Chapter III: Hedonism.
§ 36.
In this
chapter we have to deal with what is perhaps the most famous and the most widely
held of all ethical principles—the principle that nothing is good but pleasure.
My chief reason for treating of this principle in this place is, as I said, that
Hedonism appears in the main to be a form of Naturalistic Ethics: in other
words, that pleasure has been so generally held to be the sole good, is almost
entirely due to the fact that it has seemed to be somehow involved in the
definition of good
—to be pointed out by the very meaning of the
word. If this is so, then the prevalence of Hedonism has been mainly due to what
I have called the naturalistic fallacy—the failure to distinguish clearly that
unique and indefinable quality which we mean by good. And that it is so, we have
very strong evidence in the fact that, of all hedonistic writers, Prof. Sidgwick
alone has clearly recognised that by good
we do mean something
unanalysable, and has alone been led thereby to emphasise the fact that, if
Hedonism be true, its claims to be so must be rested solely on its
self-evidence—that we must maintain Pleasure is the sole good
to be mere
intuition. It appeared to Prof. Sidgwick as a new discovery that what
he calls the method
of Intuitionism must be retained as valid alongside
of, and indeed as the foundation of, what he calls the alternative
methods
of Utilitarianism and Egoism. And that it was a new discovery can
hardly be doubted. In previous Hedonists we find no clear and consistent
recognition of the fact that their fundamental proposition involves the
assumption that a certain unique predicate can be directly seen to belong to
pleasure alone among existents: they do not emphasise, as they could hardly have
failed to have done had they perceived it, how utterly independent of all other
truths this truth must be. (§ 36 ¶ 1)
Moreover it is easy to see how this unique position should have
been assigned to pleasure without any clear consciousness of the assumption
involved. Hedonism is, for a sufficiently obvious reason, the first conclusion
at which any one who begins to reflect upon Ethics naturally arrives. It is very
easy to notice the fact that we are pleased with things. The things we enjoy and
the things we do not, form two unmistakable classes, to which our attention is
constantly directed. But it is comparatively difficult to distinguish the fact
that we approve a thing from the fact that we are pleased with it.
Although, if we look at the two states of mind, we must see that they are
different, even though they generally go together, it is very difficult to see
in what respect they are different, or that the difference can in any
connection be of more importance than the many other differences, which are so
patent and yet so difficult to analyse, between one kind of enjoyment
and another. It is very difficult to see that by approving
of a thing we
mean feeling that it has a certain predicate—the predicate, namely,
which defines the peculiar sphere of Ethics; whereas in the enjoyment of a thing
no such unique object of thought is involved. Nothing is more natural than the
vulgar mistake, which we find expressed in a recent book on Ethics:
The primary ethical fact is, we have said, that something is approved or disapproved: that is, in other words, the ideal representation of certain events
in the way of sensation, perception, or idea, is attended with a feeling of
pleasure or of pain.
In ordinary speech, I want this,
I like
this,
I care about this,
are constantly used as equivalents for I
think this good.
And in this way it is very natural to be led to suppose
that there is no distinct class of ethical judgments, but only the class
things enjoyed
; in spite of the fact, which is very clear, if not very
common, that we do not always approve what we enjoy. It is, of course, very
obvious that from the supposition that I think this good
is identical
with I am pleased with this,
it cannot be logically inferred
that pleasure alone is good. But, on the other hand, it is very difficult to see
what could be logically inferred from such a supposition; and it seems
natural enough that such an inference should suggest itself. A very
little examination of what is commonly written on the subject will suffice to
shew that a logical confusion of this nature is very common. Moreover the very
commission of the naturalistic fallacy involves that those who commit it should
not recognise clearly the meaning of the proposition This is good
—that
they should not be able to distinguish this from other propositions which seem
to resemble it; and, where this is so, it is, of course, impossible that its
logical relations should be clearly perceived. (§ 36 ¶ 2)
§ 36, n. 1: A. E. Taylor's Problems of Conduct, p. 120. ↩
§ 37.
There is,
therefore, ample reason to suppose that Hedonism is in general a form of
Naturalism—that its acceptance is generally due to the naturalistic fallacy. It
is, indeed, only when we have detected this fallacy, when we have become clearly
aware of the unique object which is meant by good,
that we are able to
give to Hedonism the precise definition used above, Nothing is good but
pleasure
: and it may, therefore, be objected that, in attacking this
doctrine under the name of Hedonism, I am attacking a doctrine which has never
really been held. But it is very common to hold a doctrine, without being
clearly aware what it is you hold; and though, when Hedonists argue in favour of
what they call Hedonism, I admit that, in order to suppose their arguments
valid, they must have before their minds something other than the
doctrine I have defined, yet, in order to draw the conclusions that they draw,
it is necessary that they should also have before their minds this
doctrine. In fact, my justification for supposing that I shall have refuted
historical Hedonism, if I refute the proposition Nothing is good but
pleasure,
is, that although Hedonists have rarely stated their principle in
this form and though its truth, in this form, will certainly not follow from
their arguments, yet their ethical method will follow logically from
nothing else. Any pretence of hedonistic method, to discover to us practical
truths which we should not otherwise have known, is founded on the principle
that the course of action which will bring the greatest balance of pleasure is
certainly the right one; and, failing an absolute proof that the greatest
balance of pleasure always coincides with the greatest balance of other
goods, which it is not generally attempted to give, this principle can only be
justified if pleasure be the sole good. Indeed it can hardly be doubted that
Hedonists are distinguished by arguing, in disputed practical questions, as
if pleasure were the sole good; and that it is justifiable, for this among
other reasons, to take this as the ethical principle of Hedonism will,
I hope, be made further evident by the whole discussion of this chapter. (§ 37 ¶ 1)
By Hedonism, then, I mean the doctrine that pleasure
alone is good as an end—good
in the sense which I have tried to
point out as indefinable. The doctrine that pleasure, among other
things, is good as an end, is not Hedonism; and I shall not dispute its
truth. Nor again is the doctrine that other things, beside pleasure, are good as
means, at all inconsistent with Hedonism: the Hedonist is not bound to maintain
that Pleasure alone is good,
if under good he includes, as we generally
do, what is good as means to an end, as well as the end itself. In
attacking Hedonism, I am therefore simply and solely attacking the doctrine that
Pleasure alone is good as an end or in itself
: I am not
attacking the doctrine that Pleasure is good as an end or in
itself,
nor am I attacking any doctrine whatever as to what are the best
means we can take in order to obtain pleasure or any other end. Hedonists do, in
general, recommend a course of conduct which is very similar to that which I
should recommend. I do not quarrel with them about most of their practical
conclusions. I quarrel only with the reasons by which they seem to think their
conclusions can be supported; and I do emphatically deny that the correctness of
their conclusions is any ground for inferring the correctness of their
principles. A correct conclusion may always be obtained by fallacious reasoning;
and the good life or virtuous maxims of a Hedonist afford absolutely no
presumption that his ethical philosophy is also good. It is his ethical
philosophy alone with which I am concerned: what I dispute is the excellence of
his reasoning, not the excellence of his character as a man or even as moral
teacher. It may be thought that my contention is unimportant, but that is no
ground for thinking that I am not in the right. What I am concerned with is
knowledge only—that we should think correctly and so far arrive at some truth,
however unimportant: I do not say that such knowledge will make us more useful
members of society. If any one does not care for knowledge for its own sake,
then I have nothing to say to him: only it should not be thought that a lack of
interest in what I have to say is any ground for holding it untrue. (§ 37 ¶ 2)
§ 38.
Hedonists, then, hold that all other things but pleasure, whether
conduct or virtue or knowledge, whether life or nature or beauty, are only good
as means to pleasure or for the sake of pleasure, never for their own sakes or
as ends in themselves. This view was held by Aristippus, the disciple of
Socrates, and by the Cyrenaic school which he founded; it is associated with
Epicurus and the Epicureans; and it has been held in modern times, chiefly by
those philosophers who call themselves Utilitarians
—by Bentham, and
by Mill, for instance. Herbert Spencer, as we have seen, also says that he holds it; and Professor Sidgwick, as we shall see, holds it
too. (§ 38 ¶ 1)
Yet all these philosophers, as has been said, differ from one another more or less, both as to what they mean by Hedonism, and as to the reasons for which it is to be accepted as a true doctrine. The matter is therefore obviously not quite so simple as it might at first appear. My own object will be to shew quite clearly what the theory must imply, if it is made precise, if all confusions and inconsistencies are removed from the conception of it; and, when this is done, I think it will appear that all the various reasons given for holding it to be true, are really quite inadequate; that they are not reasons for holding Hedonism, but only for holding some other doctrine which is confused therewith. In order to attain this object I propose to take first Mill’s doctrine, as set forth in his book called Utilitarianism: we shall find in Mill a conception of Hedonism, and arguments in its favour, which fairly represent those of a large class of hedonistic writers. To these representative conceptions and arguments grave objections, objections which appear to me to be conclusive, have been urged by Professor Sidgwick. These I shall try to give in my own words; and shall then proceed to consider and refute Professor Sidgwick’s own much more precise conceptions and arguments. With this, I think, we shall have traversed the whole field of Hedonistic doctrine. It will appear, from the discussion, that the task of deciding what is or is not good in itself is by no means an easy one; and in this way the discussion will afford a good example of the method which it is necessary to pursue in attempting to arrive at the truth with regard to this primary class of ethical principles. In particular it will appear that two principles of method must be constantly kept in mind: (1) that the naturalistic fallacy must not be committed; (2) that the distinction between means and ends must be observed. (§ 38 ¶ 2)
§ 39.
I propose,
then, to begin by an examination of Mill’s Utilitarianism.
That is a book which contains an admirably clear and fair discussion of many
ethical principles and methods. Mill exposes not a few simple mistakes which are
very likely to be made by those who approach ethical problems without much
previous reflection. But what I am concerned with is the mistakes which Mill
himself appears to have made, and these only so far as they concern the
Hedonistic principle. Let me repeat what that principle is. It is, I said, that
pleasure is the only thing at which we ought to aim, the only thing that is good
as an end and for its own sake. And now let us turn to Mill and see whether he
accepts this description of the question at issue. Pleasure,
he
says at the outset, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends
(p.
10)*;
and again, at
the end of his argument, To think of an object as desirable (unless for
the sake of its consequences) and to think of it as pleasant are one and the
same thing
(p.
58). These statements, taken together, and apart from certain confusions
which are obvious in them, seem to imply the principle I have stated: and if I
succeed in shewing that Mill’s reasons for them do not prove them, it must at
least be admitted that I have not been fighting with shadows or demolishing a
man of straw. (§ 39 ¶ 1)
It will be observed that Mill adds absence of pain
to
pleasure
in his first statement, though not in his second. There is, in
this, a confusion, with which, however, we need not deal. I shall talk of
pleasure
alone, for the sake of conciseness; but all my arguments will
apply à fortiori to absence of pain
: it is
easy to make the necessary substitutions. (§ 39 ¶ 2)
Mill holds, then, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing
desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to
that end
(p.
52). Happiness he
has already defined as pleasure, and the absence of pain
(p.
10); he does not pretend that this is more than an
arbitrary verbal definition; and, as such, I
have not a word to say against it. His principle, then, is pleasure is the
only thing desirable,
if I may be allowed, when I say pleasure,
to
include in that word (so far as necessary) absence of pain. And now what are his
reasons for holding that principle to be true? He has already told us (p. 6)
that Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever
can be proved to be good, must be so by being shewn to be a means to something
admitted to be good without proof.
