ons of self…love； we shall be obliged to confess； on the hypothesis of this new philosophy； that the almighty author of the universe never acts in any of his designs either of creation or providence； but from a principle of self…love。 In the mean time； if this is not strictly an argument； it is however but fair to warn the adherents of the doctrine I oppose； of the consequences to which their theory leads。 It is my purpose to subvert that doctrine by means of the severest demonstration； but I am not unwilling； before I begin； to conciliate； as far as may be； the good…will of my readers to the propositions I proceed to establish。
I will therefore further venture to add； that； upon the hypothesis of self…love； there can be no such thing as virtue。 There are two circumstances required； to entitle an action to be denominated virtuous。 It must have a tendency to produce good rather than evil to the race of man； and it must have been generated by an intention to produce such good。 The most beneficent action that ever was performed； if it did not spring from the intention of good to others； is not of the nature of virtue。 Virtue； where it exists in any eminence； is a species of conduct； modelled upon a true estimate of the good intended to be produced。 He that makes a false estimate； and prefers a trivial and partial good to an important and comprehensive one； is vicious＇20＇。
＇20＇ Political Justice； Book 11； Chap。 IV。
It is admitted on all hands； that it is possible for a man to sacrifice his own existence to that of twenty others。 But the advocates of the doctrine of self…love must say； that he does this that he may escape from uneasiness； and because he could not bear to encounter the inward upbraiding with which he would be visited； if he acted otherwise。 This in reality would change his action from an act of virtue to an act of vice。 So far as belongs to the real merits of the case； his own advantage or pleasure is a very insignificant consideration； and the benefit to be produced； suppose to a world； is inestimable。 Yet he falsely and unjustly prefers the first； and views the latter as trivial； nay； separately taken； as not entitled to the smallest regard。 If the dictates of impartial justice be taken into the account； then； according to the system of self…love； the best action that ever was performed； may； for any thing we know； have been the action； in the whole world； of the most exquisite and deliberate injustice。 Nay； it could not have been otherwise； since it produced the greatest good； and therefore was the individual instance； in which the greatest good was most directly postponed to personal gratification＇21＇。 Such is the spirit of the doctrine I undertake to refute。
＇21＇ Political Justice； Book IV； Chap。 X。
But man is not in truth so poor and pusillanimous a creature as this system would represent。
It is time however to proceed to the real merits of the question； to examine what in fact is the motive which induces a good man to elect a generous mode of proceeding。
Locke is the philosopher； who； in writing on Human Understanding； has specially delivered the doctrine； that uneasiness is the cause which determines the will； and urges us to act。 He says＇22＇； 〃The motive we have for continuing in the same state； is only the present satisfaction we feel in it； the motive to change is always some uneasiness： nothing setting us upon the change of state； or upon any new action； but some uneasiness。 This is the great motive that works on the mind。〃
＇22＇ Book II； Chap。 XXI； Sect。 29。
It is not my concern to enquire； whether Locke by this statement meant to assert that self…love is the only principle of human action。 It has at any rate been taken to express the doctrine which I here propose to refute。
And； in the first place； I say； that； if our business is to discover the consideration entertained by the mind which induces us to act； this tells us nothing。 It is like the case of the Indian philosopher＇23＇； who； being asked what it was that kept the earth in its place； answered； that it was supported by an elephant； and that elephant again rested on a tortoise。 He must be endowed with a slender portion of curiosity； who； being told that uneasiness is that which spurs on the mind to act； shall rest satisfied with this explanation； and does not proceed to enquire； what makes us uneasy？
＇23＇ Locke on Understanding； Book 11； Chap。 XIII； Sect。 19。
An explanation like this is no more instructive； than it would be； if； when we saw a man walking； or grasping a sword or a bludgeon； and we enquired into the cause of this phenomenon； any one should inform us that he walks； because he has feet； and he grasps； because he has hands。
I could not commodiously give to my thoughts their present form； unless I had been previously furnished with pens and paper。 But it would be absurd to say； that my being furnished with pens and paper； is the cause of my writing this Essay on Self…love and Benevolence。
