one, and no one for more than one.'
Hence Bentham insisted upon an exact quantitative calculation of the
consequences of our actions as the only sufficient guide to conduct. The
end is the production of the maximum of pleasure and the minimum of pain.

J. S. Mill modified considerably the principle of utility by introducing
the doctrine of the qualitative difference in pleasures.[6] While Bentham
assumed self-interest as the only motive of conduct, Mill affirmed the
possibility of altruism in the motive as well as in the end or criterion
of right actions.[7] Thus the idea of utility was extended to embrace
higher moral ends. But the antithesis between the 'self' and the 'other'
was not overcome. To introduce the notion of sympathy, as Adam Smith and
others did, is to beg the question. Try as you will, you cannot deduce
benevolence from selfishness. The question for the utilitarian must
always arise, 'How far ought I to follow my natural desires, and how far
my altruistic?' There must be a constant conflict, and he can only be at
peace with himself by striking a balance. The utilitarian must be a
legalist. The principle of self-sacrifice does not spring from his inner
being. Truth, love, sacrifice--all that gives to man his true worth as a
being standing in vital relation to God--are only artificial adaptations
based on convenience and general advantage.

3. Evolutionary ethics, as expounded by Spencer and others, though
employing utilitarian principles, affords an ampler and more plausible
account of life than early {104} Hedonism.[8] The evolutionists have
enriched the idea of happiness by quietly slipping in many ends which
really belong to the idea of the 'good.' As the term 'gravitation' was
the magic word of the eighteenth century, so the word 'evolution' is the
talisman of the present age. It must be admitted that it is a sublime
and fruitful idea. It explains much in nature and history which the old
static notion failed to account for. It has a great deal to teach us
even in the spiritual sphere. But when applied to life as a whole, and
when it is assumed to be the sole explanation of moral action, it is apt
to rob the will of its initiative and reduce all moral achievements to
merely natural factors in an unfolding drama of life. The soul itself,
with all its manifestations and experiences, is treated simply as the
resultant and harmonious effect of adaptation to environment. Man is
regarded a