With this, I perfectly agree:
indeed the chief object of my first chapter was to shew
that this is so. Anything which is good as an end must be admitted to be good
without proof. We are agreed so far. Mill even uses the same examples which I
used in my second chapter. How,
he
says, is it possible to prove that health is good?
What proof is
it possible to give that pleasure is good?
Well, in Chapter
IV, in which he deals with the proof of his Utilitarian principle, Mill
repeats the above statement in these words: It has already,
he says,
been remarked, that questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the
ordinary acceptation of the term
(p.
52). Questions about ends,
he
goes on in this same passage, are, in other words, questions what things
are desirable.
I am quoting these repetitions, because they make it plain
what otherwise might have been doubted, that Mill is using the words
desirable
or desirable as an end
as absolutely and precisely
equivalent to the words good as an end.
We are, then, now to hear, what
reasons he advances for this doctrine that pleasure alone is good as an end.
(§ 39 ¶ 3)
§ 39, n. 1: My references are to the 13th edition, 1897. ↩
§ 39, n. 2: My italics. ↩
§ 40.
Questions
about ends,
he
says (pp. 52-3), are, in other words, questions about what things are
desirable. The utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable,
and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable
as means to that end. What ought to be required of this doctrine—what
conditions is it requisite that the doctrine should fulfil—to make good its
claim to be believed?
(§ 40 ¶ 1)
The only proof capable of being given that a thing is visible,
is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that
people hear it; and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I
apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is
desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the
utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice,
acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was
so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that
each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own
happiness. This, however, being the fact, we have not only all the proof which
the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a
good: that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general
happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made
out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of
the criteria of morality.
(§ 40 ¶ 2)
There, that is enough. That is my first point. Mill has made as
naïve and artless a use of the naturalistic fallacy as anybody could desire.
Good,
he tells us, means desirable,
and you can only find out what
is desirable by seeking to find out what is actually desired. This is, of
course, only one step towards the proof of Hedonism; for it may be, as Mill goes
on to say, that other things beside pleasure are desired. Whether or not
pleasure is the only thing desired is, as
Mill himself admits (p. 58), a psychological question, to which we shall
presently proceed. The important step for Ethics is this one just taken, the
step which pretends to prove that good
means desired.
(§ 40 ¶ 3)
Well, the fallacy in this step is so obvious, that it is quite
wonderful how Mill failed to see it. The fact is that desirable
does not
mean able to be desired
as visible
means able to be seen.
The desirable means simply what ought to be desired or
deserves to be desired; just as the detestable means not what can be
but what ought to be detested and the damnable what deserves to be damned. Mill
has, then, smuggled in, under cover of the word desirable,
the very
notion about which he ought to be quite clear. Desirable
does indeed mean
what it is good to desire
; but when this is understood, it is no longer
plausible to say that our only test of that, is what is actually
desired. Is it merely a tautology when the Prayer Book talks of good
desires? Are not bad desires also possible? Nay, we find Mill himself
talking of a better and nobler object of desire
(p.
10), as if, after all, what is desired were not ipso
facto good, and good in proportion to the amount it is desired. Moreover,
if the desired is ipso facto the good; then the good
is ipso facto the motive of our actions, and there
can be no question of finding motives for doing it, as Mill is at such pains to
do. If Mill’s explanation of desirable
be true, then his
statement (p.
26) that the rule of action may be confounded with the motive of it
is untrue; for the motive of action will then be according to him ipso facto its rule; there can be no distinction between
the two, and therefore no confusion, and thus he has contradicted himself
flatly. These are specimens of the contradictions, which, as I have tried to
shew, must always follow from the use of the naturalistic fallacy; and I hope I
need now say no more about the matter. (§ 40 ¶ 4)
§ 41.
Well, then,
the first step by which Mill has attempted to establish his Hedonism is simply
fallacious. He has attempted to establish the identity of the good with the
desired, by confusing the proper sense of desirable,
in which it denotes
that which it is good to desire, with the sense which it would bear if it were
analogous to such words as visible.
If desirable
is to be
identical with good,
then it must bear one sense; and if it is to be
identical with desired,
then it must bear quite another sense. And yet to
Mill’s contention that the desired is necessarily good, it is quite essential
that these two senses of desirable
should be the same. If he holds they
are the same, then he has contradicted himself elsewhere; if he holds they are
not the same, then the first step in his proof of Hedonism is absolutely
worthless. (§ 41 ¶ 1)
But now we must deal with the second step. Having proved, as he
thinks, that the good means the desired, Mill recognises that, if he is further
to maintain that pleasure alone is good, he must prove that pleasure alone is
really desired. This doctrine that pleasure alone is the object of all our
desires
is the doctrine which Prof. Sidgwick has called Psychological
Hedonism: and it is a doctrine which most eminent psychologists are now agreed
in rejecting. But it is a necessary step in the proof of any such Naturalistic
Hedonism as Mill’s; and it is so commonly held, by people not expert either in
psychology or in philosophy, that I wish to treat it at some length. It will be
seen that Mill does not hold it in its bare form. He admits that other things
than pleasure are desired; and this admission is at once a contradiction of his
Hedonism. One of the shifts by which he seeks to evade this contradiction we
shall afterwards consider. But some may think that no such shifts are needed:
they may say of Mill, what
Callicles says of Polus in the Gorgias, that he has made the
fatal admission through a most unworthy fear of appearing paradoxical; that
they, on the other hand, will have the courage of their convictions, and will
not be ashamed to go to any lengths of paradox, in defence of what they hold to
be the truth. (§ 41 ¶ 2)
§ 42.
Well, then, we
are supposing it held that pleasure is the object of all desire, that it is the
universal end of all human activity. Now I suppose it will not be denied that
people are commonly said to desire other things: for instance, we usually talk
of desiring food and drink, of desiring money, approbation, fame. The question,
then, must be of what is meant by desire, and by the object of desire. There is
obviously asserted some sort of necessary or universal relation between
something which is called desire, and another thing which is called pleasure.
The question is of what sort this relation is; whether in conjunction with the
naturalistic fallacy above mentioned, it will justify Hedonism. Now I am not
prepared to deny that there is some universal relation between pleasure and
desire; but I hope to shew, that, if there is, it is of such sort as will rather
make against than for Hedonism. It is urged that pleasure is always the object
of desire, and I am ready to admit that pleasure is always, in part at least,
the cause of desire. But this distinction is very important. Both views
might be expressed in the same language; both might be said to hold that
whenever we desire, we always desire because of some pleasure: if I
asked my supposed Hedonist, Why do you desire that?
he might answer,
quite consistently with his contention, Because there is pleasure there,
and if he asked me the same question, I might answer, equally consistently with
my contention, Because there is pleasure here.
Only our two answers would
not mean the same thing. It is this use of the same language to denote quite
different facts, which I believe to be the chief cause why Psychological
Hedonism is so often held, just as it was also the cause of Mill’s naturalistic
fallacy. (§ 42 ¶ 1)
Let us try to analyze the psychological state which is called
desire.
That name is usually confined to a state of mind in which the
idea of some object or event, not yet existing, is present to us. Suppose, for
instance, I am desiring a glass of port wine. I have the idea of drinking such a
glass before my mind, although I am not yet drinking it. Well, how does pleasure
enter in to this relation? My theory is that it enters in, in this way. The
idea of the drinking causes a feeling of pleasure in my mind, which
helps to produce that state of incipient activity, which is called
desire.
It is, therefore, because of a pleasure, which I already
have—the pleasure excited by a mere idea—that I desire the wine, which I have
not. And I am ready to admit that a pleasure of this kind, an actual pleasure,
is always among the causes of every desire, and not only of every desire, but of
every mental activity, whether conscious or sub-conscious. I am ready to
admit this, I say: I cannot vouch that iti s the true psychological
doctrine; but, at all events, it is not primâ facie
quite absurd. And now, what is the other doctrine, the doctrine which I am
supposing held, and which is at all events essential to Mill’s argument? It is
this. That when I desire the wine, it is not the wine which I desire but the
pleasure which I expect to get from it. In other words, the doctrine is that the
idea of a pleasure not actual is always necessary to cause desire. It
is these two different theories which I suppose the Psychological Hedonists to
confuse: the confusion is, as Mr
Bradley puts it, between a pleasant thought
and the thought of a
pleasure.
It is in fact only where the latter, the thought of a
pleasure,
is present, that pleasure can be said to be the object of
desire, or the motive to action. On the other hand, when only a
pleasant thought is present, as, I admit, may always be the case, then
it is the object of the thought—that which we are thinking about—which is the
object of desire and the motive to action; and the pleasure, which that thought
excites, may, indeed, cause our desire or move us to action, but it is not our
end or object nor our motive. (§ 42 ¶ 2)
Well, I hope this distinction is sufficiently clear. Now let us see how it bears upon Ethical Hedonism. I assume it to be perfectly obvious that the idea of the object of desire is not always and only the idea of a pleasure. In the first place, plainly, we are not always conscious of expecting pleasure, when we desire a thing. We may be only conscious of the thing which we desire, and may be impelled to make for it at once, without any calculation as to whether it will bring us pleasure or pain. And, in the second place, even when we do expect pleasure, it can certainly be very rarely pleasure only which we desire. For instance, granted that, when I desire my glass of port wine, I have also an idea of the pleasure I expect from it, plainly that pleasure cannot be the only object of my desire; the port wine must be included in my object, else I might be led by my desire to take wormwood instead of wine. If the desire were directed solely towards the pleasure, it could not lead me to take the wine; if it is to take a definite direction, it is absolutely necessary that the idea of the object, from which the pleasure is expected, should also be present and should control my activity. The theory then that what is desired is always and only pleasure must break down: it is impossible to prove that pleasure alone is good, by that line of argument. But, if we substitute for this theory, that other, possibly true, theory, that pleasure is always the cause of desire, then all the plausibility of our ethical doctrine that pleasure alone is good straightaway disappears. For in this case, pleasure is not what I desire, it is not what I want: it is something which I already have, before I can want anything. And can any one feel inclined to maintain, that that which I already have, while I am still desiring something else, is always and alone the good? (§ 42 ¶ 3)
§ 42, n. 1: Ethical Studies, p. 282. ↩
§ 43.
But now let us
return to consider another of Mill’s arguments for his position that
happiness is the sole end of human action.
Mill admits, as I have said,
that pleasure is not the only thing we actually desire. The desire of
virtue,
he
says, is not as universal, but is as authentic a fact, as the desire of happiness.
And
again, Money is, in many cases, desired in and for itself.
These admissions
are, of course, in naked and glaring contradiction with his argument that
pleasure is the only thing desirable, because it is the only thing desired. How
then does Mill even attempt to avoid this contradiction?
His
chief argument seems to be that virtue,
money
and other such objects, when they
are thus desired in and for themselves, are desired only as a part of happiness.
Now what does this mean? Happiness, as we saw, has
been defined by Mill, as pleasure and the absence of pain.
Does Mill
mean to say that money,
these actual coins, which he admits to be desired
in and for themselves, are a part either of pleasure or of the absence of pain?
Will he maintain that those coins themselves are in my mind, and actually a part
of my pleasant feelings? If this is to be said, all words are useless: nothing
can possibly be distinguished from anything else; if these two things are not
distinct, what on earth is? We shall hear next that this table is really and
truly the same thing as this room; that a cab-horse is in fact indistinguishable
from St Paul’s Cathedral; that this book of Mill’s which I hold in
my hand, because it was his pleasure to produce it, is now and at this moment a
part of the happiness which he felt many years ago and which has so long ceased
to be. Pray consider a moment what this contemptible nonsense really means.
