family, the tribe, and the nation is marked as a crime, save that
judicial murder, capital punishment, is permitted--on the principle of
(supposed) Utility. But multiple murder outside the nation--War--is not
regarded as criminal, nor is theft "wrong," when committed by a strong
nation on a weak one. It may be that out of the widespread misery caused
by the present War, some international morality may be developed.

We may admit that, as a matter of historical and present fact, Utility
has been everywhere tacitly accepted as the basis of morality, defective
as it is as a theory. Utility is used as the test of Revelation, as the
test of Intuition, and precepts of Manu, Zarathushtra, Moses, Christ,
Muhammad, are acted on, or disregarded, according as they are considered
to be useful, or harmful, or impracticable, to be suitable or unsuitable
to the times. Inconsistencies in these matters do not trouble the
"practical" ordinary man.

The chief attack on the theory of Utility as a basis for morality has
come from Christians, and has been effected by challenging the word
"happiness" as the equivalent of "pleasure," the "greatest number" as
equivalent to "individual," and then denouncing the maxim as "a morality
for swine". "Virtue" is placed in antagonism to happiness, and virtue,
not happiness, is said to be the right aim for man. This really begs the
question, for what is "virtue"? The crux of the whole matter lies there.
Is "virtue" opposed to "happiness," or is it a means to happiness? Why
is the word "pleasure" substituted for "happiness" when utility is
attacked? We may take the second question first.

"Pleasure," in ordinary parlance, means an immediate and transitory
form of happiness and usually a happiness of the body rather than
of the emotions and the mind. Hence the "swine". A sensual enjoyment