Thechiefalterationsinthisfourtheditionarethefollowing(1)IhaveexpandedthediscussiononFreeWillinBooki。chap。
v。§；3，tomeetthecriticismsofMr。Fowler，inhisPrinciplesofMorals，andDr。Martineau，inhisTypesofEthicalTheory。
Inconsequenceofthepublicationofthelast-mentionedwork，Ihaverewrittenpartofchap。xii。ofBookiii。，whichdealswiththeEthicalviewmaintainedbyDr。Martineau。(3)IhaveexpandedtheargumentinBookiii。chap。xiv。，tomeetobjectionsablyurgedbyMr。RashdallinMind(April1885)。(4)1havesomewhatalteredtheconcludingchapter，inconsequenceofanimportantcriticismbyProf。v。Gizycki(Vierteljahrsschriftfü；rWissenschaftlichePhilosophie，Jahr，。iv。Hefti。)whichIhadinadvertentlyoverlookedinpreparingthethirdedition。Severalpagesofnewmatterhavethusbeenintroduced:forwhich——Iamgladtosay——Ihavemaderoombyshorteningwhatseemedprolix，omittingwhatseemedsuperfluous，andrelegatingdigressionstonotes，inotherpartsofthework:sothatthebulkofthewholeisnotincreased。
FortheindexwhichformsanewfeatureinthepresenteditionIamindebtedtothekindnessofMissJonesofGirtonCollege，theauthorofElementsofLogicasaScienceofPropositions。
SuchcriticismsofmyEthicalopinionsandreasoningsashavecomeundermynotice，sincethepublicationofthefourtheditionofthistreatise，havechieflyrelatedtomytreatmentofthequestionofFreeWillinBooki。chap。v。，ortothehedonisticviewofUltimateGood，maintainedinBookiii。chap。iv。Ihaveaccordinglyrewrittencertainpartsofthesetwochapters，inthehopeofmakingmyargumentsmoreclearandconvincing:ineachcaseaslightchangeinviewwillbeapparenttoacarefulreaderwhocomparesthepresentwiththeprecedingedition:butinneithercasedoesthechangeaffectthemainsubstanceoftheargument。
Alterations，inoneortwocasesnotinconsiderable，havebeenmadeinseveralotherchapters，especiallyBooki。chap。ii。，andBookiii。chaps。
i。andii。:buttheyhavechieflyaimedatremovingdefectsofexposition，anddonot(Ithink)inanycaseimplyanymaterialchangeofview。MythanksareagainduetoMissJones，ofGirtonCollege，forreadingthroughtheproofsofthiseditionandmakingmostusefulcorrectionsandsuggestions:
aswellasforrevisingtheindexwhichshekindlymadeforthefourthedition。
TherevisionofTheMethodsofEthicsforthiseditionwasbegunbyProfessorSidgwickandcarriedthroughbyhimuptop。276，onwhichthelastofhiscorrectionsonthecopyweremade。Thelatterportionofhisrevisionwasdoneunderthepressureofsevereillness，theincreaseofwhichpreventedhimfromcontinuingitbeyondthepointmentioned；andbythecalamityofhisdeaththerestofthebookremainswithoutthefinaltoucheswhichitmighthavereceivedfromhishand。Inaccordancewithhiswish，Ihaveseenpp。277to509
throughthepressunchanged——exceptforafewsmallalterationswhichhehadindicated，andtheinsertiononpp。457——459oftheconcludingpassageofBookiv。chapteriii。[1]SuchalterationsasweremadebyProfessorSidgwickinthiseditionpriortop。276willbefoundchieflyinchaptersi——v。andix。ofBooki，andchaptersiii。andvi。ofBookii。
TheAppendixon``TheKantianConceptionofFreeWill’’，promisedinnote1onp。58ofthisedition，issubstantiallyareprintofapaperbyProfessorSidgwickunderthatheadingwhichappearedinMind，vol。xiii。No。51，andaccuratelycoversthegroundindicatedinthenote。
Thereisonefurthermatterofimportance。AmongtheMS。materialwhichProfessorSidgwickintendedtobereferredto，inpreparingthiseditionforthepress，thereoccurs，aspartoftheMS。
notesforalecture，abriefhistoryofthedevelopmentinhisthoughtoftheethicalviewwhichhehassetforthintheMethodsofEthics。
This，thoughnotinafinishedcondition，isinessentialscompleteandcoherent，andsinceitcannotfailtohavepeculiarvalueandinterestforstudentsofthebook，ithasbeendecidedtoinsertithere。Suchanarrangementseemstoacertainextentinharmonywiththeauthor’sownprocedureinthePrefacetotheSecondEdition；andinthiswaywhilefuturestudentsoftheMethodswillhaveaccesstoanintroductoryaccountwhichbothethicallyandhistoricallyisofveryexceptionalinterest，nodislocationofthetextwillbeinvolved。
IntheaccountreferredtoProfessorSidgwicksays:——