Money,
says Mill, is only desirable as a means to happiness.
Perhaps so, but what then? Why,
says Mill, money is undoubtedly
desired for its own sake.
Yes, go on,
say we. Well,
says Mill,
if money is desired for its own sake, it must be desirable as an
end-in-itself: I have said so myself.
Oh,
say we, but you have
also said just now that it was only desirable as a means.
I own I
did,
says Mill, but I will try to patch up matters, by saying that what
is only a means to an end, is the same thing as a part of that end. I daresay
the public won’t notice.
And the public haven’t noticed. Yet
this is certainly what Mill has done. He has broken down the distinction between
means and ends, upon the precise observance of which his Hedonism rests. And he
has been compelled to do this, because he failed to distinguish end
in
the sense of what is desirable, from end
in the sense of what is desired:
a distinction which, nevertheless, both the present argument and his whole book
presupposes. This is a consequence of the naturalistic fallacy. (§ 43 ¶ 1)
§ 44.
Mill, then, has nothing better to say for himself than this. His
two fundamental propositions are, in
his own words, that to think of an object as
desirable (unless for the sake of its consequences), and to think of it as
pleasant, are one and the same thing; and that desire anything except in
proportion as the idea of it is pleasant, is a physical and metaphysical
impossibility.
Both of these statements are, we have seen, merely
supported by fallacies. The first seems to rest on the naturalistic fallacy; the
second rests partly on this, partly on the fallacy of confusing ends and means,
and partly on the fallacy of confusing a pleasant thought with the thought of a
pleasure. His very language shews this. For that the idea of a thing is
pleasant, in his second clause, is obviously meant to be the same fact which he
denotes by thinking of it as pleasant,
in his first. (§ 44 ¶ 1)
Accordingly, Mill’s arguments for the proposition that pleasure is the sole good, and our refutation of those arguments, may be summed up as follows: (§ 44 ¶ 2)
First of all, he takes the desirable,
which he uses as a
synonym for the good,
to mean what can be desired. The
test, again, of what can be desired, is, according to him, what actually is
desired: if, therefore, he says, we can find some one thing which is always and
alone desired, that thing will necessarily be the only thing that is desirable,
the only thing that is good as an end. In this argument the naturalistic fallacy
is plainly involved. That fallacy, I explained, consists in the contention that
good means nothing but some simple or complex notion, that can be
defined in terms of natural qualities. In Mill’s case, good is thus supposed to
mean simply what is desired; and what is desired is something which can
thus be defined in natural terms. Mill tells us that we ought to desire
something (an ethical proposition), because we actually do desire it; but if his
contention that I ought to desire
means nothing but I do desire
were true, then he is only entitled to say, We do desire so and so, because
we do desire it
; and that is not an ethical proposition at all; it is a mere
tautology. The whole object of Mill’s book is to help us to discover what we
ought to do; but in fact, by attempting to define the meaning of this
ought,
he has completely debarred himself from ever fulfilling that
object: he has confined himself to telling us what we do do. (§ 44 ¶ 3)
Mill’s first argument then is that, because good means desired, therefore the desired is good; but having thus arrived at an ethical conclusion, by denying that any ethical conclusion is possible, he still needs another argument to make his conclusion a basis for Hedonism. He has to prove that we always do desire pleasure or freedom from pain, and that we never desire anything else whatever. This second doctrine, which Professor Sidgwick has called Psychological Hedonism, I accordingly discussed. I pointed out how obviously untrue it is that we never desire anything but pleasure; and how there is not a shadow of ground for saying even that, whenever we desire anything, we always desire pleasure as well as that thing. I attributed the obstinate belief in these untruths partly to a confusion between the cause of desire and the object of desire. It may, I said, be true that desire can never occur unless it be preceded by some actual pleasure; but even if this is true, it obviously gives no ground for saying that the object of desire is always some future pleasure. By the object of desire is meant that, of which the idea causes desire in us; it is some pleasure, which we anticipate, some pleasure which we have not got, which is the object of desire, whenever we do desire pleasure. And any actual pleasure, which may be excited by the idea of this anticipated pleasure, is obviously not the same pleasure as that anticipated pleasure, of which only the idea is actual. This actual pleasure is not what we want; what we want is always something which we have not got; and to say that pleasure always causes us to want is quite a different thing from saying that what we want is always pleasure. (§ 44 ¶ 4)
Finally, we saw, Mill admits all this. He insists that we do actually desire other things than pleasure, and yet he says we do really desire nothing else. He tries to explain away this contradiction, by confusing together two notions, which he has before carefully distinguished—the notions of means and of end. He now says that a means to an end is the same thing as a part of that end. To this last fallacy special attention should be given, as our ultimate decision with regard to Hedonism will largely turn upon it. (§ 44 ¶ 5)
§ 45.
It is this ultimate decision with regard to Hedonism at which we
must now try to arrive. So far I have been only occupied with refuting
Mill’s naturalistic arguments for Hedonism; but the doctrine that pleasure
alone is desirable may still be true, although Mill’s fallacies cannot
prove it so. This is the question which we have now to face. This proposition,
pleasure alone is good or desirable,
belongs undoubtedly to that class of
propositions, to which Mill at first rightly pretended it belonged, the class of
first principles, which are notamenable to direct proof. But in this case, as he
also rightly says, considerations may be presented capable of determining
the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine
(p.
7). It is such considerations that Professor Sidgwick presents, and such
also that I shall try to present for the opposite view. This proposition that
pleasure alone is good as an end,
the fundamental proposition of Ethical
Hedonism, will then appear, in Professor Sidgwick’s language, as an object
of intuition. I shall try to shew you why my intuition denies it, just as his
intuition affirms it. It may always be true notwithstanding; neither
intuition can prove whether it is true or not; I am bound to be
satisfied, if I can present considerations capable of determining the
intellect
to reject it. (§ 45 ¶ 1)
Now it may be said that this is a very unsatisfactory state of
things. It is indeed; but it is important to make a distinction between two
different reasons, which may be given for calling it unsatisfactory. Is it
unsatisfactory because our principle cannot be proved? or is it unsatisfactory
merely because we do not agree with one another about it? I am inclined to think
that the latter is the chief reason. For the mere fact that in certain cases
proof is impossible does not usually give us the least uneasiness. For instance,
nobody can prove that there is a chair beside me; yet I do not suppose that any
one is much dissatisfied for that reason. We all agree that it is a chair, and
that is enough to content us, although it is quite possible we may be wrong. A
madman, of course, might come in and say that it is not a chair but an elephant.
We could not prove that he was wrong, and the fact that he did not agree with us
might then begin to make us uneasy. Much more, then, shall we be uneasy, if some
one, whom we do not think to be mad, disagrees with us. We shall try to argue
with him, and we shall probably be content if we lead him to agree with us,
although we shall not have proved our point. We can only persuade him by shewing
him that our view is consistent with something else which he holds to be true,
whereas his original view is contradictory to it. But it will be impossible to
prove that that something else, which we both agree to be true, is really so; we
shall be satisfied to have settled the matter in dispute by means of it, merely
because we are agreed on it. In short, our dissatisfaction in these cases is
almost always of the type felt by the poor lunatic in the story. I said the
world was mad,
says he, and the world said that I was mad; and, confound
it, they outvoted me.
It is, I say, almost always such a disagreement, and
not the impossibility of proof, which makes us call the state of things
unsatisfactory. For, indeed, who can prove that proof itself is a warrant of
truth? We are all agreed that the laws of logic are true and therefore we accept
a result which is proved by their means; but such a proof is satisfactory to us
only because we are all so fully agreed that it is a warrant of truth. And yet
we cannot, by the nature of the case, prove that we are right in being so
agreed. (§ 45 ¶ 2)
Accordingly, I do not think we need be much distressed by our admission that we cannot prove whether pleasure alone is good or not. We may be able to arrive at an agreement notwithstanding; and if so, I think it will be satisfactory. And yet I am not very sanguine about our prospects of such satisfaction. Ethics, and philosophy in general, have always been in a peculiarly unsatisfactory state. There has been no agreement about them, as there is about the existence of chairs and lights and benches. I should therefore be a fool if I hoped to settle one great point of controversy, now and once for all. It is extremely improbable I shall convince. It would be highly presumptuous even to hope that in the end, say two or three centuries hence, it will be agreed that pleasure is not the sole good. Philosophical questions are so difficult, the problems they raise are so complex, that no one can fairly expect, now, any more than in the past, to win more than a very limited assent. And yet I confess that the considerations which I am about to present appear to me to be absolutely convincing. I do think that they ought to convince, if only I can put them well. In any case, I can but try. I shall try now to put an end to that unsatisfactory state of things, of which I have been speaking. I shall try to produce an agreement that the fundamental principle of Hedonism is very like an absurdity, by shewing what it must mean, if it is clearly thought out, and how that clear meaning is in conflict with other beliefs, which will, I hope, not be so easily given up. (§ 45 ¶ 3)
§ 46.
Well, then, we
now proceed to discuss Intuitionistic Hedonism. And the beginning of this
discussion marks, it is to be observed, a turning-point in my ethical method.
The point I have been labouring hitherto, the point that good is
indefinable,
and that to deny this involves a fallacy, is a point capable of
strict proof: for to deny it involves contradictions. But now we are coming to
the question, for the sake of answering which Ethics exists, the question what
things or qualities are good. Of any answer to this question no direct
proof is possible, and that, just because of our former answer, as to the
meaning of good, direct proof was possible. We are now confined to the
hope of what Mill calls indirect proof,
the hope of determining one
another’s intellect; and we are now so confined, just because, in the matter of
the former question we are not so confined. Here, then, is an intuition to be
submitted to our verdict—the intuition that pleasure alone is good as an
end—good in and for itself.
(§ 46 ¶ 1)
§ 47.
Well, in
this connection, it seems first desirable to touch on another doctrine of
Mill’s—another doctrine which, in the interest of Hedonism,
Professor Sidgwick has done very wisely to reject. This is the doctrine of
difference of quality in pleasures.
If I am asked,
says Mill, what I mean
by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable
than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is
but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or
almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective
of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable
pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competantly acquainted with
both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it
to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for
any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are
justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so
far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.
(§ 47 ¶ 1)
Now it is well known that Bentham rested his case for Hedonism on
quantity of pleasure
alone. It was his maxim, that quantity of
pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.
And Mill apparently
considers Bentham to have proved that nevertheless poetry is better than
pushpin; that poetry does produce a greater quantity of pleasure. But yet,
says
Mill, the Utilitarians might have taken the other and, as it may
be called, higher ground, with entire consistency
(p.
11). Now we see from this that Mill acknowledges quality of pleasure
to be another or different ground for estimating pleasures, than Bentham’s
quantity; and moreover, by that question-begging higher,
which he
afterwards translates into superior,
he seems to betray an uncomfortable
feeling, that, after all, if you take quantity of pleasure for your only
standard, something may be wrong and you may deserve to be called a pig. And it
may presently appear that you very likely would deserve this name. But,
meanwhile, I only wish to shew that Mill’s admissions as to the quality of
pleasure are either inconsistent with his Hedonism, or else afford no other
ground for it than would be given by mere quantity of pleasure. (§ 47 ¶ 2)
It will be seen that Mill’s test for one pleasure’s superiority in
quality over another is the preference of most people who have experienced both.
A pleasure so preferred, he holds, is more desirable. But then, as we have
seen, he
holds that to think of an object as desirable and to think of it as
pleasant are one and the same thing
(p.
