13. Indeed, when we come to look more closely into the matter, so far from finding that the peculiar characteristic of actions morally right, is their tendency to promote the pleasure or happiness of the actor, either immediate or permanent; and of actions morally wrong to produce either present or future pain to the actor; it is a much more “distinguishing quality that those actions which we call morally good are such as tend to promote the pleasure, either immediate or prospective, of some sensitive being other than the actor; while those actions which we call morally bad are such as tend to produce pain, immediate or prospective, to some sensitive being other than the actor.

14. Before proceeding to follow up this observation, certain preliminary distinctions must be pointed out; otherwise we shall become involved, like so many other speculators upon morals, in an endless labyrinth of verbal ambiguities.

15. In the first place, it is to be observed, that ACTIONS are the only original subject-matter of moral judgment. By the word action, we must here understand, not any event happening by any agency, in which broad meaning the word is sometimes used, but an event happening by the agency of some being having a power of voluntary or spontaneous action. We must even limit the word still further, so as to include only the actions of beings capable of perceiving beforehand, at least to a certain extent, the consequences of their actions; in other words, to the actions of men, or of beings having, or supposed to have, an intellectual constitution similar to that of man.

Human actions then are the original subject-matter of moral judgment; and other things fall under its cognizance merely as they tend, or are supposed to tend, to produce human actions of a particular kind; or if the actions of any beings, other than men, ever become the subject-matter upon which moral judgment is exercised, it is only because those beings are supposed to possess a nature, so far as the distinction between good and bad actions is concerned, similar to that of man.

16. Now an action such as we have here described it, to wit, the action of a spontaneous intelligent being, is made up of two things quite distinct from each other; namely, the external event resulting, and the motive by which the agent was impelled to produce that event.

17. In speaking of actions we use the words right and wrong principally with an eye to the external event, and with little or no reference to the motive of the actor. We use the words virtuous and vicious principally with reference to the motive of the actor, and with little or no regard to the external event. This distinction is clearly traceable in the most ordinary use of language; it is of great importance; and in this treatise it will be strictly adhered to. The phrases, morally good and morally bad, are used indiscriminately, with respect both to the motive and the event; sometimes with principal reference to the one; sometimes with principal reference to the

*

* The epithets right and wrong are confined entirely to actions; the epithets virtuous and vicious are applicable to actors as well as to actions.

other; sometimes with equal reference to both. The epithets good and bad, and the corresponding substantives good and evil, when used alone, without the qualifying term, morally, have their signification greatly enlarged. The word good is employed to describe any thing that gives us pleasure; the words bad and evil, any thing that gives us pain, whether a moral pleasure or a moral pain, or a pain or pleasure of any other kind. As the qualifying epithet morally is frequently dropped, even when the signification of these words is restricted to moral good and moral evil, an ambiguity thence arises, which has led to infinite confusion and mistakes, an ambiguity which we must carefully avoid.

18. The word action, it must also be recollected, includes not only positive acts, that is, things actually done; but also negative acts, that is, things. omitted to be done.

19. After these explanations, we may assert, that ALL POSITIVE ACTIONS CALLED WRONG, are actions that produce, or are supposed to produce, or to tend to produce, immediately or ultimately, some pain to some sensitive being other than the actor; and that ALL NEGATIVE ACTIONS CALLED WRONG, are actions that deprive, or tend to deprive, or are thought to do so, some sensitive being other than the actor, of some pleasure that he would otherwise have enjoyed; or which leave him exposed to some pain, from which, had the action been performed, he would have escaped.

20. Let it here be remarked, once for all, that the word pleasure, in its ordinary use, and for the

sake of brevity, we shall often employ it in the same extensive sense, includes not only pleasure properly so called, or positive pleasure, but also relief or freedom from pain, or negative pleasure; and that the word pain includes not only pain properly so called, or positive pain, but also deprivation or diminution of pleasure, or negative pain.

21. All actions that are not wrong, are RIGHT; but under the common head of right actions, two classes are embraced very distinct in kind. The first class includes those actions which are right, but at the same time, MORALLY INDIFFERENT; to which class belong all those actions, which, however pleasurable or painful to the actor himself, produce, or are supposed to produce, or to tend to produce neither pleasure nor pain to any sensitive being other than the actor. The performance or non-performance of these acts has no influence, any way, upon our estimate of moral character. On the other hand, those actions which produce, or are supposed to produce, or to tend to produce pleasure to sensitive beings other than the actor, are not only right, but also PRAISEWORTHY ; and it is by the performanee of such actions that a character for virtue is acquired.

22. Thus it happens that the same external act will be classed, as morally Indifferent, as Praiseworthy, or as Wrong, according as it is productive, or thought likely to be productive, of different results. Whether I shall sit or stand, whether I shall pick up a stone or throw it down, these acts, so long as this is all that appears, are morally indifferent ; and whether I perform or omit them can have not

the slightest influence in determining my moral character. But suppose that my standing up be a signal which I have concerted with hired assassins, for the commission of a murder. Suppose that my sitting down be to interpose my body between some deadly weapon, and the life of my friend. Suppose

that my picking up a stone be with the intent to participate in the martyrdom of some innocent and worthy man; or that my throwing it down indicate my refusal to have any share in such a crime, even though that refusal expose ine to the indignation of an infuriated multitude. In these cases, the act, before so indifferent, assumes a decided moral character, and becomes highly wrong, or highly praiseworthy.

23. After these explanations, we again assert it as a general fact, that actions, externally considered, and without immediate reference to the motives of the actor, are every where among men distinguished into three great classes, PRAISEWORTHY ACTIONS, InDIFFERENT ACTIONS, and WRONG ACTIONS, the first two classes being ordinarily included together under the head of right actions; and that actions are arranged in these three classes, according as they produce, or are supposed to produce, or to tend to produce, pleasure or pain, or neither, to sensitive beings other than the actor. In other words, no action is ever prohibited as wrong, in any code of morals, except because it is thought to cause some pain to some sensitive being other than the actor; and no action is ever enjoined as a duty, except because it is thought to produce some pleasure to some