assert his philosophy, because, for one constituted as he, with that demoniacal fury of his for philosophical truth, the pyre must have seemed a very miserable and negligible thing, just as his brother's blood seemed to Cæsar Borgia. Call the one of these actions utility of a complexity of ten and the other utility of a complexity of a hundred, or give to the complexity a hundred the name of morality, of well-understood self-interest, of sympathy, of altruism, and so on, and to the complexity of ten that of utility, of individual interest, of egoism: the two actions will not thus have been declared of a different nature. [Sidenote: _Critique._] But the fact is that they have already been declared of a _different nature_ by the utilitarians themselves. No one, indeed, will have been deceived with the ingenious phraseology excogitated: _well-understood_ interest is no longer mere self-interest; the egoism of _species_ is not egoism, _durable_ pleasure is not mere pleasure. The difference between the one term and the other is not quantitative, and even where a _greater_ quantity is talked of, a _greater_ duration, a _greater_ number, arithmetical definitions are not posited, but symbols pointing to qualitative differences. There is a difference, not of complexity but of nature, between the action of Cæsar Borgia and that of Giordano Bruno; there is no common measure between baseness and moral elevation as there is between undulating plains and mountains. The two series, of empirical utilitarian concepts and of empirical moral concepts, are not only irreducible to a single series, but remain obstinately distinct and irreducible. All that can be done, and has been done, is to unify them verbally; and in this the utilitarians have shown themselves as bold as it was possible to be in so miserable an enterprise. But the identity or similarity of words does not suffice to cancel the profound distinctions of things. [Sidenote: _Attempt to explain them as facts either extraneous to the practical or irrational and stupid._]