58). He holds,
therefore, that the preference of experts merely proves that one pleasure is
pleasanter than another. But if that is so, how can he distinguish this standard
from the standard of quantity of pleasure? Can one pleasure be pleasanter than
another, except in the sense that it gives more pleasure?
Pleasant
must, if words are to have any meaning at all, denote some one
quality common to all things that are pleasant; and, if so, then one thing can
only be more pleasant than another, according as it has more or less of this one
quality. But, then, let us try the other alternative, and suppose that Mill does
not seriously mean that this preference of experts merely proves one pleasure to
be pleasanter than another. Well, in this case, what does preferred
mean?
It cannot mean more desired,
since, as we know, the degree of desire is
always, according to Mill, in exact proportion to the degree of pleasantness.
But, in that case, the basis of Mill’s Hedonism collapses, for he is admitting
that one thing may be preferred over another, and thus proved more desirable,
although it is not more desired. In this case, Mill’s judgment of preference is
just a judgment of that intuitional kind which I have been contending to be
necessary to establish the hedonistic or any other principle. It is a direct
judgment that one thing is more desirable, or better than another; a judgment
utterly independent of all considerations as to whether one thing is more
desired or pleasanter than another. This is to admit that good is good and
indefinable. (§ 47 ¶ 3)
§ 48.
And note
another point that is brought out by this discussion. Mill’s judgment of
preference, so far from establishing the principle that pleasure alone is good,
is obviously inconsistent with it. He admits that experts can judge whether one
pleasure is more desirable than another, because pleasures differ in quality.
But what does this mean? If one pleasure can differ from another in quality,
that means, that a pleasure is something complex, something composed,
in fact, of pleasure in addition to that which produces pleasure. For
instance, Mill speaks of sensual indulgences
as lower pleasures.
But what is a sensual indulgence? It is surely a certain excitement of some
sense together with the pleasure caused by such excitement. Mill,
therefore, in admitting that a sensual indulgence can be directly judged to be
lower than another pleasure, in which the degree of pleasure involved may be the
same, is admitting that other things may be good, or bad, quite independently of
the pleasure which accompanies them. A pleasure is, in fact, merely a
misleading term which conceals the fact that what we are dealing with is not
pleasure but something else, which may indeed necessarily produce pleasure, but
is nevertheless quite distinct from it. (§ 48 ¶ 1)
Mill, therefore, in thinking that to estimate quality of pleasure is quite consistent with his hedonistic principle that pleasure and absence of pain alone are desirable as ends has again committed the fallacy of confusing ends and means. For take even the most favourable supposition of his meaning; let us suppose that by a pleasure he does not mean, as his words imply, that which produces pleasure and the pleasure produced. Let us suppose him to mean that there are various kinds of pleasure, in the sense in which there are various kinds of colour—blue, red, green, etc. Even in this case, if we are to say that our end is colour alone, then, although it is impossible we should have colour without having some particular colour, yet the particular colour we must have, is only a means to our having colour, if colour is really our end. And if colour is our only possible end, as Mill says pleasure is, then there can be no possible reason for preferring one colour to another, red, for instance, to blue, except that the one is more of a colour than the other. Yet the opposite of this is what Mill is attempting to hold with regard to pleasures. (§ 48 ¶ 2)
Accordingly a consideration of Mill’s view that some pleasures are
superior to others in quality brings out one point which may help to
determine the intellect
with regard to the intuition Pleasure is the only
good.
For it brings out the fact that if you say pleasure,
you must
mean pleasure
: you must mean some one thing common to all different
pleasures,
some one thing, which may exist in different degrees, but
which cannot differ in kind. I have pointed out that, if you say, as
Mill does, that quality of pleasure is to be taken into account, then you are no
longer holding that pleasure alone is good as an end, since you imply
that something else, something which is not present in all pleasures,
is also good as an end. The illustration I have given from colour
expresses this point in its most acute form. It is plain that if you say
Colour alone is good as an end,
then you can give no possible reason for
preferring one colour to another. Your only standard of good and bad will then
be colour
; and since red and blue both conform equally to this, the only
standard, you can have no other whereby to judge whether red is better than
blue. It is true that you cannot have colour unless you also have one or all of
the particular colours: they, therefore, if colour is the end, will all be good
as means, but none of them can be better than another even as a means, far less
can any one of them be regarded as an end in itself. Just so with pleasure: If
we do really mean Pleasure alone is good as an end,
then we must agree
with Bentham that Quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as
poetry.
To have thus dismissed Mill’s reference to quality of pleasure, is
therefore to have made one step in the desired direction. The reader will now no
longer be prevented from agreeing with me, by any idea that the hedonistic
principle Pleasure alone is good as an end
is consistent with the view
that one pleasure may be of a better quality than another. These two views, we
have seen, are contradictory to one another. We must choose between them: and if
we choose the latter, then we must give up the principle of Hedonism. (§ 48 ¶ 3)
§ 49.
But, as I
said, Professor Sidgwick has seen that they are inconsistent. He has seen that
he must choose between them. He has chosen. He has rejected the test by quality
of pleasure, and has accepted the hedonistic principle. He still maintains that
Pleasure alone is good as an end.
I propose therefore to discuss the
considerations which he has offered in order to convince us. I shall hope that
discussion to remove some more of such prejudices and misunderstandings as might
prevent agreement with me. If I can shew that some of the considerations which
Professor Sidgwick urges are such as we need by no means agree with, and that
others are actually rather in my favour than in his, we may have again advanced
a few steps nearer to the unanimity which we desire. (§ 49 ¶ 1)
§ 50.
The passages in the Methods of Ethics to which I shall now invite attention are to be found in I. IX. 4 and in III. XIV. 4—5. (§ 50 ¶ 1)
The first of these two passages runs as follows:(§ 50 ¶ 2)
I think that if we consider carefully such permanent results as are commonly judged to be good, other than qualities of human beings, we can find nothing that, on reflection, appears to possess this quality of goodness out of relation to human existence, or at least to some consciousness or feeling. (§ 50 ¶ 3)
For example, we commonly judge some inanimate objects, scenes, etc. to be good as possessing beauty, and others bad from ugliness: still no one would consider it rational to aim at the production of beauty in external nature, apart from any possible contemplation of it by human beings. In fact when beauty is maintained to be objective, it is not commonly meant that it exists as beauty out of relation to any mind whatsoever: but only that there is some standard of beauty valid for all minds. (§ 50 ¶ 4)
It may, however, be said that beauty and other results commonly judged to be good, though we do not conceive them to exist out of relation to human beings (or at least minds of some kind), are yet so far separable as ends from the human beings on whom their existence depends, that their realisation may conceivably come into competition with the perfection or happiness of these beings. Thus, though beautiful things cannot be thought worth producing except as possible objects of contemplation, still a man may devote himself to their production without any consideration of the persons who are to contemplate them. Similarly knowledge is a good which cannot exist except in minds; and yet one may be more interested in the development of knowledge than in its possession by any particular minds; and may take the former as an ultimate end without regarding the latter. (§ 50 ¶ 5)
Still, as soon as the alternatives are clearly apprehended, it will, I think, be generally held that beauty, knowledge, and other ideal goods, as well as all external material things, are only reasonably to be sought by men in so far as they conduce either (1) to Happiness or (2) to the Perfection or Excellence of human existence. I say
human,for though most utilitarians consider the pleasure (and freedom from pain) of the inferior animals to be included in the Happiness which they take as the right and proper end of conduct, no one seems to contend that we ought to aim at perfecting brutes, except as a means to our ends, or at least as objects of scientific or aesthetic contemplation for us. Nor, again, can we include, as a practical end, the existence of beings above the human. We certainly apply the idea of Good to the Divine Existence, just as we do to His work, and indeed in a pre-eminent manner: and when it is said thatwe should do all things to the glory of God,it may seem to be implied that the existence of God is made better by our glorifying Him. Still this inference when explicitly drawn appears somewhat impious and theologians generally recoil from it, and refrain from using the notion of a possible addition to the Goodness of the Divine Existence as a ground of human duty. Nor can the influence of our actions on other extra-human intelligences besides the Divine be at present made matter of scientific discussion. (§ 50 ¶ 6)I shall therefore confidently lay down, that if there be any Good other than Happiness to be sought by man, as an ultimate practical end, it can only be the Goodness, Perfection, or Excellence of Human Existence. How far this notion includes more than Virtue, what its precise relation to Pleasure is, and to what method we shall be logically led if we accept it as fundamental, are questions which we shall more conveniently discuss after the detailed examination of these two other notions, Pleasure and Virtue, in which we shall be engaged in the two following Books. (§ 50 ¶ 7)
It will be observed that in this passage Prof. Sidgwick tries to limit the range of objects among which the ultimate end may be found. He does not yet say what that end is, but he does exclude from it everything but certain characters of Human Existence. And the possible ends, which he thus excludes, do not again come up for consideration. They are put out of court once and for all by this passage and by this passage only. Now is this exclusion justified?(§ 50 ¶ 8)
I cannot think it is. No one,
says
Prof. Sidgwick, would consider it rational to aim at the production of
beauty in external nature, apart from any possible contemplation of it by human
beings.
Well, I may say at once, that I, for one, do consider this rational;
and let us see if I cannot get any one to agree with me. Consider what this
admission really means. It entitles us to put the following case. Let us imagine
one world exceedingly beautiful. Imagine it as beautiful as you can; put into it
whatever on this earth you most admire—mountains, rivers, the sea; trees, and
sunsets, stars and moon. Imagine these all combined in the most exquisite
proportions, so that no one thing jars against another, but each contributes to
the beauty of the whole. And then imagine the ugliest world you can possibly
conceive. Imagine it simply one heap of filth, containing everything that is
most disgusting to us, for whatever reason, and the whole, as far as may be,
without one redeeming feature. Such a pair of worlds we are entitled to compare:
they fall within Prof. Sidgwick’s meaning, and the comparison is highly relevant
to it. The only thing we are not entitled to imagine is that any human being
ever has or ever, by any possibility, can, live in either, can ever see
and enjoy the beauty of the one or hate the foulness of the other. Well, even
so, supposing them quite apart from any possible contemplation by human beings;
still, is it irrational to hold that it is better that the beautiful world
should exist than the one which is ugly? Would it not be well, in any case, to
do what we could to produce it rather than the other? Certainly I cannot help
thinking that it would; and I hope that some may agree with me in this extreme
instance. The instance is extreme. It is highly improbable, not to say,
impossible, we should ever have such a choice before us. In any actual choice we
should have to consider the possible effects of our action upon conscious
beings, and among these possible effects there are always some, I think, which
ought to be preferred to the existence of mere beauty. But this only means that
in our present state, in which but a very small portion of the good is
attainable, the pursuit of beauty for its own sake must always be postponed to
the pursuit of some greater good, which is equally attainable. But it is enough
for my purpose, if it be admitted that, supposing no greater good were
at all attainable, then beauty must in itself be regarded as a greater good than
ugliness; if it be admitted that, in that case, we should not be left without
any reason for preferring one course of action to another, we should not be left
without any duty whatever, but that it would then be our positive duty to make
the world more beautiful, so far as we were able, since nothing better than
beauty could then result from our efforts. If this be once admitted, if in any
imaginable case you do admit that the existence of a more beautiful thing is
better in itself than that of one more ugly, quite apart from its effects on any
human feeling, then Prof. Sidgwick’s principle has broken down. Then we shall
have to include in our ultimate end something beyond the limits of human
existence. I admit, of course, that our beautiful world would be better still,
if there were human beings in it to contemplate and enjoy its beauty. But that
admission makes nothing against my point. If it be once admitted that the
beautiful world in itself is better than the ugly, then it follows,
that however many beings may enjoy it, and however much better their enjoyment
may be than it is itself, yet its mere existence adds something to the
goodness of the whole: it is not only a means to our end, but also itself a part
thereof. (§ 50 ¶ 9)
§ 51.
