afacultynotconstructedoutofindependentpainsandpleasures——andthesystembecomesaviciouscircle。ConscienceonanyreallyUtilitarianschememustbeaderivative，notanultimate，faculty。If，asMillseemstosay，theomissionisablunder，Bentham’sUtilitarianismatleastmustbeanerroneoussystem。
　　Wehavenowourlistbothofpainsandpleasuresandofthegeneralmodesofvariationbywhichtheirvalueistobemeasured。Wemustalsoallowforthevaryingsensibilitiesofdifferentpersons。Benthamaccordinglygivesalistofthirty-two’circumstancesinfluencingsensibility。’39*Humanbeingsdifferinconstitution，character，education，sex，race，andsoforth，andintheirdegreesofsensibilitytoallthevariousclassesofpainsandpleasures；theconsiderationofthesevarietiesisofthehighestutilityforthepurposesofthejudgeandthelegislator。40*The’sanctions’willoperatedifferentlyindifferentcases。Ablowwillhavedifferenteffectsuponthesickanduponthehealthy；thesamefineimposedupontherichandthepoorwillcauseverydifferentpains；andalawwhichisbeneficentinEuropemaybeascourgeinAmerica。
　　Wehavethusour’pathology’ortheoryofthepassivesensibilitiesofman。Weknowwhatarethe’springsofaction，’howtheyvaryingeneral，andhowtheyvaryfromonemantoanother。Wecanthereforepasstothedynamics。41*
　　Wehavedescribedthemachineryinrest，andcannowconsideritinmotion。
　　Weproceedasbeforebyfirstconsideringactioningeneral：whichleadstoconsiderationofthe’intention’andthe’motive’impliedbyanyconsciousaction：andhenceoftherelationofthesetothe’springsofaction’asalreadydescribed。Thediscussionisminuteandelaborate；andBenthamimprovesashecomesnearertotheactualproblemsoflegislationandfurtherfromtheostensiblebasesofpsychology。Theanalysisofconduct，andofthesanctionsbywhichconductismodified，involvesaviewofmoralsandoftherelationsbetweenthespheresofmoralityandlegislationwhichisofcriticalimportanceforthewholeUtilitariancreed。’Morallaws’anda’Positivelaw’bothaffecthumanaction。Howdotheydiffer?Bentham’streatmentoftheproblemshows，Ithink，aclearerappreciationofsomedifficultiesthanmightbeinferredfromhislaterutterances。Inanycase，itbringsintoclearreliefamoraldoctrinewhichdeeplyaffectedhissuccessors。
　　III。THESANCTIONS
　　Letusfirsttakehisdefinitionsofthefundamentalconceptions。Allactionofreasonablebeingsimpliestheexpectationofconsequences。Theagent’s’intention’isdefinedbytheconsequencesactuallycontemplated。
　　Thecauseofactionisthehopeoftheconsequentpleasuresorthedreadoftheconsequentpains。Thisanticipatedpleasureorpainconstitutesthe’internalmotive’aphraseusedbyBenthamtoexcludethe’externalmotive’
　　oreventwhichcausestheanticipation。42*Themotive，or’internalmotive，’
　　istheanticipationofpaintobeavoidedorpleasuretobegained。Actionsaregoodorbadsimplyandsolelyastheyareonthewhole’productiveofabalanceofpleasureorpain。’Theproblemofthelegislatorishowtoregulateactionssoastoinclinethebalancetotherightside。Hisweaponsare’sanctions’
　　whichmodify’motives。’Whatmotives，then，shouldbestrengthenedorchecked?
