12

to the writers who adhere to is as the "defendents."

In order to emphasize that confusion
which I think so pestilent and to prevent
your mind's from being distracted from it
to another fault in the defendent argument, I
put it into parallel with another argument
that involves one quite analogous confusion.

Namely, we find in some of the old writers
a fallacious argument to prove that there is
no distinction of moral right and wrong.
The argument runs as follows:

The distinction between a good act and
a bad one, if ther be any such distinction,
lies in the motive But the only motive
a man can have is his own pleasure.
No other is thinkable. For if a man desires
to act in any way, it is because he takes
pleasure in so acting. Otherwise, his action
would not be voluntary and deliberate.