In the second passage to which I referred above, Prof. Sidgwick returns from the discussion of Virtue and Pleasure, with which he has meanwhile been engaged, to consider what among the parts of Human Existence to which, as we saw, he has limited the ultimate end, can really be considered as such end. What I have just said, of course, appears to me to destroy the force of this part of his argument too. If, as I think, other things than any part of Human Existence can be ends-in-themselves, then Prof. Sidgwick cannot claim to have discovered the Summum Bonum, when he has merely determined what parts of Human Existence are in themselves desirable. But this error may be admitted to be utterly insignificant in comparison with that which we are now about to discuss. (§ 51 ¶ 1)
It may be said,
says
Prof. Sidgwick (III. XIV. §§ 4—5), that we may … regard
cognition of Truth, contemplation of Beauty, Free or Virtuous action, as in some
measure preferable alternatives to Pleasure or Happiness—even though we admit
that Happiness must be included as a part of Ultimate Good…. I think, however,
that this view ought not to commend itself to the sober judgment of reflective
persons. In order to show this, I must ask the reader to use the same twofold
procedure that I before requested him to employ in considering the absolute and
independent validity of common moral precepts. I appeal firstly to his intuitive
judgment after due consideration of the question when fairly placed before it:
and secondly to a comprehensive comparison of the ordinary judgments of mankind.
As regards the first argument, to me at least it seems clear after reflection
that these objective relations of the conscious subject, when distinguished from
the consciousness accompanying and resulting from them, are not ultimately and
intrinsically desirable; any more than material or other objects are, when
considered apart from any relation to conscious existence. Admitting that we
have actual experience of such preferences as have just been described, of which
the ultimate object is something that is not merely consciousness: it still
seems to me that when (to use Butler’s phrase) we
(§ 51 ¶ 2)sit down in a cool hour,
we can only justify to ourselves the importance that we attach to any of these
objects by considering its conduciveness, in one way or another, to the
happiness of sentient beings.
The second argument, that refers to the common sense of mankind, obviously cannot be made completely cogent; since, as above stated, several cultivated persons do habitually judge that knowledge, art, etc.,—not to speak of Virtue—are ends independently of the pleasure derived from them. But we may urge not only that all these elements of
ideal goodare productive of pleasure in various ways; but also that they seem to obtain the commendation of Common Sense, roughly speaking, in proportion to the degree of this productiveness. This seems obviously true of Beauty; and will hardly be denied in respect of any kind of social ideal: it is paradoxical to maintain that any degree of Freedom, or any form of social order, would still be commonly regarded as desirable even if we were certain that it had no tendency to promote the general happiness. The case of Knowledge is rather more complex; but certainly Common Sense is most impressed with the value of knowledge, when itsfruitfulnesshas been demonstrated. It is, however, aware that experience has frequently shown bow knowledge, long fruitless, may become unexpectedly fruitful, and how light may be shed on one part of the field of knowledge from another apparently remote: and even if any particular branch of scientific pursuit could be shown to be devoid of even this indirect utility, it would still deserve some respect on utilitarian grounds; both as furnishing to the inquirer the refined and innocent pleasures of curiosity, and because the intellectual disposition which it exhibits and sustains is likely on the whole to produce fruitful knowledge. Still in cases approximating to this last, Common Sense is somewhat disposed to complain of the misdirection of valuable effort; so that the meed of honour commonly paid to Science seems to be graduated, though perhaps unconsciously, by a tolerably exact utilitarian scale. Certainly the moment the legitimacy of any branch of scientific inquiry is seriously disputed, as in the recent case of vivisection, the controversy on both sides is generally conducted on an avowedly utilitarian basis. (§ 51 ¶ 3)The case of Virtue requires special consideration: since the encouragement in each other of virtuous impulses and dispositions is a main aim of men’s ordinary moral discourse; so that even to raise the question whether this encouragement can go too far has a paradoxical air. Still, our experience includes rare and exceptional cases in which the concentration of effort on the cultivation of virtue has seemed to have effects adverse to general happiness, through being intensified to the point of moral fanaticism, and so involving a neglect of other conditions of happiness. If, then, we admit as actual or possible such
infelicificeffects of the cultivation of Virtue, I think we shall also generally admit that, in the case supposed, conduciveness to general happiness should be the criterion for deciding how far the cultivation of Virtue should be carried. (§ 51 ¶ 4)
There we have Prof. Sidgwick’s argument completed. We ought not, he thinks, to aim at knowing the Truth, or at contemplating Beauty, except in so far as such knowledge or such contemplation contributes to increase the pleasure or to diminish the pain of sentient beings. Pleasure alone is good for its own sake: knowledge of the Truth is good only as a means to pleasure. (§ 51 ¶ 5)
§ 52.
Let us consider what this means. What is pleasure? It is certainly something of which we may be conscious, and which, therefore, may be distinguished from our consciousness of it. What I wish first to ask is this: Can it really be said that we value pleasure, except in so far as we are conscious of it? Should we think that the attainment of pleasure, of which we never were and never could be conscious, was something to be aimed at for its own sake? It may be impossible that such pleasure should ever exist, that it should ever be thus divorced from consciousness; although there is certainly much reason to believe that it is not only possible but very common. But, even supposing that it were impossible, that is quite irrelevant. Our question is: Is it the pleasure, as distinct from the consciousness of it, that we set value on? Do we think the pleasure valuable in itself, or must we insist that, if we are to think the pleasure good, we must have consciousness of it too?(§ 52 ¶ 1)
This consideration is very well put by Socrates in Plato’s dialogue Philebus (21 A). (§ 52 ¶ 2)
Would you accept, Protarchus,
says Socrates, to
live your whole life in the enjoyment of the greatest pleasures?
Of
course I would,
says Protrarchus. (§ 52 ¶ 3)
Socrates. Then would you think you needed anything else besides, if you possessed this one blessing in completeness?(§ 52 ¶ 4)
Protarchus. Certainly not. (§ 52 ¶ 5)
Socrates. Consider what you are saying. You would not need to be wise and intelligent and reasonable, nor anything like this? Would you not even care to keep your sight?(§ 52 ¶ 6)
Protarchus. Why should I? I suppose I should have all I want, if I was pleased. (§ 52 ¶ 7)
Socrates. Well, then, supposing you lived so, you would enjoy always throughout your life the greatest pleasure?(§ 52 ¶ 8)
Protarchus. Of course. (§ 52 ¶ 9)
Socrates. But, on the other hand, inasmuch as you would not possess intelligence and memory and knowledge and true opinion, you would, in the first place, necessarily be without the knowledge whether you were pleased or not. For you would be devoid of any kind of wisdom. You admit this?(§ 52 ¶ 10)
Protarchus. I do. The consequence is absolutely necessary. (§ 52 ¶ 11)
Socrates. Well, then, besides this, not having memory, you must also be unable to remember even that you ever were pleased; of the pleasure which falls upon you at the moment not the least vestige must afterwards remain. And again, not having true opinion, you cannot think that you are pleased when you are; and, being bereft of your reasoning faculties, you cannot even have the power to reckon that you will be pleased in future. You must live the life of an oyster, or of some other of those living creatures, whose home is the seas and whose souls are concealed in shelly bodies. Is all this so, or can we think otherwise than this?(§ 52 ¶ 12)
Protarchus. How can we?(§ 52 ¶ 13)
Socrates. Well, then, can we think such a life desirable?(§ 52 ¶ 14)
Protarchus. Socrates, your reasoning has left me utterly dumb. (§ 52 ¶ 15)
Socrates, we see, persuades Protarchus that Hedonism is absurd. If we are really going to maintain that pleasure alone is good as an end, we must maintain that it is good, whether we are conscious of it or not. We must declare it reasonable to take as our ideal (an unattainable ideal it may be) that we should be as happy as possible, even on condition that we never know and never can know that we are happy. We must be willing to sell in exchange for the mere happiness ever vestige of knowledge, both in ourselves and in others, both of happiness itself and of every other thing. Can we really still disagree? Can any one still declare it obvious that this is reasonable? That pleasure alone is good as an end?(§ 52 ¶ 16)
The case, it is plain, is just like that of the colours, only, as yet, not nearly so strong. It is far more possible that we should some day be able to produce the intensest pleasure, without any consciousness that it is there, than that we should be able to produce more colour, without its being any particular colour. Pleasure and consciousness can be far more easily distinguished from one another, than colour from the particular colours. And yet even if this were not so, we should be bound to distinguish them if we really wished to declare pleasure alone to be our ultimate end. Even if consciousness were an inseparable accompaniment of pleasure, a sine quâ non of its existence, yet, if pleasure is the only end, we are bound to call consciousness a mere means to it, in any intelligible sense that can be given to the word means. And if, on the other hand, as I hope is now plain, the pleasure would be comparatively valueless without the consciousness, then we are bound to say that pleasure is not the only end, that some consciousness at least must be included with it as a veritable part of the end. (§ 52 ¶ 17)
For our question is now solely what the end is: it is quite
another question how far that end may be attainable by itself, or must
involve the simultaneous attainment of other things. It may well be that the
practical conclusions at which Utilitarians do arrive, and even those
at which they ought logically to arrive, are not far from the truth. But in so
far as their reason for holding these conclusions to be true is that
Pleasure alone is good as an end,
they are absolutely wrong: and
it is with reasons that we are chiefly concerned in any scientific
Ethics. (§ 52 ¶ 18)
§ 52, n. 1: § 48 sup. ↩
§ 53.
It seems, then, clear that Hedonism is in error, so far as it maintains that pleasure alone, and not the consciousness of pleasure, is the sole good. And this error seems largely due to the fallacy which I pointed out above in Mill—the fallacy of confusing means and end. It is falsely supposed that, since pleasure must always be accompanied by consciousness (which is, itself, extremely doubtful), therefore it is indifferent whether we say that pleasure or the consciousness of pleasure is the sole good. Practically, of course, it would be indifferent at which we aimed, if it were certain that we could not get the one without the other; but where the question is of what is good in itself—where we ask: For the sake of what is it desirable to get that which we aim at?—the distinction is by no means unimportant. Here we are placed before an exclusive alternative. Either pleasure by itself (even though we can’t get it) would be all that is desirable, or a consciousness of it would be more desirable still. Both these propositions cannot be true, and I think it is plain that the latter is true; whence it follows that pleasure is not the sole good. (§ 53 ¶ 1)
Still it may be said that, even if consciousness of pleasure, and not pleasure alone, is the sole good, this conclusion is not very damaging to Hedonism. It may be said that Hedonists have always meant by pleasure the consciousness of pleasure, though they have not been at pains to say so; and this, I think is, in the main, true. To correct their formula in this respect could, therefore, only be a matter of practical importance, if it is possible to produce pleasure without producing consciousness of it. But even this importance, which I think our conclusion so far really has, is, I admit, comparatively slight. What I wish to maintain is that even consciousness of pleasure is not the sole good: that, indeed, it is absurd so to regard it. And the chief importance of what has been said so far lies in the fact that the same method, which shews that consciousness of pleasure is more valuable than pleasure, seems also to shew that consciousness of pleasure is itself far less valuable than other things. The supposition that consciousness of pleasure is the sole good is due to a neglect of the same distinctions which have encouraged the careless assertion that pleasure is the sole good. (§ 53 ¶ 2)
The method which I employed in order to shew that pleasure itself was not the sole good, was that of considering what value we should attach to it, if it existed in absolute isolation, stripped of all its usual accompaniments. And this is, in fact, the only method that can be safely used, when we wish to discover what degree of value a thing has in itself. The necessity of employing this method will be best established by a discussion of the arguments used by Prof. Sidgwick in the passage last quoted, and by an exposure of the manner in which they are calculated to mislead. (§ 53 ¶ 3)
§ 54.
