 In RG, Ross wrestled with whether we have a duty to promote our own pleasure, noting ‘while we clearly recognize a duty to produce pleasure for others, it is by no means so clear that we recognize a duty to produce pleasure for ourselves’ (RG 24; also 25–26, 151). Despite his lack of confidence, he affirmed in RG an obligation to promote our own happiness under the obligation of beneficence (RG 25–26). However, as we have seen, there are traces of the view we have no duty to promote our own pleasure / prevent our own pain even in RG, including (as noted) in how he construes the duty of non-maleficence (e.g., at RG 21, 22, 28) and in his view it is not virtuous to desire to give yourself pleasure or save yourself pain (RG 134, 168; cf. Ross 1928–29, 268–69).