and　the　whole　rule　of　its　conduct；　would　be　far　more　surely　prescribed
  to　it　by　instinct；　and　that　end　would　have　been　attained　thereby
  much　more　certainly　than　it　ever　can　be　by　reason。　Should　reason
  have　been　communicated　to　this　favoured　creature　over　and　above；　it
  must　only　have　served　it　to　contemplate　the　happy　constitution　of
  its　nature；　to　admire　it；　to　congratulate　itself　thereon；　and　to
  feel　thankful　for　it　to　the　beneficent　cause；　but　not　that　it　should
  subject　its　desires　to　that　weak　and　delusive　guidance　and　meddle
  bunglingly　with　the　purpose　of　nature。　In　a　word；　nature　would　have
  taken　care　that　reason　should　not　break　forth　into　practical　exercise；
  nor　have　the　presumption；　with　its　weak　insight；　to　think　out　for
  itself　the　plan　of　happiness；　and　of　the　means　of　attaining　it。　Nature
  would　not　only　have　taken　on　herself　the　choice　of　the　ends；　but
  also　of　the　means；　and　with　wise　foresight　would　have　entrusted　both
  to　instinct。
  And；　in　fact；　we　find　that　the　more　a　cultivated　reason　applies
  itself　with　deliberate　purpose　to　the　enjoyment　of　life　and　happiness；
  so　much　the　more　does　the　man　fail　of　true　satisfaction。　And　from　this
  circumstance　there　arises　in　many；　if　they　are　candid　enough　to
  confess　it；　a　certain　degree　of　misology；　that　is；　hatred　of　reason；
  especially　in　the　case　of　those　who　are　most　experienced　in　the　use　of
  it；　because　after　calculating　all　the　advantages　they　derive；　I　do　not
  say　from　the　invention　of　all　the　arts　of　common　luxury；　but　even　from
  the　sciences　（which　seem　to　them　to　be　after　all　only　a　luxury　of
  the　understanding）；　they　find　that　they　have；　in　fact；　only　brought
  more　trouble　on　their　shoulders。　rather　than　gained　in　happiness；
  and　they　end　by　envying；　rather　than　despising；　the　more　common
  stamp　of　men　who　keep　closer　to　the　guidance　of　mere　instinct　and　do
  not　allow　their　reason　much　influence　on　their　conduct。　And　this　we
  must　admit；　that　the　judgement　of　those　who　would　very　much　lower
  the　lofty　eulogies　of　the　advantages　which　reason　gives　us　in　regard
  to　the　happiness　and　satisfaction　of　life；　or　who　would　even　reduce
  them　below　zero；　is　by　no　means　morose　or　ungrateful　to　the　goodness
  with　which　the　world　is　governed；　but　that　there　lies　at　the　root　of
  these　judgements　the　idea　that　our　existence　has　a　different　and　far
  nobler　end；　for　which；　and　not　for　happiness；　reason　is　properly
  intended；　and　which　must；　therefore；　be　regarded　as　the　supreme
  condition　to　which　the　private　ends　of　man　must；　for　the　most　part；　be
  postponed。
  For　as　reason　is　not　competent　to　guide　the　will　with　certainty　in
  regard　to　its　objects　and　the　satisfaction　of　all　our　wants　（which
  it　to　some　extent　even　multiplies）；　this　being　an　end　to　which　an
  implanted　instinct　would　have　led　with　much　greater　certainty；　and
  since；　nevertheless；　reason　is　imparted　to　us　as　a　practical
  faculty；　i。e。；　as　one　which　is　to　have　influence　on　the　will；
  therefore；　admitting　that　nature　generally　in　the　distribution　of
  her　capacities　has　adapted　the　means　to　the　end；　its　true
  destination　must　be　to　produce　a　will；　not　merely　good　as　a　means　to
  something　else；　but　good　in　itself；　for　which　reason　was　absolutely
  necessary。　This　will　then；　though　not　indeed　the　sole　and　complete
  good；　must　be　the　supreme　good　and　the　condition　of　every　other；
  even　of　the　desire　of　happiness。　Under　these　circumstances；　there　is
  nothing　inconsistent　with　the　wisdom　of　nature　in　the　fact　that　the
  cultivation　of　the　reason；　which　is　requisite　for　the　first　and
  unconditional　purpose；　does　in　many　ways　interfere；　at　least　in　this
  life；　with　the　attainment　of　the　second；　which　is　always
  conditional；　namely；　happiness。　Nay；　it　may　even　reduce　it　to　nothing；
  without　nature　thereby　failing　of　her　purpose。　For　reason　recognizes
  the　establishment　of　a　good　will　as　its　highest　practical　destination；
  and　in　attaining　this　purpose　is　capable　only　of　a　satisfaction　of　its
  own　proper　kind；　namely　that　from　the　attainment　of　an　end；　which
  end　again　is　determined　by　reason　only；　notwithstanding　that　this
  may　involve　many　a　disappointment　to　the　ends　of　inclination。
  We　have　then　to　develop　the　notion　of　a　will　which　deserves　to　be
  highly　esteemed　for　itself　and　is　good　without　a　view　to　anything
  further；　a　notion　which　exists　already　in　the　sound　natural
  understanding；　requiring　rather　to　be　cleared　up　than　to　be　taught；
  and　which　in　estimating　the　value　of　our　actions　always　takes　the