With regard to
the
second of them, it only maintains that other things, which might be supposed
to share with pleasure the attribute of goodness, seem to obtain the commendation of Common Sense, roughly speaking, in
proportion to the degree
of their productiveness of pleasure. Whether even
this rough proportion holds between the commendation of Common Sense and the
felicific effects of that which it commends is a question extremely difficult to
determine; and we need not enter into it here. For, even assuming it to be true,
and assuming the judgments of Common Sense to be on the whole correct, what
would it shew? It would shew, certainly, that pleasure was a good
criterion of right action—that the same conduct which produced most
pleasure would also produce most good on the whole. But this would by no means
entitle us to the conclusion that the greatest pleasure constituted
what was best on the whole: it would still leave open the alternative that the
greatest quantity of pleasure was as a matter of fact, under actual
conditions, generally accompanied by the greatest quantity of other
goods, and that it therefore was not the sole good. It might
indeed seem to be a strange coincidence that these two things should always,
even in this world, be in proportion to one another. But the strangeness of this
coincidence will certainly not entitle us to argue directly that it does not
exist—that it is an illusion, due to the fact that pleasure is really the sole
good. The coincidence may be susceptible of other explanations; and it would
even be our duty to accept it unexplained, if direct intuition seemed to declare
that pleasure was not the sole good. Moreover it must be remembered that the
need for assuming such a coincidence rests in any case upon the extremely
doubtful proposition that felicific effects are roughly in proportion
to the approval of Common Sense. And it should be observed that, though Prof.
Sidgwick maintains this to be the case, his detailed illustrations only tend to
shew the very different proposition that a thing is not held to be good, unless
it gives a balance of pleasure; not that the degree of commendation is in
proportion to the quantity of pleasure. (§ 54 ¶ 1)
§ 55.
The decision,
then, must rest upon Prof.
Sidgwick’s first argument—the appeal
to our intuitive judgment
after due consideration of the question when fairly placed before it.
And
here it seems to me plain that Prof. Sidgwick has failed, in two essential
respects, to place the question fairly before either himself or his reader. (§ 55 ¶ 1)
(1) What he has to shew is, as
he says himself, not merely that Happiness must be included as a part of
Ultimate Good.
This view, he
says, ought not to commend itself to the sober judgment of reflective
persons.
And why? Because these objective relations, when distinguished
from the consciousness accompanying and resulting from them, are not ultimately
and intrinsically desirable.
Now, this reason, which is offered as shewing
that to consider Happiness as a mere part of Ultimate Good does not meet the
facts of intuition, is, on the contrary, only sufficient to shew that it
is a part of Ultimate Good. For from the fact that no value resides in
one part of a whole, considered by itself, we cannot infer that all the value
belonging to the whole does reside in the other part, considered by itself. Even
if we admit that there is much value in the enjoyment of Beauty, and none in the
mere contemplation of it, which is one of the constituents of that complex fact,
it does not follow that all the value belongs to the other constituent, namely,
the pleasure which we take in contemplating it. It is quite possible that this
constituent also has no value in itself; that the value belongs to the whole
state, and to that only: so that both the pleasure and the
contemplation are mere parts of the good, and both of them equally necessary
parts. In short, Prof. Sidgwick’s argument here depends upon the neglect of that
principle, which I tried to explain in my first chapter and which I said I should call the
principle of organic relations.
The argument is calculated to mislead,
because it supposes that, if we see a whole state to be valuable, and also see
that one element of that state has no value by
itself, then the other element, by itself, must have all the value
which belongs to the whole state. The fact is, on the contrary, that, since the
whole may be organic, the other element need have no value whatever, and that
even if it have some, the value of the whole may be very much greater. For this
reason, as well as to avoid confusion between means and end, it is absolutely
essential to consider each distinguishing quality, in isolation, in
order to decide what value it possesses. Prof. Sidgwick, on the other hand,
applies this method of isolation only to one element in the wholes he
is considering. He does not ask the question: If consciousness of pleasure
existed absolutely by itself, would a sober judgment be able to attribute much
value to it? It is, in fact, always misleading to take a whole, that is
valuable (or the reverse), and then to ask simply: To which of its constituents
does this whole owe its value or its vileness? It may well be that it owes it to
none; and, if one of them does appear to have some value in itself, we
shall be led into the grave error of supposing that all the value of the whole
belongs to it alone. It seems to me that this error has commonly been committed
with regard to pleasure. Pleasure does seem to be a necessary constituent of
most valuable wholes; and, since the other constituents, into which we may
analyse them, may easily seem not to have any value, it is natural to suppose
that all the value belongs to pleasure. That this natural supposition does not
follow from the premises is certain; and that it is, on the contrary,
ridiculously far from the truth appears evident to my reflective
judgment.
If we apply either to pleasure or to consciousness of pleasure the
only safe method, that of isolation, and ask ourselves: Could we accept, as a
very good thing, that mere consciousness of pleasure, and absolutely nothing
else, should exist, even in the greatest quantities? I think we can have no
doubt about answering: No. Far less can we accept this as the sole
good. Even if we accept Prof. Sidgwick’s implication (which yet appears to me
extremely doubtful) that consciousness of pleasure has a greater value by itself
than Contemplation of Beauty, it seems to me that a pleasurable Contemplation of
Beauty has certainly an immeasurably greater value than mere Consciousness of
Pleasure. In favour of this conclusion I can appeal with confidence to the
sober judgment of reflective persons.
(§ 55 ¶ 2)
§ 56.
(2) That the
value of a pleasurable whole does not belong solely to the pleasure which it
contains, may, I think, be made still plainer by consideration of another point
in which Prof. Sidgwick’s argument is defective. Prof. Sidgwick maintains, as we
saw, the doubtful proposition, that the conduciveness to pleasure of a
thing is in rough proportion to its commendation by Common Sense. But he does
not maintain, what would be undoubtedly false, that the pleasantness of every
state is in proportion to the commendation of that state. In other words, it is
only when you take into account the whole consequences of any state,
that he is able to maintain the coincidence of quantity of pleasure with the
objects approved by Common Sense. If we consider each state by itself, and ask
what is the judgment of Common Sense as to its goodness as an end,
quite apart from its goodness as a means, there can be no doubt that Common
Sense holds many much less pleasant states to be better than many far more
pleasant: that it holds, with Mill, that there are higher pleasures, which are
more valuable, though less pleasant, than those that are lower. Prof. Sidgwick
might, of course, maintain that in this Common Sense is merely confusing means
and ends: that what it holds to be better as an end, is in reality only better
as a means. But I think his argument is defective in that he does not seem to
see sufficiently plainly that, as far as intuitions of goodness as an
end are concerned, he is running grossly counter to Common Sense; that he
does not emphasise sufficiently the distinction between immediate
pleasantness and conduciveness to pleasure. In order to place fairly
before us the question what is good as an end we must take states that are
immediately pleasant and ask if the more pleasant are always also the better;
and whether, if some that are less pleasant appear to be so, it is only because
we think they are likely to increase the number of the more pleasant. That
Common Sense would deny both these suppositions, and rightly so, appears to me
indubitable. It is commonly held that certain of what would be called the lowest
forms of sexual enjoyment, for instance, are positively bad, although it is by
no means clear that they are not the most pleasant states we ever experience.
Common Sense would certainly not think it a sufficient justification for the
pursuit of what Prof. Sidgwick calls the refined pleasures
here and now,
that they are the best means to the future attainment of a heaven, in which
there would be no more refined pleasures—no contemplation of beauty, no
personal affections—but in which the greatest possible pleasure would be
obtained by a perpetual indulgence in bestiality. Yet Prof. Sidgwick would be
bound to hold that, if the greatest possible pleasure could be obtained in this
way, and if it were attainable, such a state of things would be a heaven indeed,
and that all human endeavours should be devoted to its realisation. I venture to
think that this view is as false as it is paradoxical. (§ 56 ¶ 1)
§ 57.
It seems to
me, then, that if we place fairly before us the question: Is consciousness of
pleasure the sole good? the answer must be: No. And with this the last defence
of Hedonism has been broken down. In order to put the question fairly we must
isolate consciousness of pleasure. We must ask: Suppose we were conscious of
pleasure only, and of nothing else, not even that we were conscious,
would that state of things, however great the quantity, be very desirable? No
one, I think, can suppose it so. On the other hand, it seems quite plain, that
we do regard as very desirable, many complicated states of mind in which the
consciousness of pleasure is combined with consciousness of other things—states
which we call enjoyment of
so and so. If this is correct, then it follows
that consciousness of pleasure is not the sole good, and that many other states,
in which it is included only as a part, are much better than it. Once we
recognise the principle of organic unities, any objection to this conclusion,
founded on the supposed fact that the other elements of such states have no
value in themselves, must disappear. And I do not know that I need say any more
in refutation of Hedonism. (§ 57 ¶ 1)
§ 58.
It only remains to say something of the two forms in which a hedonistic doctrine is commonly held—Egoism and Utilitarianism. (§ 58 ¶ 1)
Egoism, as a form of Hedonism, is the doctrine which holds that we
ought each of us to pursue our own greatest happiness as our ultimate end. The
doctrine will, of course, admit that sometimes the best means to this end will
be to give pleasure to others; we shall, for instance, by so doing, procure for
ourselves the pleasures of sympathy, of freedom from interference, and of
self-esteem; and these pleasures, which we may procure by sometimes aiming
directly at the happiness of other persons, may be greater than any we could
otherwise get. Egoism in this sense must therefore be carefully distinguished
from Egoism in another sense, the sense in which Altruism is its proper
opposite. Egoism, as commonly opposed to Altruism, is apt to denote merely
selfishness. In this sense, a man is an egoist, if all his actions are actually
directed towards gaining pleasure for himself; whether he holds that he ought to
act so, because he will thereby obtain for himself the greatest possible
happiness on the whole, or not. Egoism may accordingly be used to denote the
theory that we should always aim at getting pleasure for ourselves, because that
is the best means to the ultimate end, whether the ultimate end be our
own greatest pleasure or not. Altruism, on the other hand, may denote the theory
that we ought always to aim at other people’s happiness, on the ground that this
is the best means of securing our own as well as theirs. Accordingly,
an Egoist, in the sense in which I am now going to talk of Egoism, an Egoist,
who holds that his own greatest happiness is the ultimate end, may at the same
time be an Altruist: he may hold that he ought to love his neighbour,
as
the best means to being happy himself. And conversely an Egoist, in the other
sense, may at the same time be a Utilitarian. He may hold that he ought always
to direct his efforts towards getting pleasure for himself on the ground that he
is thereby most likely to increase the general sum of happiness. (§ 58 ¶ 2)
§ 59.