The advocates of self…love have； very inartificially and unjustly； substituted the abstract definition of a voluntary agent； and made that stand for the motive by which he is prompted to act。 It is true； that we cannot act without the impulse of desire or uneasiness； but we do not think of that desire and uneasiness； and it is the thing upon which the mind is fixed that constitutes our motive。 In the boundless variety of the acts； passions and pursuits of human beings； it is absurd on the face of it to say that we are all governed by one motive； and that； however dissimilar are the ends we pursue； all this dissimilarity is the fruit of a single cause。
One man chooses travelling； another ambition； a third study； a fourth voluptuousness and a mistress。 Why do these men take so different courses？
Because one is partial to new scenes； new buildings； new manners； and the study of character。 Because a second is attracted by the contemplation of wealth and power。 Because a third feels a decided preference for the works of Homer； or Shakespear； or Bacon； or Euclid。 Because a fourth finds nothing calculated to stir his mind in comparison with female beauty； female allurements； or expensive living。
Each of these finds the qualities he likes； intrinsically in the thing he chooses。 One man feels himself strongly moved； and raised to extacy； by the beauties of nature； or the magnificence of architecture。 Another is ravished with the divine excellencies of Homer； or of some other of the heroes of literature。 A third finds nothing delights him so much as the happiness of others； the beholding that happiness increased； and seeing pain and oppression and sorrow put to flight。 The cause of these differences is； that each man has an individual internal structure； directing his partialities； one man to one thing； and another to another。
Few things can exceed the characters of human beings in variety。 There must be something abstractedly in the nature of mind； which renders it accessible to these varieties。 For the present we will call it taste。 One man feels his spirits regaled with the sight of those things which constitute wealth； another in meditating the triumphs of Alexander or Caesar； and a third in viewing the galleries of the Louvre。 Not one of these thinks in the outset of appropriating these objects to himself； not one of them begins with aspiring to be the possessor of vast opulence； or emulating the triumphs of Caesar； or obtaining in property the pictures and statues the sight of which affords him so exquisite delight。 Even the admirer of female beauty； does not at first think of converting this attractive object into a mistress； but on the contrary desires； like Pygmalion； that the figure he beholds might become his solace and companion； because he had previously admired it for itself。
Just so the benevolent man is an individual who finds a peculiar delight in contemplating the contentment； the peace and heart's ease of other men； and sympathises in no ordinary degree with their sufferings。 He rejoices in the existence and diffusion of human happiness； though he should not have had the smallest share in giving birth to the thing he loves。 It is because such are his tastes； and what above all things he prefers； that he afterwards becomes distinguished by the benevolence of his conduct。
The reflex act of the mind； which these new philosophers put forward as the solution of all human pursuits； rarely presents itself but to the speculative enquirer in his closet。 The savage never dreams of it。 The active man； engaged in the busy scenes of life； thinks little； and on rare occasions of himself； but much； and in a manner for ever； of the objects of his pursuit。
Some men are uniform in their character； and from the cradle to the grave prefer the same objects that first awakened their partialities。 Other men are inconsistent and given to change； are 〃every thing by starts； and nothing long。〃 Still it is probable that； in most cases； he who performs an act of benevolence； feels for the time that he has a peculiar delight in contemplating the good of his fellow…man。
The doctrine of the modern philosophers on this point； is in many ways imbecil and unsound。 It is inauspicious to their creed； that the reflex act of the mind is purely the affair of experience。 Why did the liberal…minded man perform his first act of benevolence？ The answer of these persons ought to be； because the recollection of a generous deed is a source of the truest delight。 But there is an absurdity on the face of this solution。
We do not experimentally know the delight which attends the recollection of a generous deed； till a generous deed has been performed by us。 We do not learn these things from books。 And least of all is this solution to the purpose； when the business is to find a solution that suits the human mind universally； the unlearned as well as the learned； the savage as well as the sage。
And surely it is inconsistent with all sound reasoning； to represent that as the sole spring of our benevolent actions； which by the very terms will not fit the first benevolent act in which any man engaged。
The advocates of the doctrine of 〃self…love the source of all our actions；〃 are st