Tobeclear，then，wemustparticulariseastheobjectofSelf-love，andEndofthemethodwhichIhavedistinguishedasEgoisticHedonism，Pleasure，takeninitswidestsense，asincludingeveryspeciesof``delight’’，``enjoyment’’，or``satisfaction’’；
exceptsofarasanyparticularspeciesmaybeexcludedbyitsincompatibilitywithsomegreaterpleasures，orasnecessarilyinvolvingconcomitantorsubsequentpains。ItisthusthatSelf-loveseemstobeunderstoodbyButlerandotherEnglishmoralistsafterhim；asadesireofone’sownpleasuregenerally，andofthegreatestamountofitobtainable，fromwhateversourceitmaybeobtained。Infact，itisuponthisgeneralityandcomprehensivenessthatthe`authority’and`reasonableness’attributedtoSelf-loveinButler’ssystemarefounded。Forsatisfactionorpleasureofsomekindresultsfromgratifyinganyimpulse；thuswhenantagonisticimpulsescompeteforthedeterminationoftheWill，wearepromptedbythedesireforpleasureingeneraltocomparethepleasureswhichweforeseewillrespectivelyattendthegratificationofeitherimpulse，andwhenwehaveascertainedwhichsetofpleasuresisthegreatest，Self-loveorthedesireforpleasureingeneralreinforcesthecorrespondingimpulse。Itisthuscalledintoplaywheneverimpulsesconflict，andisthereforenaturallyregulativeanddirectiveasButlerarguesofotherspringsofaction。Onthisview，sofarasSelf-loveoperates，wemerelyconsidertheamountofpleasureorsatisfaction:touseBentham’sillustration，``quantityofpleasurebeingequal，push-pinisasgoodaspoetry’’。
Thisposition，however，seemstomanyoffensivelyparadoxical；andJ。S。MillinhisdevelopmentofBentham’sdoctrinethoughtitdesirabletoabandonitandtotakeintoaccountdifferencesinqualityamongpleasuresaswellasdifferencesindegree。Nowherewemayobserve，first，thatitisquiteconsistentwiththeviewquotedasBentham’stodescribesomekindsofpleasureasinferiorinqualitytoothers，ifby`apleasure’wemeanasisoftenmeantawholestateofconsciousnesswhichisonlypartlypleasurable；andstillmoreifwetakeintoviewsubsequentstates。Formanypleasuresarenotfreefrompainevenwhileenjoyed；andmanymorehavepainfulconsequences。Suchpleasuresare，inBentham’sphrase，``impure’’:andasthepainhastobesetoffasadrawbackinvaluingthepleasure，itisinaccordancewithstrictlyquantitativemeasurementofpleasuretocalltheminferiorinkind。Andagain，wemustbecarefulnottoconfoundintensityofpleasurewithintensityofsensation:asapleasantfeelingmaybestrongandabsorbing，andyetnotsopleasantasanotherthatismoresubtleanddelicate。Withtheseexplanations，itseemstomethatinordertoworkoutconsistentlythemethodthattakespleasureasthesoleultimateendofrationalconduct，Bentham’spropositionmustbeaccepted，andallqualitativecomparisonofpleasuresmustreallyresolveitselfintoquantitative。Forallpleasuresareunderstoodtobesocalledbecausetheyhaveacommonpropertyofpleasantness，andmaythereforebecomparedinrespectofthiscommonproperty。If，then，whatweareseekingispleasureassuch，andpleasurealone，wemustevidentlyalwayspreferthemorepleasantpleasuretothelesspleasant:nootherchoiceseemsreasonable，unlessweareaimingatsomethingbesidespleasure。Andoftenwhenwesaythatonekindofpleasureisbetterthananother——ase。g。thatthepleasuresofreciprocatedaffectionaresuperiorinqualitytothepleasuresofgratifiedappetite-wemeanthattheyaremorepleasant。Nodoubtwemaymeansomethingelse:
wemaymean，forinstance，thattheyarenoblerandmoreelevated，althoughlesspleasant。Butthenweareclearlyintroducinganon-hedonisticgroundofpreference:andifthisisdone，themethodadoptedisaperplexingmixtureofIntuitionismandHedonism。
Tosumup:Egoism，ifwemerelyunderstandbyitamethodthataimsatSelf-realisation，seemstobeaformintowhichalmostanyethicalsystemmaybethrown，withoutmodifyingitsessentialcharacteristics。