I shall say more later about this second kind of Egoism, this anti-altruistic Egoism, this Egoism as a doctrine of means. What I am now concerned with is that utterly distinct kind of Egoism, which holds that each man ought rationally to hold: My own greatest happiness is the only good thing there is; my actions can only be good as means, in so far as they help to win me this. This is a doctrine which is not much held by writers now-a-days. It is a doctrine that was largely held by English Hedonists in the 17th and 18th centuries: it is, for example, at the bottom of Hobbes’ Ethics. But even the English school appear to have made one step forward in the present century: they are most of them now-a-days Utilitarians. They do recognise that if my own happiness is good, it would be strange that other people’s happiness should not be good too. (§ 59 ¶ 1)
In order fully to expose the absurdity of this kind of Egoism, it is necessary to examine certain confusions upon which its plausibility depends. (§ 59 ¶ 2)
The chief of these is the confusion involved in the conception of
my own good
as distinguished from the good of others.
This is a
conception which we all use every day; it is one of the first to which the plain
man is apt to appeal in discussing any question of Ethics: and Egoism is
commonly advocated chiefly because its meaning is not clearly perceived. It is
plain, indeed, that the name Egoism
more properly applies to the theory
that my own good
is the sole good, than that my own pleasure is so. A man
may quite well be an Egoist, even if he be not a Hedonist. The conception which
is, perhaps, most closely associated with Egoism is that denoted by the words
my own interest.
The Egoist is the man who holds that a tendency to
promote his own interest is the sole possible, and sufficient, justification of
all his actions. But this conception of my own interest
plainly includes,
in general, very much more than my own pleasure. It is, indeed, only because and
in so far as my own interest
has been thought to consist solely in my own
pleasure, that Egoists have been led to hold that my own pleasure is the sole
good. Their course of reasoning is as follows: The only thing I ought to secure
is my own interest; but my own interest consists in my greatest possible
pleasure; and therefore the only thing I ought to pursue is my own pleasure.
That it is very natural, on reflection, thus to identify my own
pleasure with my own interest; and that it has generally been done by modern
moralists, may be admitted. But when Prof.
Sidgwick points this out (III. xiv. § 5, Div. III.), he should have
also pointed out that this identification has by no means been made in ordinary
thought. When the plain man says my own interest,
he does not mean my
own pleasure
—he does not commonly even include this—he means my own
advancement, my own reputation, the getting of a better income etc., etc. That
Prof. Sidgwick should not have noticed this, and that he should give the reason
he gives for the fact that the ancient moralists did not identify my
own interest
with my own pleasure, seems to be due to his having failed to
notice that very confusion in the conception of my own good
which I am
now to point out. That confusion has, perhaps, been more clearly perceived by
Plato than by any other moralist, and to point it out suffices to refute Prof.
Sidgwick’s own view that Egoism is rational. (§ 59 ¶ 3)
What, then, is meant by my own good
? In what sense can a
thing be good for me? It is obvious, if we reflect, that the only thing
which can belong to me, which can be mine, is something which is good,
and not the fact that it is good. When, therefore, I talk of anything I get as
my own good,
I must mean either that the thing I get is good, or that my
possessing it is good. In both cases it is only the thing or the possession of
it which is mine, and not the goodness of that thing or that
possession. There is no longer any meaning in attaching the my
to our
predicate, and saying: The possession of this by me is my
good. Even if we interpret this by My possession of this is what I
think good,
the same still holds: for what I think is that my
possession of it is good simply; and, if I think rightly, then the
truth is that my possession of it is good simply—not, in any sense,
my good; and, if I think wrongly, it is not good at all. In short, when
I talk of a thing as my own good
all that I can mean is that something
which will be exclusively mine, as my own pleasure is mine (whatever be the
various senses of this relation denoted by possession
), is also good
absolutely; or rather that my possession of it is good absolutely.
The good of it can in no possible sense be private
or belong to
me; any more than a thing can exist privately or for one
person only. The only reason I can have for aiming at my own good,
is
that it is good absolutely that what I so call should belong to
me—good absolutely that I should have something, which, if I
have it, others cannot have. But if it is good absolutely that I should
have it, then everyone else has as much reason for aiming at my having
it, as I have myself. If, therefore, it is true of any single man’s
interest
or happiness
that it ought to be his sole ultimate end,
this can only mean that that man’s interest
or happiness
is the sole good, the Universal Good, and the only thing that
anybody ought to aim at. What Egoism holds, therefore, is that each
man’s happiness is the sole good—that a number of different things are
each of them the only good thing there is—an absolute contradiction!
No more complete and thorough refutation of any theory could be desired. (§ 59 ¶ 4)
§ 60.
Yet Prof.
Sidgwick holds that Egoism is rational; and it will be useful briefly to
consider the reasons which he gives for this absurd conclusion. The
Egoist,
he
says (last Chap § 1), may avoid the proof of Utilitarianism by
declining to affirm,
either implicitly or explicitly, that his own
greatest happiness is not merely the ultimate rational end for himself, but a
part of Universal Good.
And in the
passage to which he here refers us, as having there seen
this, he
says: It cannot be proved that the
difference between his own happiness and another’s happiness is not for
him all-important
(IV.
ii. § 1). What does Prof. Sidgwick mean by these phrases the
ultimate rational end for himself,
and for him
all-important
? He does not attempt to define them; and it is largely the use
of such undefined phrases which causes absurdities to be committed in philosophy
(§ 60 ¶ 1)
Is there any sense in which a thing can be an ultimate rational
end for one person and not for another? By ultimate
must be meant at
least that the end is good-in-itself—good in our undefinable sense; and by
rational,
at least, that it is truly good. That a thing should be an
ultimate rational end means, then, that it is truly good in itself; and that it
is truly good in itself means that it is a part of Universal Good. Can we assign
any meaning to that qualification for himself,
which will make it cease
to be a part of Universal Good? The thing is impossible: for the Egoist’s
happiness must either be good in itself, and so a part of Universal
Good, or else it cannot be good in itself at all: there is no escaping
this dilemma. And if it is not good at all, what reason can he have for aiming
at it? how can it be a rational end for him? That qualification for
himself
has no meaning unless it implies not for others
; and
if it implies not for others,
then it cannot be a rational end for him,
since it cannot be truly good in itself: the phrase an ultimate rational end
for himself
is a contradiction in terms. By saying that a thing is an end
for one particular person, or good for him, can only be meant one of four
things. Either (1) it may be meant that the end in question is something which
will belong exclusively to him; but in that case, if it is to be rational for
him to aim at it, that he should exclusively possess it must be a part of
Universal Good. Or (2) it may be meant that it is the only thing at which he
ought to aim; but this can only be, because, by so doing, he will do the most he
can towards realising Universal Good: and this, in our case, will only give
Egoism as a doctrine of means. Or (3) it may be meant that the thing is
what he desires or thinks good; and then, if he thinks wrongly, it is not a
rational end at all, and, if he thinks rightly, it is a part of Universal Good.
Or (4) it may be meant that it is peculiarly appropriate that a thing which will
belong exclusively to him should also by him be approved or aimed at; but, in
this case, both that it should belong to him and that he should aim at it must
be parts of Universal Good: by saying that a certain relation between two things
is fitting or appropriate, we can only mean that the existence of that relation
is absolutely good in itself (unless it be so as a means, which gives case (2)).
By no possible meaning, then, that can be given to the phrase that his own
happiness is the ultimate rational end for himself can the Egoist escape the
implication that his own happiness is absolutely good; and by saying that it is
the ultimate rational end, he must mean that it is the only good
thing—the whole of Universal Good: and, if he further maintains, that each
man’s happiness is the ultimate rational end for him, we have the
fundamental contradiction of Egoism—that an immense number of different things
are, each of them, the sole good.—And it is easy to see that
the same considerations apply to the prhase that the difference between his
own happiness and another’s is for him all-important.
This can
only mean either (1) that his own happiness is the only end which will affect
him, or (2) that the only important thing for him (as a means) is to look to his
own happiness, or (3) that it is only his own happiness which he cares about, or
(4) that it is good that each man’s happiness should be the only concern of that
man. And none of these propositions, true as they may be, have the smallest
tendency to shew that if his own happiness is desirable at all, it is not a part
of Universal Good. Either his own happiness is a good thing or it is not; and,
in whatever sense it may be all-important for him, it must be true that, if it
is not good, he is not justified in pursuing it, and that, if it is good,
everyone else has an equal reason to pursue it, so far as they are able and so
far as it does not exclude their attainment of other more valuable parts of
Universal Good. In short it is plain that the addition of for him
for
me
to such words as ultimate rational end,
good,
important
can introduce nothing but confusion. The only possible reason
that can justify any action is that by it the greatest possible amount of what
is good absolutely should be realised. And if anyone says that the attainment of
his own happiness justifies his actions, he must mean that this is the greatest
possible amount of Universal Good which he can realise. And this again can only
be true either because he has no power to realise more, in which case
he only holds Egoism as a doctrine of means; or else because his own happiness
is the greatest amount of Universal Good which can be realised at all, in which
case we have Egoism proper, and the flagrant contradiction that every person’s
happiness is singly the greatest amount of Universal Good which can be realised
at all. (§ 60 ¶ 2)
§ 61.
It should be
observed that, since this is so, the relation of Rational Egoism to Rational
Benevolence,
which Prof.
Sidgwick regards as the profoundest problem of Ethics
(III.
xiii. § 5, n. 1), appears in quite a different light to that
in which he presents it. Even if a man,
he
says, admits the self-evidence of the principle of Rational Benevolence, he
may still hold that his own happiness is an end which it is irrational for him
to sacrifice to any other; and that therefore a harmony between the maxim of
Prudence and the maxim of Rational Benevolence must be somehow demonstrated, if
morality is to be made completely rational. This latter view is that which I
myself hold
(last
Chap. § 1). Prof.
Sidgwick then goes on to shew that the inseparable connection between
Utilitarian Duty and the greatest happiness of the individual who conforms to it
cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated on empirical grounds
(Ib.
§ 4). And the
final paragraph of his book tells us that, since the reconciliation of duty
and self-interest is to be regarded as a hypothesis logically necessary to avoid
a fundamental contradiction
in one chief department of our thought, it remains to ask how far this necessity
constitutes a sufficient reason for accepting this hypothesis
(Ib.
§ 5). To assume the existence of such a Being, as God, by the
consensus of theologians, is conceived to be
would, he
has already argued, ensure the required reconciliation; since the Divine
Sanctions of such a God would, of course, suffice to make it always every
one’s interest to promote the universal happiness to the best of his
knowledge
(Ib.
§ 5). (§ 61 ¶ 1)
Now what is this reconciliation of duty and self-interest
which Divine Sanctions could ensure? It would consist in the mere fact that the
same conduct which produced the greatest possible happiness of the greatest
number would always also produce the greatest possible happiness of the agent.
If this were the case (and our empirical knowledge shews that it is not the case
in this world), morality
would, Prof. Sidgwick thinks, be completely
rational
; we should avoid an
ultimate and fundamental contradiction in our apparent intuitions of what is
Reasonable in conduct.
That is to say, we should avoid the necessity of
thinking that it is as manifest an obligation to secure our own greatest
Happiness (maxim of Prudence), as to secure the greatest Happiness on the whole
(maxim of Benevolence). But it is perfectly obvious we should not. Prof.
