137 
good. He supplies us with' no simple rules for moral action, 
like the Ten Commandments of Moses, or the Christian pre- 
cept to do unto others as we would be done by. He only 
promises at best, hereafter, to set forth a code of morals. 
Mr. Mill does not believe that we have any innate moral 
feelings ; but says he thinks that if “ once the general happi- 
ness were recognized as the ethical standard, this would con- 
stitute the strength of the utilitarian morality.” If, however, 
we consider for how long the doctrine of rewards and punish- 
ments has been taught in the world, and we may say, how 
largely it has been admitted into the human conscience under 
almost every system of religion, and especially if we have 
regard to the promises and precepts of love and benevolence 
in the Old and New Testament, and the millions who have 
really believed in them, without acting consistently with their 
professed belief, we may well conclude that this laudable 
utilitarian hope is also somewhat Utopian. In another place 
Mr. Mill speaks of “ the comparatively early state of human 
advancement in which we now live.” I know not whether he 
accepts the old-fashioned Bible genealogy of mankind, or the 
new theories of man's much greater antiquity. But alas ! for 
man's progress and ultimate end, if either six thousand years, 
or twice as many millions, must be regarded as “ an early state 
of human advancement ” ! 
The practical difficulties which mankind at large would 
experience, had they no other moral guide than Utilitarianism, 
would consist in their never being certain whether this or that 
act would conduce to the greatest happiness or not. No higher 
motive or basis being recognised, self-denying virtue and the 
suffering of temporary pain, or refrainiug from immediate 
pleasure, for the sake of ourselves or others ultimately, would 
be impossible. Why one man should suffer for the sake of 
others' happiness ; or how an individual could satisfy himself 
that he should be that man ; may be regarded as inevitable 
puzzles that would arise under a system which has no higher 
or simpler standard of right and wrong. Mr. Mill thinks 
these difficulties could easily be got over by utilitarian precepts 
which might be propounded for men's guidance. But he does 
not propound them. When he does, I have little doubt we 
shall find, that many of “ the elements of Christianity ” must 
needs be incorporated with his new code of morality. Not- 
withstanding his definition of the Greatest Happiness Prin- 
ciple, however, it is satisfactory to learn that Utilitarians do 
desire things which, in common language , are decidedly dis- 
tinguished from happiness.” As any system of morality in 
my opinion ought certainly to be suited to mankind generally. 
