That Mr.Spencer's theory could not account for the intuitional sacredness now attached to _individual_ moral rules and principles, without accounting _a fortiori_ for the general claim of the greatest happiness principle over us as the final moral intuition---which is conspicuously contrary to the fact, as not even the utilitarians themselves plead any instinctive or intuitive sanction for their great principle.
"5.

That there is no trace of positive evidence of any single instance of the transformation of a utilitarian rule of right into an intuition, since we find no utilitarian principle of the most ancient times which is now an accepted moral intuition, nor any moral intuition, however sacred, which has not been promulgated thousands of years ago, and which has not constantly had to stop the tide of utilitarian _objections_ to its authority--and this age after age, in our own day quite as much as in days gone by....

Surely, if anything is remarkable in the history of {204} morality, it is the _anticipatory_ character, if I may use the expression, of moral principles--the intensity and absoluteness with which they are laid down ages before the world has approximated to the ideal thus asserted." Sir John Lubbock, in his work on Primitive Man before referred to, abandons Mr.Spencer's explanation of the genesis of morals while referring to Mr.
Hutton's criticisms on the subject.

Sir John proposes to substitute "deference to authority" instead of "sense of interest" as the origin of our conception of "duty," saying that what has been found to be beneficial has been traditionally inculcated on the young, and thus has become to be dissociated from "interest" in the mind, though the inculcation itself originally sprung from that source.

This, however, when analysed, turns out to be a distinction without a difference.