v MB. DARWIN S CRITICS 171 



and eternal law of human nature that &quot; ginger is 

 hot in the mouth/ the assertion has as much 

 foundation of truth as the other, though I think 

 it would be expressed in needlessly pompous 

 language. I must confess that I have never been 

 able to understand why there should be such a 

 bitter quarrel between the intuitionists and the 

 utilitarians. The intuitionist is, after all, only a 

 utilitarian who believes that a particular class of 

 pleasures and pains has an especial importance, by 

 reason of its foundation in the nature of man, and 

 its inseparable connection with his very existence 

 as a thinking being. And as regards the motive 

 of personal affection : Love, as Spinoza profoundly 

 says, is the association of pleasure with that which 

 is loved. 1 Or, to put it to the common sense of 

 mankind, is the gratification of affection a pleasure 

 or a pain ? Surely a pleasure. So that whether 

 the motive which leads us to perform an action 

 is the love of our neighbour, or the love of God, it 

 is undeniable that pleasure enters into that motive. 

 Thus much in reply to Mr. Mivart s arguments. 

 I cannot but think that it is to be regretted that 

 he ekes them out by ascribing to the doctrines of 

 the philosophers with whom he does not agree, 

 logical consequences which have been over and 

 over again proved not to flow from them : and when 

 reason fails him, tries the effect of an injurious 



1 &quot; Nempe, Amor nihil aliud est, quam L&titia, concomitantu 

 ideacausseexterna;.&quot; Ethices, III. xiii. 



