Are pleasures, as pleasures, alike? and are pains, as pains, alike? Jeremy Bentham refused to distinguish between kinds of pleasures. On the other hand, John Stuart Mill did so (see Chapter XXV in this volume); and S. Alexander, in his work entitled _Moral Order and Progress_, maintains that pleasures differ in kind, and cannot be compared merely in their intensity (see page 202). The whole matter is complicated enough, and there is occupation for the most disputatious. But I do not think that these disputes very directly affect the argument of my chapter. Sec 50. That there is a relation between feeling and action, but that the two are by no means nicely adjusted to each other, has been recognized in many quarters. Darwin, discussing the mental and moral qualities of man, points out that the satisfaction of some fundamental instincts gives little pleasure, although uneasiness is suffered if they are not satisfied. Seth (_op. cit._, p. 64) says that feelings "guide" action; and he claims that the energy of a moving idea lies in the feeling which it arouses (p. 70). On the quantity of emotion, and its relation to action, see Stephen, The Science of Ethics, ii, iii, 25. Sec 51. It appears to be repugnant to Green to admit that feeling-- pleasure--can be the direct object of action; and he denies roundly that a sum of pleasures can be made an object of desire and will at all (_Prolegomena to Ethics_, Sec 221; see Sec 113 of this book). Moreover, he maintains, and in this Dewey follows him, that the making of pleasure an object is evidence of the existence of unhealthy desires. I cannot but think this, taken generally, an exaggeration. Of course, what is called "a man of pleasure" is a pretty poor sort of a thing. Sec 52. In this section I do not touch at all upon the immemorial dispute concerning what has been called "the 'freedom' of the will." Indeed, I leave it out of this book altogether. The moralist must, I think, assume that man has natural impulses and is a rational creature. Those who are interested in the problem above mentioned, may turn to my _Introduction to Philosophy_, chapter xi, Sec 46, where the matter is discussed, and references (in the corresponding note) are given. Chapter XVI.--The matter of this chapter appears, clear enough, but it may be well to give a few references touching the two conceptions of the functions of Reason.