``MyfirstadhesiontoadefiniteEthicalsystemwastotheUtilitarianismofMill:IfoundinthisrelieffromtheapparentlyexternalandarbitrarypressureofmoralruleswhichIhadbeeneducatedtoobey，andwhichpresentedthemselvestomeastosomeextentdoubtfulandconfused；andsometimes，evenwhenclear，asmerelydogmatic，unreasoned，incoherent。MyantagonismtothiswasintensifiedbythestudyofWhewell’sElementsofMoralitywhichwasprescribedforthestudyofundergraduatesinTrinity。ItwasfromthatbookthatIderivedtheimpressionwhichlongremaineduneffaced——thatIntuitionalmoralistswerehopelesslyloose(ascomparedtomathematicians)intheirdefinitionsandaxioms。
ThetwoelementsofMill’sviewwhichIamaccustomedtodistinguishasPsychologicalHedonism[thateachmandoesseekhisownHappiness]andEthicalHedonism[thateachmanoughttoseekthegeneralHappiness]bothattractedme，andIdidnotatfirstperceivetheirincoherence。
PsychologicalHedonism——thelawofuniversalpleasure-seeking——attractedmebyitsfranknaturalness。EthicalHedonism，asexpoundedbyMill，wasmorallyinspiringbyitsdictateofreadinessforabsoluteself-sacrifice。
Theyappealedtodifferentelementsofmynature，buttheybroughttheseintoapparentharmony:theybothusedthesamewords``pleasure’’，``happiness’’，andthepersuasivenessofMill’sexpositionveiledforatimetheprofounddiscrepancybetweenthenaturalendofaction——privatehappiness，andtheendofduty——generalhappiness。Orifadoubtassailedmeastothecoincidenceofprivateandgeneralhappiness，Iwasinclinedtoholdthatitoughttobecasttothewindsbyagenerousresolution。
ButasensegrewuponmethatthismethodofdealingwiththeconflictbetweenInterestandDuty，thoughperhapsproperforpracticecouldnotbefinalforphilosophy。Forpracticalmenwhodonotphilosophise，themaximofsubordinatingself-interest，ascommonlyconceived，to``altruistic’’impulsesandsentimentswhichtheyfeeltobehigherandnobleris，Idoubtnot，acommendablemaxim；butitissurelythebusinessofEthicalPhilosophytofindandmakeexplicittherationalgroundofsuchaction。
IthereforesetmyselftoexaminemethodicallytherelationofInterestandDuty。
ThisinvolvedacarefulstudyofEgoisticMethod，togettherelationofInterestandDutyclear。LetussupposethatmyownInterestisparamount。WhatreallyismyInterest，howfarcanactsconducivetoitbeknown，howfardoestheresultcorrespondwithDuty(orWellbeingofMankind)？Thisinvestigationledmetofeelverystronglythisopposition，ratherthanthatwhichMillandtheearlierUtilitariansfeltbetweenso-calledIntuitionsorMoralSensePerceptions，andHedonism，whetherEpicureanorUtilitarian。Hencethearrangementofmybook-ii。，iii。，iv。[Bookii。Egoism，Bookiii。Intuitionism，Bookiv。Utilitarianism]。
TheresultwasthatIconcludedthatnocompletesolutionoftheconflictbetweenmyhappinessandthegeneralhappinesswaspossibleonthebasisofmundaneexperience。This[conclusionI]slowlyandreluctantlyaccepted——cf。Bookii。chap。v。，andlastchapteroftreatise[Bookii。chap。v。ison``HappinessandDuty’’，andtheconcludingchapterison``TheMutualRelationsoftheThreeMethods’’]。This[was]mostimportanttome。
Inconsequenceofthisperception，moralchoiceofthegeneralhappinessoracquiescenceinself-interestasultimate，becamepracticallynecessary。Butonwhatground？
IputasideMill’sphrasesthatsuchsacrificewas``heroic’’:thatitwasnot``well’’withmeunlessIwasinadispositiontomakeit。Iputtohiminmymindthedilemma:——Eitheritisformyownhappinessoritisnot。Ifnot，why[shouldIdoit]？ItwasnousetosaythatifIwasamoralheroIshouldhaveformedahabitofwillingactionsbeneficialtootherswhichwouldremaininforce，evenwithmyownpleasureintheotherscale。IknewthatatanyrateIwasnotthekindofmoralherowhodoesthiswithoutreason；fromblindhabit。
NordidIevenwishtobethatkindofhero:foritseemedtomethatthatkindofhero，howeveradmirable，wascertainlynotaphilosopher。ImustsomehowseethatitwasrightformetosacrificemyhappinessforthegoodofthewholeofwhichIamapart。
Thus，inspiteofmyearlyaversiontoIntuitionalEthics，derivedfromthestudyofWhewell，andinspiteofmyattitudeofdiscipleshiptoMill，Iwasforcedtorecognisetheneedofafundamentalethicalintuition。
Theutilitarianmethod——whichIhadlearntfromMill——couldnot，itseemedtome，bemadecoherentandharmoniouswithoutthisfundamentalintuition。
