This principle exists as a natural impulse more or less powerful in differently constituted minds. It is the cause of that pleasure which is felt in the consciousness of being the cause of good to another. But this natural impulse can be so developed and increased by voluntary culture as to become the strongest impulse of the mind, and thus the source of the highest and most satisfying enjoyments. In many minds this becomes so strongly developed that securing happiness to others is sought with far more earnestness and pleasure than any modes of enjoyment that terminate solely in self. This analysis lays the foundation for the distinction expressed by the terms the _love of complacency_ and the _love of benevolence_. The first is the involuntary result of good conferred on _self_; the last is a voluntary act. It is good willing toward others without reference to self. The first can only exist where certain qualities are preserved and appreciated in another mind. The second can result from voluntary effort, and become the subject of law and penalties. We can never be justly required to love another mind with the love of complacency except when qualities are perceived that, by the constitution of mind, necessarily call forth such regard. But the love of benevolence can be justly demanded from every mind toward every being capable of happiness. Here it is important to discriminate more exactly in regard to the principle of _benevolence_ and the principle of _rectitude_. It is seen that the benevolence which is the subject of rewards and penalties as a voluntary act consists in _good willing_--that is, in choosing the happiness of _other_ minds as the object of interest and pursuit. But the principle of rectitude is more comprehensive in its nature. It relates to obedience to _all_ the laws of the system of the universe--those relating to ourselves as much as those relating to others. It is true that, as obedience to these laws includes the greatest possible amount of good with the least possible evil, both to the individual and the commonwealth, the tendency of the two principles is to the same result. But it may be the case that benevolence acts contrary to the true rules of rectitude, and thus may mar rather than promote happiness. A mind must not only choose to promote the greatest possible happiness, but must choose _the right way_ of doing it.