The same is the case with the third and the fourth class of people who are assumed as non-moral or purely immoral.  There is no person, however morally degraded he may be, but reveals some good nature in his whole course of life.  It is our daily experience that we find a faithful friend in the person even of a pickpocket, a loving father even in a burglar, and a kind neighbour even in a murderer.  Faith, sympathy, friendship, love, loyalty, and generosity dwell not merely in palaces and churches, but also in brothels and gaols.  On the other hand, abhorrent vices and bloody crimes often find shelter under the silk hat, or the robe, or the coronet, or the crown.  Life may fitly be compared with a rope made of white and black straw, and to separate one from the other is to destroy the rope itself; so also life entirely independent of the duality of good and bad is no actual life.  We must acknowledge, therefore, that the third and the fourth propositions are inconsistent with our daily experience of life, and that only the second proposition remains, which, as seen above, breaks down at the origin of morality.

7.  Where, then, does the Error Lie?

Where, then, does the error lie in the four possible propositions respecting man’s nature?  It lies not in their subject, but in the predicate-that is to say, in the use of the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad.’  Now let us examine how does good differ from bad.  A good action ever promotes interests in a sphere far wider than a bad action.  Both are the same in their conducing to human interests, but differ in the extent in which they achieve their end.  In other words, both good and bad actions are performed for one end and the same purpose of promoting human interests, but they differ from each other as to the extent of interests.  For instance, burglary is evidently bad action, and is condemned everywhere; but the capturing of an enemy’s property for the sake of one’s own tribe or clan or nation is praised as a meritorious conduct.  Both acts are exactly the same in their promoting interests; but the former relates to the interests of a single individual or of a single family, while the latter to those of a tribe or a nation.  If the former be bad on account of its ignoring others’ interests, the latter must be also bad on account of its ignoring the enemy’s interests.  Murder is considered bad everywhere; but the killing of thousands of men in a battle-field is praised and honoured, because the former is perpetrated to promote the private interests, while the latter those of the public.  If the former be bad, because of its cruelty, the latter must also be bad, because of its inhumanity.

The idea of good and bad, generally accepted by common sense, may be stated as follows:  ’An action is good when it promotes the interests of an individual or a family; better when it promotes those of a district or a country; best when it promotes those of the whole world.  An action is bad when it inflicts injury on another individual or another family; worse when it is prejudicial to a district or a country; worst when it brings harm on the whole world.  Strictly speaking, an action is good when it promotes interests, material or spiritual, as intended by the actor in his motive; and it is bad when it injures interests, material or spiritual, as intended by the actor in his motive.’