most advantageous, the man who acts upon that principle is still selfish, not altruistic at all, and he has not solved for himself the conflict between the two principles, save by utterly disregarding the principle of altruism. If altruism were the only goodness, then altruism of aim would be goodness still, whatever the selfish consequences. If altruism needs to be limited in any way by selfishness, then the limitation must still be a matter of aim, not of accidental result. Altruism as a means to selfish ends would however be no aim at all, but only an accidental tool. If circumstances varied, it would be cast aside, while the selfish aim itself remained constant.
J. S. Mill, following others, tried to distinguish the motive from the intent of an act. According to this distinction, a selfish act would be altruistic by intent, if there was in it the deliberate purpose to make somebody happy, however selfish the motive of the act. So it would be altruism to be deliberately and selfishly just. But this distinction, however useful for some purposes, is for our purpose worthless. The question is: What in the act belongs to the man, and what is this part of the act worth? Now whatever belongs not to the actor, but to the conditions under which he works, is morally insignificant. For it is what we have called the physical accident of his surroundings. But intent, apart from motive, seems to be just such a physical accident; for intent, apart from motive, must relate, not to the real aim as such, but only to the means. A man aims to be selfish. If now he lives where his selfishness requires him to feed and clothe his enemy,