InthisstateofmindIreadKant’sEthicsagain:Ihadbeforereaditsomewhatunintelligently，undertheinfluenceofMill’sviewastoits``grotesquefailure’’。[2]Inowreaditmorereceptivelyandwasimpressedwiththetruthandimportanceofitsfundamentalprinciple:——Actfromaprincipleormaximthatyoucanwilltobeauniversallaw——cf。Bookiii。chap。i。§；3[ofTheMethodsofEthics]。Itthrewthe``goldenrule’’ofthegospel(``Dountoothersasyewouldthatothersshoulddountoyou’’)intoaformthatcommendeditselftomyreason。
Kant’srestingofmoralityonFreedomdidnotindeedcommenditselftome，[3]thoughIdidnotatfirstsee，whatInowseemtoseeclearly，thatitinvolvesthefundamentalconfusionofusing``freedom’’intwodistinctsenses——``freedom’’thatisrealisedonlywhenwedoright，whenreasontriumphsoverinclination，and``freedom’’thatisrealisedequallywhenwechoosetodowrong，andwhichisapparentlyimpliedinthenotionofill-desert。Whatcommendeditselftome，inshort，wasKant’sethicalprincipleratherthanitsmetaphysicalbasis。ThisIbrieflyexplaininBookiii。chap。i。§；3[ofTheMethodsofEthics]。IshallgointoitatmorelengthwhenwecometoKant。
Thatwhateverisrightformemustberightforallpersonsinsimilarcircumstances——whichwastheforminwhichIacceptedtheKantianmaxim——seemedtomecertainlyfundamental，certainlytrue，andnotwithoutpracticalimportance。
Butthefundamentalprincipleseemedtomeinadequatefortheconstructionofasystemofduties；andthemoreIreflectedonitthemoreinadequateitappeared。
OnreflectionitdidnotseemtomereallytomeetthedifficultywhichhadledmefromMilltoKant:itdidnotsettlefinallythesubordinationofSelf-InteresttoDuty。
FortheRationalEgoist——amanwhohadlearntfromHobbesthatSelf-preservationisthefirstlawofNatureandSelf-interesttheonlyrationalbasisofsocialmorality——andinfact，itsactualbasis，sofarasitiseffective——suchathinkermightaccepttheKantianprincipleandremainanEgoist。
Hemightsay，``Iquiteadmitthatwhenthepainfulnecessitycomesforanothermantochoosebetweenhisownhappinessandthegeneralhappiness，hemustasareasonablebeingpreferhisown，i。e。itisrightforhimtodothisonmyprinciple。Nodoubt，asIprobablydonotsympathisewithhiminparticularanymorethanwithotherpersons，Iasadisengagedspectatorshouldlikehimtosacrificehimselftothegeneralgood:butIdonotexpecthimtodoit，anymorethanIshoulddoitmyselfinhisplace。’’
Itdidnotseemtomethatthisreasoningcouldbeeffectivelyconfuted。Nodoubtitwas，fromthepointofviewoftheuniverse，reasonabletopreferthegreatergoodtothelesser，eventhoughthelessergoodwastheprivatehappinessoftheagent。Still，itseemedtomealsoundeniablyreasonablefortheindividualtopreferhisown。
Therationalityofself-regardseemedtomeasundeniableastherationalityofself-sacrifice。Icouldnotgiveupthisconviction，thoughneitherofmymasters，neitherKantnorMill，seemedwillingtoadmitit:indifferentways，eachinhisownway，theyrefusedtoadmitit。
Iwas，therefore，[if]Imaysosay，adiscipleontheloose，insearchofamaster——or，iftheterm`master’betoostrong，atanyrateIsoughtforsympathyandsupport，intheconvictionwhichIhadattainedinspiteoftheoppositeopinionsofthethinkersfromwhomIhadlearntmost。
ItwasatthispointthenthattheinfluenceofButlercamein。ForthestageatwhichIhadthusarrivedinsearchofanethicalcreed，atonceledmetounderstandButler，andtofindthesupportandintellectualsympathythatIrequiredinhisview。
Isaytounderstandhim，forhithertoIhadmisunderstoodhim，asIbelievemostpeoplethenmisunderstood，andperhapsstillmisunderstand，him。HehadbeenpresentedtomeasanadvocateoftheauthorityofConscience；
andhisargument，putsummarily，seemedtobethatbecausereflectiononourimpulsesshowedusConscienceclaimingauthoritythereforeweoughttoobeyit。Well，Ihadnodoubtthatmyconscienceclaimedauthority，thoughitwasamoreutilitarianconsciencethanButler’s:for，throughallthissearchforprinciplesIstilladheredforpracticalpurposestothedoctrineIhadlearntfromMill，i。e。Istillheldtothemaximofaimingatthegeneralhappinessasthesupremedirectiveruleofconduct，andIthoughtIcouldanswertheobjectionsthatButlerbroughtagainstthisview(inthe``DissertationonVirtue’’attheendoftheAnalogy)。
