as a scientific explanation of the functions of pleasure and 

 pain ; we are unable to state their relative values in judge 

 ments which have objective validity ; and we are unable 

 to assign them a place in the chains of events which precede 

 action. 



There are only two known kinds of explanation, the 

 scientific and the teleological, and, where the facts are not 

 susceptible of scientific treatment, the explanation must 

 always be by reference to some final end. Such in fact is 

 the nature of the theory which we are now considering. 

 The identification of pleasure with biological progress gives 

 it the leading role in a scheme which is eventually to realize 

 the perfect and universal happiness of mankind, and it is 

 on this account only that it is recommended. The question 

 at once suggests itself why, if universal happiness is her end, 

 nature should have recourse to so imperfect and uncertain 

 a piece of mechanism as that of pains and pleasures, acting 

 through the medium of human aversions and desires. As 

 Bishop Butler remarks, her end would be gained far more 

 directly and more certainly without it. With properly 

 directed instincts there would be no need of deliberation, 

 and no room for mistaken choice. The difficulty, which 

 appears to me to be a very real one, is of the same class 

 as all those which arise from the contemplation of the 

 imperfections, or what appear to us to be imperfections, 

 in the scheme of nature. One reason for regarding them as 

 imperfections is that we are unable to connect them in a 

 general systematic progress towards some known end or 

 purpose. The objection is general, and it is fatal to all 

 attempts to connect the facts of experience by any known 

 end within the boundaries of experience. It is not, however, 

 fatal to thought generally, if the final end is located beyond 

 those boundaries. 



The only test we have of a teleological theory is its 

 comprehension, or correspondence with ascertained facts. 

 In applying this test the first difficulty that suggests itself 

 is the following. Unless the interests of the individual 