Sidgwick here commits the characteristic fallacy of Empiricism—the fallacy of
thinking that an alteration in facts could make a contradiction cease
to be a contradiction. That a single man’s happiness should be the sole
good, and that also everybody’s happiness should be the sole good,
is a contradiction which cannot be solved by the assumption that the same
conduct will secure both: it would be equally contradictory, however certain we
were that that assumption was justified. Prof. Sidgwick strains at a gnat and
swallows a camel. He thinks the Divine Omnipotence must be called into play to
secure that what gives other people pleasure should also give it to him—that
only so can Ethics be made rational; while he overlooks the fact that even this
exercise of Divine Omnipotence would leave in Ethics a contradiction, in
comparison with which his difficulty is a trifle—a contradiction, which would
reduce all Ethics to mere nonsense, and before which the Divine Omnipotence must
be powerless to all eternity. That each man’s happiness should be the
sole good, which we have seen to be the principle of Egoism, is in
itself a contradiction; and that it should also be true that the Happiness of
all is the sole good, which is the principle of Universalistic
Hedonism, would introduce another contradiction. And that these propositions
should all be true might well be called the profoundest problem in
Ethics
: it would be a problem necessarily insoluble. But they
cannot all be true, and there is no reason, but confusion, for the
supposition that they are. Prof. Sidgwick confuses this contradiction with the
mere fact (in which there is no contradiction) that our own greatest happiness
and that of all do not seem always attainable by the same means. This fact, if
Happiness were the sole good, would indeed be of some importance; and, on any
view, similar facts are of importance. But they are nothing but instances of the
one important fact that in this world the quantity of good which is attainable
is ridiculously small compared to that which is imaginable. That I cannot get
the most possible pleasure for myself, if I produce the most possible pleasure
on the whole, is no more the profoundest problem of Ethics, than that
in any case I cannot get as much pleasure altogether as would be desirable. It
only states that, if we get as much good as possible in one place, we may get
less on the whole, because the quantity of attainable good is limited. To say
that I have to choose between my own good and that of all is a false
antithesis: the only rational question is how to choose between my own and that
of others, and the principle on which this must be answered is exactly
the same as that on which I must choose whether to give pleasure to this other
person or to that. (§ 61 ¶ 2)
§ 61, n. 1: The italics are mine. ↩
§ 62.
It is plain,
then, that the doctrine of Egoism is self-contradictory; and that one reason why
this is not perceived is a confusion with regard to the meaning of the phrase
my own good.
And it may be observed that this confusion and the neglect
of this contradiction are necessarily involved in the transition from
Naturalistic Hedonism, as ordinarily held, to Utilitarianism. Mill, for
instance, as we saw, declares: Each person, so far as he
believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness
(p.
53). And he offers this as a reason why the general happiness is desirable.
We have seen that to regard it as such, involves, in the first place, the
naturalistic fallacy. But moreover, even if that fallacy were not a fallacy, it
could only be a reason for Egoism and not for Utilitarianism. Mill’s argument is
as follows: a man desires his own happiness; therefore his own happiness is
desirable. Further: A man desires nothing but his own happiness; therefore his
own happiness is alone desirable. We have next to remember, that everybody,
according to Mill, so desires his own happiness: and then it will follow that
everybody’s happiness is alone desirable. And this is simply a contradiction in
terms. Just consider what it means. Each man’s happiness is the only thing
desirable: several different things are each of them the only
thing desirable. This is the fundamental contradiction of Egoism. In order to
think that what his arguments tend to prove is not Egoism but Utilitarianism,
Mill must think that he can infer from the proposition Each man’s happiness
is his own good,
the proposition The happiness of all is the good of
all
; whereas in fact, if we understand what his own good
means, it is
plain that the latter can only be inferred from The happiness of all is the
good of each.
Naturalistic Hedonism, then, logically leads only to Egoism.
Of course, a Naturalist might hold that what we aimed at was simply
pleasure
not our own pleasure; and that, always assuming the
naturalistic fallacy, would give an unobjectionable ground for Utilitarianism.
But more commonly he will hold that it is his own pleasure he desires, or at
least will confuse this with the other; and then he must logically be led to
adopt Egoism and not Utilitarianism. (§ 62
¶ 1)
§ 63.
The second
cause I have to give why Egoism should be thought reasonable, is simply its
confusion with that other kind of Egoism—Egoism as a doctrine of means. This
second Egoism has a right to say: You ought to pursue your own happiness,
sometimes at all events; it may even say: Always. And when we find it saying
this we are apt to forget its proviso: But only as a means to something else.
The fact is we are in an imperfect state; we cannot get the ideal all at once.
And hence it is often our bounden duty, we often absolutely
ought,
to do things which are good only or chiefly as means: we have
to do the best we can, what is absolutely right,
but not what is
absolutely good. Of this I shall say more hereafter. I only mention it here
because I think it is much more plausible to say that we ought to pursue our own
pleasure as a means than as an end, and that this doctrine, through confusion,
lends some of its plausibility to the utterly distinct doctrine of Egoism
proper: My own greatest pleasure is the only good thing. (§ 63 ¶ 1)
§ 64.
So much for Egoism. Of Utilitarianism not much need be said; but two points may seem deserving of notice. (§ 64 ¶ 1)
The first is that this name, like that of Egoism, does not
naturally suggest that all our actions are to be judged according to the degree
in which they are a means to pleasure. Its natural meaning is that the
standard of right and wrong in conduct is its tendency to promote the
interest of everybody. And by interest is commonly meant a
variety of different goods, classed together only because they are what a man
commonly desires for himself, so far as his desires have not that psychological
quality which is meant by moral.
The useful
thus means, and was in
ancient Ethics systematically used to mean, what is a means to the attainment of
goods other than moral goods. It is quite an unjustifiable assumption that these
goods are only good as means to pleasure or that they are commonly so regarded.
The chief reason for adopting the name Utilitarianism
was, indeed, merely
to emphasize the fact that right and wrong conduct must be judged by its
results—as a means, in opposition to the strictly Intuitionistic view that
certain ways of acting were right and others wrong, whatever their results might
be. In thus insisting that what is right must mean what produces the best
possible results Utilitarianism is fully justified. But with this correct
contention there has been historically, and very naturally, associated a double
error. (1) The best possible results were assumed to consist only in a limited
class of goods, roughly coinciding with those which were popularly distinguished
as the results of merely useful
or interested
actions; and these
again were hastily assumed to be good only as means to pleasure. (2) The
Utilitarians tend to regard everything as a mere means, neglecting the fact that
some things which are good as means are also good as ends. Thus, for instance,
assuming pleasure to be a good, there is also a tendency to value present
pleasure only as a means to future pleasure, and not, as is strictly necessary
if pleasure is good as an end, also to weigh it against possible future
pleasures. Much utilitarian argument involves the logical absurdity that what is
here and now, never has any value in itself, but is only to be judged by its
consequences; which again, of course, when they are realised, would have no
value in themselves, but would be mere means to a still further future, and so
on ad infinitum. (§ 64 ¶ 2)
The second point deserving notice with regard to Utilitarianism is
that, when the name is used for a form of Hedonism, it does not commonly, even
in its description of its end, accurately distinguish between means and
end. Its best-known formula is that the result by which actions are to be judged
is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
But it is plain that,
if pleasure is the sole good, provided the quantity be equally great, an equally
desirable result will have been obtained whether it be enjoyed by many or by
few, or even if it be enjoyed by nobody. It is plain that, if we ought to aim at
the greatest happiness of the greatest number, this can only, on the hedonistic
principle, be because the existence of pleasure in a great number of persons
seems to be the best means available for attaining the existence of the
greatest quantity of pleasure. This may actually be the case; but it is fair to
suspect that Utilitarians have been influenced, in their adoption of the
hedonistic principle, by this failure to distinguish clearly between pleasure or
consciousness of pleasure and its possession by a person. It is far easier to
regard the possession of pleasure by a number of persons as the sole good, than
so to regard the mere existence of an equally great quantity of pleasure. If,
indeed, we were to take the Utilitarian principle strictly, and to assume them
to mean that the possession of pleasure by many persons was good in itself, the
principle is not hedonistic: it includes as a necessary part of the ultimate
end, the existence of a number of persons, and this will include very much more
than mere pleasure. (§ 64 ¶ 3)
Utilitarianism, however, as commonly held, must be understood to maintain that either mere consciousness of pleasure, or consciousness of pleasure together with the minimum adjunct which may be meant by the existence of such consciousness in at least one person, is the sole good. This is its significance as an ethical doctrine; and as such it has already been refuted in my refutation of Hedonism. The most that can be said for it is that it does not seriously mislead in its practical conclusions, on the ground that, as an empirical fact, the method of acting which brings most good on the whole does also bring most pleasure. Utilitarians do indeed generally devote most of their arguments to shewing that the course of action which will bring most pleasure is in general such as common sense would approve. We have seen that Prof. Sidgwick appeals to this fact as tending to shew that pleasure is the sole good; and we have also seen that it does not tend to shew this. We have seen how very flimsy the other arguments advanced for this proposition are; and that, if it be fairly considered by itself, it appears to be quite ridiculous. And, moreover, that the actions which produce most good on the whole do also produce most pleasure is extremely doubtful. The arguments tending to shew it are all more or less vitiated by the assumption that what appear to be necessary conditions for the attainment of most pleasure in the near future, will always continue so to be. And, even with this vicious assumption, they only succeed in making out a highly problematical case. How, therefore, this fact is to be explained, if it be a fact, need not concern us. It is sufficient to have shewn that many complex states of mind are much more valuable than the pleasure they contain. If this be so, no form of Hedonism can be true. And, since the practical guidance afforded by pleasure as a criterion is small in proportion as the calculation attempts to be accurate, we can well afford to await further investigation, before adopting a guide, whose utility is very doubtful and whose trustworthiness we have grave reason to suspect. (§ 64 ¶ 4)
§ 65.
The most
important points which I have endeavoured to establish in this chapter are as
follows. (1) Hedonism must be strictly defined as the doctrine that Pleasure
is the only thing which is good in itself
: this view seems to owe its
prevalence mainly to the naturalistic fallacy, and Mill’s arguments may be taken
as a type of those which are fallacious in this respect; Sidgwick alone has
defended it without committing this fallacy, and its final refutation must
therefore point out the errors in his arguments (36—38). (2) Mill’s Utilitarianism is criticised; it being shewn (a)
that he commits the naturalistic fallacy in identifying desirable
with
desired
; (b) that pleasure is not the only object of desire. The
common arguments for Hedonism seem to rest on those two errors (39—44). (3) Hedonism is considered as an
Intuition,
and it is pointed out (a) that Mill’s allowance
that some pleasures are inferior in quality to others implies both that it is an
Intuition and that it is a false one (46—48);
(b) that Sidgwick fails to distinguish pleasure
from
consciousness of pleasure,
and that it is absurd to regard the former at
all events, as the sole good (49—52); (c)
that it seems equally absurd to regard consciousness of pleasure
as the
sole good, since, if it were so, a world in which nothing else existed might be
absolutely perfect: Sidgwick fails to put to himself this question, which is the
only clear and decisive one (53—57). (4) What are
commonly considered to be the two main types of Hedonism, namely, Egoism and
Utilitarianism, are not only different from, but strictly contradictory of, one
another; since the former asserts My own greatest pleasure is the
sole good,
the latter The greatest pleasure of all is the
sole good.
Egoism seems to owe its plausibility partly to the
failure to observe this contradiction—a failure which is exemplified by
Sidgwick; partly to a confusion of Egoism as a doctrine of end, with the same as
a doctrine of means. If Hedonism is true, Egoism cannot be so; still less can it
be so, if Hedonism is false. The end of Utilitarianism, on the other hand,
would, if Hedonism were true, be, not indeed the best conceivable, but the best
possible for us to promote; but it is refuted by the refutation of Hedonism (58—64) (§ 65 ¶ 1)