The Conflicting Vieivs of Moralists. 
801 
But the main proof of our contention we find in the difficul¬ 
ties in which the moralists have involved themselves by a com¬ 
plete neglect to allow for the influence of the personal equation 
in setting forth the results of their investigations. They have 
fallen, it appears, into both of two possible errors. On the one 
hand they have taken personal idiosyncracies of temperament 
or taste for fundamental facts of the universal moral conscious¬ 
ness • on the other, they have ignored all elements of the moral 
life of the race which did not happen to be represented in 
their own experience. As a consequence we have the continued 
existence of half a dozen rival schools, in some instances hold¬ 
ing diametrically opposite views, and themselves divided into 
sects frequently on the same good terms with each other as 
the Baptist and Presbyterian churches in a country village. 
This cheerful state of affairs is largely due to the unquestioned 
belief in the existence of one typical moral consciousness, sup¬ 
posed to be the common possession of all members of the race. 
If so, no further refutation of the theory in question ought to be 
necessary. But since it seems to be deeply ingrained in the 
gray matter of the brain of the modern moralist, I think it ad¬ 
visable to call attention to several cases where unbridled indul¬ 
gence in the method of pure introspection has led to peculiarly 
striking contradictions in the statements of different writers. 
Perhaps a few “horrible examples” may make more impression 
than the choicest of maxims. 
I shall select as the first subject of our study one of the most 
influential writers of the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill, 
comparing his attitude towards one of the crucial questions with 
that of his German critics. Mill stands before the educated com¬ 
munity as the champion of the view according to which an ac¬ 
tion is stamped as right in proportion as it is calculated to pro¬ 
mote the happiness of those directly or indirectly affected by it. 
How did he come to accept this theory? Let a passage from his 
Autobiography answer. He writes 1 : “When I laid down the 
last volume of the Traite (Bentham’s principal work) I had 
become a different being. The principal of utility, understood 
as Bentham understood it, and applied in the manner in which 
1 p. 66. 
