[2] This statement now appears to me to require a slight modification (1884).
[3] Cf. Mind, No. 2.
[4] Among unpublished criticisms I ought especially to mention the valuable suggestions that I have received from Mr. Carveth Read; to whose assistance in revising the present edition many of my corrections are due.
[5] I must here acknowledge the advantage that I have received from the remarks and questions of my pupils, and from criticisms privately communicated to me by others; among these latter I ought especially to mention an instructive examination of my fundamental doctrines by the Rev. Hastings Rashdall.
[6] Cf. note on p. [457], and [Prefatory Note] to the Seventh Edition.
[7] Kant’s Fundamental Principles (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten), §§ 1, 2. Mill, Utilitarianism, pp. 5, 6 [7th edition (large print), 1879].
[8] Book i. chap. [v.] of The Methods of Ethics.
[9] The exact relation of the terms ‘right’ and ‘what ought to be’ is discussed in chap. [iii.] of this Book. I here assume that they may be used as convertible, for most purposes.
[10] I use ‘Politics’ in what I take to be its most ordinary signification, to denote the science or study of Right or Good Legislation and Government. There is a wider possible sense of the term, according to which it would include the greater part of Ethics: i.e. if understood to be the Theory of Right Social Relations. See chap. ii. § [2].
[11] The relation of the notion of ‘Good’ to that of ‘Right’ or ‘what ought to be’ will be further considered in a subsequent chapter of this Book ([ix.])