[17] If "the magnificent principle" is thus stated, "mankind ought to pursue their greatest happiness," it must be borne in mind that there are persons whose interests are opposed to the greatest happiness of mankind. Lord Macaulay's opponent replies, "ought is not predicable of such persons; for the word ought has no meaning unless it be used in reference to some interest." Lord Macaulay replied, "that interest was synonymous with greatest happiness; and that, therefore, IF the word _ought_ has no meaning unless used with reference to interest, then, to say that mankind ought to pursue their greatest happiness, is simply to say that the greatest happiness is the greatest happiness; that every individual pursues his own happiness; that either what he thinks his happiness must coincide with the greatest happiness of society or not; that if what he thinks his happiness coincides with the greatest happiness of society, he will attempt to promote the greatest happiness of society whether he ever heard of the "greatest happiness principle" or not; and that, by the admission of the Westminster Reviewer, IF _his_ happiness _is inconsistent with_ the greatest happiness of society, there is no reason why he should promote the greatest happiness of society. Now, that there are individuals who think _that_ for their happiness which is not for the greatest happiness of society, is evident.... The question is not whether men have _some_ motives for promoting the greatest happiness, but whether the _stronger_ motives be those which impel them to promote the greatest happiness."--_Lord Macaulay's "Miscellaneous Writings," Utilitarian Theory of Government_, pp. 177-9. I refer to it because it will be interesting to see how the argument looks in its application to Darwinism. It will be seen that if the conditions of unlimited enjoyment anywhere existed, Lord Macaulay's strictures would lose something of their force. If, indeed, there was superabundance and superfluity of everything for all in this life, then anything which conduces to the satisfaction of the individual would add to, or at least would not detract from, the sum of happiness of all mankind. But unless you can show this--if even the reverse of this is the truth--then "the greatest happiness" will be in proportion to the self-abnegation of those who possess more, or have the greatest faculties or facilities of producing more.