“Mandeville was right in thinking that, with all their systems of morality, men would never have been anything but monsters if Nature had not given them _compassion_ to support their reason; but he failed to see that _from this one quality spring all the social virtues_ which he was unwilling to credit mankind with. In reality, what is generosity, clemency, humanity, if not _compassion_, applied to the weak, to the guilty, or to the human race as a whole? Even benevolence and friendship, if we look at the matter rightly, are seen to result from a constant compassion, directed upon a particular object; for to desire that someone should not suffer is nothing else than to desire that he should be happy.… The more closely the living spectator identifies himself with the living sufferer, the more active does pity become.” And again: “How is it that we let ourselves be moved to pity if not by getting out of our own consciousness, and becoming identified with the living sufferer; by leaving, so to say, our own being and entering into his? We do not suffer except as we suppose he suffers; _it is not in us, it is in him_, that we suffer.… Offer a young man objects on which the expansive force of his heart can act--objects such as may enlarge his nature, and incline it to go out to other beings, in whom he may everywhere find himself again. Keep carefully away those things which narrow his view, and make him self-centred, and tighten the strings of the _human ego_.” It is upon this theme that Schopenhauer becomes so eloquent, and with larger view even than that of Rousseau, as it seems, he brings the lower animals within the protection of his moral system.