Page:Philosophical Review Volume 8.djvu/432

414 his philosophical opinions." But surely Mill's original views on ethics were inherited from his father; and when, as a boy of fifteen, he first came upon a technical exposition of Bentham's doctrine, he had (according to his own statement in the Autobiography) not yet read the classic works of English and Scottish philosophy. He accepted Bentham's doctrine almost as a religion, though confessedly unacquainted with other modern works on ethics, even those of his own countrymen. Later, indeed, he was very greatly impressed with Bentham's attempt to apply 'scientific method' to ethics. In his famous essay on Bentham (1838), while denying to the elder moralist almost all the other qualities essential to a constructive writer on ethics, he still regarded this serious, if unsuccessful, attempt on Bentham's part as sufficient to make him, if not a great philosopher, at least 'a great reformer in philosophy.' Apparently it was only two years after the publication of this essay that Mill wrote the first draft of Book VI of the Logic, which, as we have seen, agrees substantially with this point of view. But Mill's own utter lack of success with 'ethology' and (deductive) sociology doubtless taught him the lesson which he later profited by in his treatment of ethical problems.

As a whole, the introductory essays are by no means without interest or value; but, in their failure to supply the clue to Mill's development, they certainly fail to give the student the help which he most needs. Moreover, while the criticisms of hedonism in general, and Mill's statement of the doctrine in particular, are for the most part just and often suggestive, they almost always presuppose the editor's own ethical theory, which, however, he nowhere develops at all in detail. For elementary students, at any rate, this will prove seriously confusing. But if we must take exception to the introductory essays in these respects, and others which might be noted, if more space were at our disposal, they have one quality which cannot be too strongly commended. They are wholly free from the partisan rancor and the supercilious tone which still mar a good many of the representative criticisms of hedonism. It is much to say, as one can say with perfect sincerity, that the tone of the editor's criticism is worthy of the author criticised.

In short, Dr. Douglas has given us a book, which, if it partly fails in its original purpose, goes far to satisfy a real need. Teachers will no longer have any excuse for treating Mill as if all of his views on ethics were contained in the Utilitarianism. Even regarded as a fairly adequate, though not complete, index to the very various writings in which Mill touches upon ethical subjects, the