266 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
function completely in making the determination, and he func- tions most completely in their adjustment. Until the psychologist shall have taught him to make this adjustment through any one of its aspects, neither abstract pleasure, nor abstract reason, nor abstract will can act as standard ; for until their constancy is calculated, no one of these can represent the group, and when their constancy is calculated, they cannot do more than this. Until that time they must continue to act as checks and balances each upon the other ; after that time they will be accepted tests only when they stand proxy for the harmony of the whole. Equilibrium, self-consistency, harmony, peace, is the ethical test. But Mill has raised another question why one cannot aim at pleasure and get it. Two reasons may be given : First, that the attending to the expected pleasure rather than to the actions appropriate to produce it, is a withdrawal of mental efficiency from the effort to the result, and a consequent lowering of the effort, which at length disappoints by producing a correspond- ingly lowered result. Second, there is an element of surprise or contrast which seems to heighten a pleasure, which is here taken away ; and the effect of the anticipation would seem to amount to an extending of the pleasure over a larger time period, with a corresponding decrease of intensity. If one can- not, by choosing, get pleasure, it is at least a question whether pleasure is an adequate expression of his activity, and although it is an inseparable factor in his expression, it cannot be used as the normative factor. The question is not whether quantity of pleasure is a test ; it is as to our ability to determine by it.
ERNEST CARROLL MOORE.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
