133 
intuition.” By cc rational faculty ” tlie sense requires us 
here to understand reasoning faculty; and then the latter 
clause of the sentence becomes very strangely superfluous. 
The succeeding sentence completes the confusion and self- 
contradictions which seem to be intimately associated with all 
that relates to the nature as well as the name of utili- 
tarianism. It is not susceptible of proof, but yet it seems 
that it may, after a fashion, be proved ; for he adds : “ Con- 
siderations may be presented capable of determining tlie intel- 
lect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine ; and 
this is equivalent to proof 33 I quite agree with this last posi- 
tion ; and it is solely because I consider that arguments, 
capable of determining the intellect, may be adduced for and 
against Utilitarianism as a moral theory, that I discuss the 
subject at all. 
In order to make my argument as intelligible as possible, I 
will at once state the propositions I think may be established 
against the theory. First, that (as already said) it is an 
inadequate theory, and this in two senses — inadequate as not 
being practicable as a principle of action, and inadequate as 
not being a whole truth. Second, that whether utility (in 
the proper sense) or pleasure, or both, be regarded as the 
basis of the theory, then, in so far as either utility or pleasure, 
or both, can be regarded as good, so far are they recognized 
as good in the Christian system. Third, that therefore, so 
far as Utilitarianism is good or true, it belongs to Christianity. 
And lastly, that wherever utility or pleasure, or both, are : 
made a motive of moral action beyond what Christianity 
sanctions, they will mislead, and are false principles. 
Let us now have as plainly before our minds the claims of 
Utilitarianism. “ The theory of life on which this theory of 
morality is grounded ” is as follows, namely, “ that pleasure, 
and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends ; 
and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the 
utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the 
pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion 
of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” This theory being 
announced in these terms, it is then spoken of as if it were 
identical with the system of Epicurus ; though afterwards Mr. 
Mill adds : “I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to 
have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme 
of consequences from the utilitarian principle. To do this in 
an V sufficient manner, many Stoic as icell as Christian elements 
require to be included . 33 Here, again, we have an important 
concession that is fatal to Utilitarianism as a moral theory ; 
or, at least, which requires certain important principles to be 