　　Herewemustbeguidedbyaprinciplewhichis，infact，thelogicalresultofthedoctrinesalreadylaiddown。Weareboundtoapplyour’felicificcalculus’withabsoluteimpartiality。Wemustthereforeassignequalvaluetoallmotives。’Nomotives，’hesays，43*are’constantlygoodorconstantlybad。’Pleasureisitselfagood；painitselfanevil：nay，theyare’theonlygoodandtheonlyevil。’Thisistrueofeverysortofpainandpleasure，evenofthepainsandpleasuresofillwill。Thepleasuresof’malevolence’
　　areplacedinhis’table’bythesideofpleasuresof’benevolence。’Henceit’followsimmediatelyandincontestably，thatthereisnosuchthingasanysortofmotivethatisinitselfabadone。’ThedoctrineisnodoubtalogicaldeductionfromBentham’sassumptions，andheproceedstoillustrateitsmeaning。A’motive’correspondstooneofhis’springsofaction。’Heshowshoweveryoneofthemotivesincludedinhistablemayleadeithertogoodortobadconsequences。Thedesireofwealthmayleadmetokillaman’senemyortoploughhisfieldforhim；thefearofGodmayprompttofanaticismortocharity；illwillmayleadtomaliciousconductormaytaketheformofproper’resentment，’as，forexample，whenIsecurethepunishmentofmyfather’smurderer。Thoughoneact，hesays，isapprovedandtheothercondemned，theyspringfromthesamemotive，namely，illwill。44*
　　Headmits，however，thatsomemotivesaremorelikelythanotherstoleadto’useful’conduct；andthusarrangestheminacertain’orderofpre-eminence。’45*
　　Itisobviousthat’goodwill，’’loveofreputation，’andthe’desireofamity’
　　aremorelikelythanotherstopromotegeneralhappiness。’Thedictatesofutility，’asheobserves，aresimplythe’dictatesofthemostextensiveandenlightenedthatis，welladvisedbenevolence。’Itwould，therefore，seemmoreappropriatetocallthe’motive’good；thoughnoonedoubtsthatwhendirectedbyanerroneousjudgmentitmayincidentallybemischievous。
　　Thedoctrinethatmoralitydependsupon’consequences’andnotupon’motives’
　　becameacharacteristicUtilitariandogma，andIshallhavetoreturntothequestion。Meanwhile，itwasbothanaturaland，Ithink，insomesenses，acorrectview，whenstrictlyconfinedtotheprovinceoflegislation。Forreasonstooobvioustoexpand，thelegislatormustoftenbeindifferenttothequestionofmotives。Hecannotknowwithcertaintywhatareaman’smotives。
　　Hemustenforcethelawwhatevermaybethemotivesforbreakingit；andpunishrebellion，forexample，evenifheattributesittomisguidedphilanthropy。
　　Hecan，inanycase，punishonlysuchcrimesasarefoundout；andmustdefinecrimesbypalpable’external’marks。Hemustpunishbysuchcoarsemeansasthegallowsandthegaol：forhisthreatsmustappealtothegoodandthebadalike。Hedepends，therefore，upon’external’sanctions，sanctions，thatis，whichworkmainlyuponthefearsofphysicalpain；andevenifhispunishmentsaffectthewickedalone，theyclearlycannotreachthewickedaswicked，norinproportiontotheirwickedness。Thatisquiteenoughtoshowwhyinpositivelawmotivesarenoticedindirectlyornotatall。Itshowsalsothattheanalogybetweenthepositiveandthemorallawistreacherous。
　　Theexclusionofmotivejustifiableinlawmaytakeallmeaningoutofmorality。
　　TheUtilitarians，asweshallsee，weretoomuchdisposedtooverlookthedifference，andattempttoapplypurelylegaldoctrineinthetotallyuncongenialsphereofethicalspeculation。Toacceptthelegalclassificationofactionsbytheirexternalcharacteristicsis，infact，tobegthequestioninadvanceAnyoutwardcriterionmustgrouptogetheractionsspringingfromdifferent’motives’andtherefore，asothermoralistswouldsay，ethicallydifferent。
