536 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
fresh interests. Possibly conscious pleasure-seeking marks the morning of intelligence rather than its high noon.
Then there is a social factor to be considered. In the col- lective mind are set up currents which carry us far out of our natural course. We like what others like, covet what they praise. If we imbibe admiration for a dexterity or a virtue, we cannot but incorporate it into our ideal and strive to realize it. If others infect us with a valuation, we cannot help pursuing the thing valued. From the tlite spread feelings and opinions about the goals of endeavor which in time harden into race ideals and race values. The rank and file for the most part accept these, because they cannot constitute goals for themselves. So, strangely enough, it may come to pass that the many pursue, not the gratifications proper to their own natures, but the gratifications proper to the natures of the influential tlite.
Thus we are forced to recognize the multiplicity of desires. Of the various human goals we can affirm just one thing: they shine. To affirm that they shine because they all have a com- ponent of pleasure is to go too far. There is no social force; there are social forces.
To reject the formula of "greatest pleasure for least pain" is not to attack the foundation principle of pure economics, namely, greatest utility for least disutility. Material goods are means, not ends. Economic choices relate to routes, not to goals. Of rival goals we do not invariably ask, "Which promises the most pleasure;" but of the possible routes to any goal we do ask, " Which is the easiest ? " Whatever be his goal, the rational man will choose the smoothest path, provide in the cheapest manner such bridges and corduroy as may be necessary. If he has not means enough to attain all his ends commodiously, he economizes goods. If he can produce these goods, he econo- mizes his time and exertion. Hence, his choice among possible materials, processes, occupations, and investments conforms to a principle. But we find no such universal principle determining which, among competing instincts, impulses, ideals, and values shall prevail. These are, in fact, treated as incommensurable. No one reduces them all to a common denominator.
