But  it  seems  irrational  only  because  the  impartial
spectator  naturally  puts  himself  in  the  place  of
the  community;  and  neither  takes  account  of  the
fact  that  to  the  individual  agent  there  is  a  funda-
mental difference  between  his  own  pleasure  and
any  one  else's  pleasure :  for  him  the  former  is,
and  the  latter  is  not,  pleasure  at  all.^

^  Mr  Gurney's  attempt  (Mind,  O.S.,  vii. 349  ff.)  to  rationalise
the  utilitarian  'ought'  depends  upon  the  assumption  that  the
individual  feels  a  desire  (not  only  for  his  own,  but)  for  other
people's  pleasure  (p. 352). From  the  point  of  view  of  the  psy-
chological hedonist,  however,  this  desii-e  is  only  secondary  and
derivative,  depending  upon  the  fact  that  it  increases  the  pleasure
of  the  subject,  "  Your  pleasure,"  the  psychological  hedonist
would  say,  ' '  is  desu'ed  by  me  qud  my  pleasure. "  If,  on  the  other
hand,  it  is  admitted  that  the  individual  has  other  ends  than  his
own  pleasure,  there  seems  no  ground  in  psj^chological  fact  for
limiting  these  ends  to  something  aimed  at  because  pleasurable  to
others. From  this  point  of  view  the  first  step  in  the  establish-
ment of  an  etliical  theory  would  be  an  attempt  to  find  a  principle
of  unity  in  the  various  ends  actually  aimed  at  by  individuals,
and  recognised  by  them  as  'good.'  This  is  made  by  Professor
Sidgwick,  who,  after  taking  account  of  the  view  which  regards
cognition  of  truth,  contemplation  of  beauty,  free  or  virtuous
action^  as  in  some  measure  preferable  alternatives  to  pleasure  or
happiness,  maintains  that  "  we  can  only  justify  to  ourselves  the
importance  that  we  attach  to  any  of  these  objects  by  considering
its  conduciveness,  in  one  way  or  another,  to  the  happiness  of


THE   TKANSITION    TO    UTILITARIANISM. 47

This  fundamental  difference  seems  to  be  over-  overlooked

1111  1  •  1  1       •       1 1       ''^  arguing

looked  when  the  attempt  is  made  to  argue  logically  from  egoism
from  egoistic  psycliology  (or  even  from  egoistic  auism!'^'"
ethics)  to  utilitarianism. Indeed,  the  hiatus  in
logical  proof  is  often  only  concealed  by  a  confusion
of  standpoints ;  and  J. S. 