　　Thereis，however，anothermeaninginthisdoctrinewhichismoretothepurposehere。Benthamwasaimingataprinciplewhich，trueorfalse，isimpliedinallethicalsystemsbaseduponexperienceinsteadofpurelogicorapriori’intuitions。’Suchsystemsmustaccepthumannatureasafact，andasthebasisofascientifictheory。Theydonotaimatcreatingangelsbutatdevelopingtheexistingconstitutionofmankind。Sofarasanactionspringsfromoneoftheprimitiveoressentialinstinctsofmankind，itsimplyprovestheagenttobehuman，nottobeviciousorvirtuous，andthereforeisnogroundforanymoraljudgment。IfBentham’sanalysiscouldbeaccepted，thiswouldbetrueofhis’springsofaction。’Thenaturalappetiteshavenotinthemselvesamoralquality：theyaresimplynecessaryandoriginaldataintheproblem。TheperplexityisintroducedbyBentham’sassumptionthatconductcanbeanalysedsothatthe’motive’isaseparateentitywhichcanberegardedasthesolecauseofacorrespondingaction。Thatinvolvesanirrelevantabstraction。Thereisnosuchthingasasingle’motive。’Oneofhiscasesisamotherwholetsherchilddieforloveof’ease。’Wedonotcondemnherbecauseshelovesease，whichisamotivecommontoallmenandthereforeunmoral，notimmoral。Butneitherdowecondemnhermerelyforthebadconsequencesofaparticularaction。Wecondemnherbecausesheloveseasebetterthanshelovesherchild：thatis，becauseherwholecharacteris’unnatural’orill-balanced，notonaccountofaparticularelementtakenbyitself。Moralityisconcernedwithconcretehumanbeings，andnotwith’motives’runningaboutbythemselves。Bentham’smeaning，ifwemakethenecessarycorrection，wouldthusbeexpressedbysayingthatwedon’tblameamanbecausehehasthe’natural’passions，butbecausetheyaresomehowwronglyproportionedorthemanhimselfwronglyconstituted。Passionswhichmaymakeamanviciousmayalsobeessentialtothehighestvirtue。Thatisquitetrue；butthepassionisnotaseparateagent，onlyoneconstituentofthecharacter。
　　Benthamadmitsthisinhisownfashion。If’motives’cannotbeproperlycalledgoodorbad，isthere，heasks，nothinggoodorbadinthemanwhoonagivenoccasionobeysacertainmotive?’Yes，certainly，’hereplies，’hisdisposition。’46*Thedisposition，headds，isa’fictitiousentity，anddesignedfortheconvenienceofdiscourseinordertoexpresswhatthereissupposedtobepermanentinaman’sframeofmind。’By’fictitious，’aswehaveseen，hemeansnot’unreal’butsimplynottangible，weighable，ormeasurable-likesticksandstones，orlikepainsandpleasures。’Fictitious’
　　astheymaybe，therefore，thefictionenablesustoexpressrealtruths，andtostatefactswhichareofthehighestimportancetothemoralistandthelegislator。Benthamdiscussessomecasesofcasuistryinordertoshowtherelationbetweenthetendencyofanactionandtheintentionandmotivesoftheagent。Ravaillacmurdersagoodking；Ravaillac’ssonenableshisfathertoescapepunishment，orconveyspoisontohisfathertoenablehimtoavoidtorturebysuicide。47*Whatistheinferenceastotheson’sdispositionineithercase?Thesolutionashesubstantiallyand，Ithink，rightlysuggests
　　willhavetobereachedbyconsideringwhetherthefactsindicatethattheson’sdispositionwasmischievousorotherwise；whetheritindicatespoliticaldisloyaltyorfilialaffection，andsoforth，andinwhatproportions。Themostinterestingcaseperhapsisthatofreligiouspersecution，wherethereligiousmotiveistakentobegood，andtheactiontowhichitleadsisyetadmittedtobemischievous。Theproblemisoftenpuzzling，butwearevirtuallymakinganinferenceastothegoodnessorbadnessofthe’disposition’
　　impliedbythegivenactionunderallthesupposedcircumstances。ThisgiveswhatBenthamcallsthe’meritoriousness’48*ofthedisposition。The’intention’
　　iscausedbythe’motive。’The’disposition’isthe’sumoftheintentions’；
　　thatistosay，itexpressestheagent’ssensibilitytovariousclassesofmotives；andthemeritthereforewillbeinproportiontothetotalgoodnessorbadnessofthedispositionthusindicated。Thequestionofmeritleadstointerestingmoralproblems。Bentham，however，observesthatheisnotherespeakingfromthepointofviewofthemoralistbutofthelegislator。
　　Still，asalegislatorhehastoconsiderwhatisthe’depravity’ofdispositionindicatedbydifferentkindsofconduct。Thisconsiderationisofgreatimportance。