  first　place　and　constitutes　the　condition　of　all　the　rest。　In　order　to
  do　this；　we　will　take　the　notion　of　duty；　which　includes　that　of　a
  good　will；　although　implying　certain　subjective　restrictions　and
  hindrances。　These；　however；　far　from　concealing　it；　or　rendering　it
  unrecognizable；　rather　bring　it　out　by　contrast　and　make　it　shine
  forth　so　much　the　brighter。
  I　omit　here　all　actions　which　are　already　recognized　as　inconsistent
  with　duty；　although　they　may　be　useful　for　this　or　that　purpose；　for
  with　these　the　question　whether　they　are　done　from　duty　cannot　arise
  at　all；　since　they　even　conflict　with　it。　I　also　set　aside　those
  actions　which　really　conform　to　duty；　but　to　which　men　have　no
  direct　inclination；　performing　them　because　they　are　impelled
  thereto　by　some　other　inclination。　For　in　this　case　we　can　readily
  distinguish　whether　the　action　which　agrees　with　duty　is　done　from
  duty；　or　from　a　selfish　view。　It　is　much　harder　to　make　this
  distinction　when　the　action　accords　with　duty　and　the　subject　has
  besides　a　direct　inclination　to　it。　For　example；　it　is　always　a　matter
  of　duty　that　a　dealer　should　not　over　charge　an　inexperienced
  purchaser；　and　wherever　there　is　much　commerce　the　prudent　tradesman
  does　not　overcharge；　but　keeps　a　fixed　price　for　everyone；　so　that　a
  child　buys　of　him　as　well　as　any　other。　Men　are　thus　honestly
  served；　but　this　is　not　enough　to　make　us　believe　that　the　tradesman
  has　so　acted　from　duty　and　from　principles　of　honesty：　his　own
  advantage　required　it；　it　is　out　of　the　question　in　this　case　to
  suppose　that　he　might　besides　have　a　direct　inclination　in　favour　of
  the　buyers；　so　that；　as　it　were；　from　love　he　should　give　no　advantage
  to　one　over　another。　Accordingly　the　action　was　done　neither　from　duty
  nor　from　direct　inclination；　but　merely　with　a　selfish　view。
  On　the　other　hand；　it　is　a　duty　to　maintain　one's　life；　and；　in
  addition；　everyone　has　also　a　direct　inclination　to　do　so。　But　on　this
  account　the　of　anxious　care　which　most　men　take　for　it　has　no
  intrinsic　worth；　and　their　maxim　has　no　moral　import。　They　preserve
  their　life　as　duty　requires；　no　doubt；　but　not　because　duty
  requires。　On　the　other　band；　if　adversity　and　hopeless　sorrow　have
  completely　taken　away　the　relish　for　life；　if　the　unfortunate　one；
  strong　in　mind；　indignant　at　his　fate　rather　than　desponding　or
  dejected；　wishes　for　death；　and　yet　preserves　his　life　without
  loving　it…　not　from　inclination　or　fear；　but　from　duty…　then　his　maxim
  has　a　moral　worth。
  To　be　beneficent　when　we　can　is　a　duty；　and　besides　this；　there
  are　many　minds　so　sympathetically　constituted　that；　without　any
  other　motive　of　vanity　or　self…interest；　they　find　a　pleasure　in
  spreading　joy　around　them　and　can　take　delight　in　the　satisfaction
  of　others　so　far　as　it　is　their　own　work。　But　I　maintain　that　in
  such　a　case　an　action　of　this　kind；　however　proper；　however　amiable　it
  may　be；　bas　nevertheless　no　true　moral　worth；　but　is　on　a　level　with
  other　inclinations；　e。g。；　the　inclination　to　honour；　which；　if　it　is
  happily　directed　to　that　which　is　in　fact　of　public　utility　and
  accordant　with　duty　and　consequently　honourable；　deserves　praise　and
  encouragement；　but　not　esteem。　For　the　maxim　lacks　the　moral　import；
  namely；　that　such　actions　be　done　from　duty；　not　from　inclination。　Put
  the　case　that　the　mind　of　that　philanthropist　were　clouded　by　sorrow
  of　his　own；　extinguishing　all　sympathy　with　the　lot　of　others；　and
  that；　while　he　still　has　the　power　to　benefit　others　in　distress；　he
  is　not　touched　by　their　trouble　because　he　is　absorbed　with　his　own；
  and　now　suppose　that　he　tears　himself　out　of　this　dead
  insensibility；　and　performs　the　action　without　any　inclination　to
  it；　but　simply　from　duty；　then　first　has　his　action　its　genuine
  moral　worth。　Further　still；　if　nature　bas　put　little　sympathy　in　the
  heart　of　this　or　that　man；　if　he；　supposed　to　be　an　upright　man；　is　by
  temperament　cold　and　indifferent　to　the　sufferings　of　others；
  perhaps　because　in　respect　of　his　own　he　is　provided　with　the
  special　gift　of　patience　and　fortitude　and　supposes；　or　even　requires；
  that　others　should　have　the　same…　and　such　a　man　would　certainly　not
  be　the　meanest　product　of　nature…　but　if　nature　had　not　specially
  framed　him　for　a　philanthropist；　would　he　not　still　find　in　himself
  a　source　from　whence　to　give　himself　a　far　higher　worth　than　that　of　a
  good…natured　temperament　could　be？　Unquestionably。　It　is　just　in
  this　that