The analysis in no way sets aside the reality of moral distinctions.

The question is, therefore, purely speculative.
As a speculation, it is open to these objections.

(1) Being contrary to the unprejudiced notions of mankind, it demands some very powerful aid from philosophy.

On the face of things, the selfish passions and the benevolent passions are widely distinguished, and no hypothesis has ever yet so far overcome the disparity as to show that the one could grow out of the other; we may discern in the attempts that love of _simplicity_, which has done so much harm to philosophy.
The Animals are susceptible of kindness; shall we then attribute to them, too, a refinement of self-interest?
Again, what interest can a fond mother have in view who loses her health in attendance on a sick child, and languishes and dies of grief when relieved from the slavery of that attendance?
(2) But farther, the real simplicity lies on the side of independent and disinterested benevolence.

There are bodily appetites that carry us to their objects before sensual enjoyment; hunger and thirst have eating and drinking for their end; the gratification follows, and becomes a secondary desire.