UTILITARIANISM
105. WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?--The division of things desirable into those
desirable in themselves, and those desirable for the sake of something
else, is two thousand years old. Those things which we recognize as
desirable for the sake of something else, we call useful.
What we shall regard as useful depends in each case upon the nature of
the end at which we aim. If our aim is the attainment of pleasure, the
preservation of life, the harmonious development of our faculties, or any
other, we may term useful whatever makes for the realization of that end.
Hence, we can, by stretching the application of the word, call
utilitarian any ethical doctrine which sets an ultimate end to human
endeavor and judges actions as moral or the reverse, according to their
tendency to realize that end, or to frustrate its realization. As the
ends thus chosen may be very diverse, it is obvious that widely different
forms of utilitarian doctrine may come into being.
It is, however, inconvenient to stretch the term, "utilitarianism" in
this fashion. Certain forms of doctrine which, in its wider sense, it
would include, have come to be known under names of their own; and,
besides, the especial type of utilitarianism advocated by Bentham and
John Stuart Mill appears to have a claim upon the appellation which they
set in circulation. Common usage has thus limited the significance of the
word, and we naturally think of the doctrine of these men when we hear it
uttered. It is in this sense that I shall use it.
"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the
Greatest Happiness Principle," writes Mill, "holds that actions are right
in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and
the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure."
This means, he adds, "that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only
things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things ... are desirable
either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the
promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain." [Footnote:
_Utilitarianism_, chapter ii. In the pages following, when I leave
out a reference to pain in discussing the utilitarian doctrine, it will
be for convenience and for the sake of brevity. The intelligent reader
can supply the omissions. ]
The pleasure here intended is not the selfish pleasure of the individual.
Utilitarianism is not Cyrenaicism. The goal of the utilitarian's
endeavors is the general happiness, in which many individuals
participate. The moral rules which control and direct the strivings of
the individual derive their authority from their tendency to serve this
end.
106. BENTHAM'S DOCTRINE.--Most uncompromising is the utilitarianism set
forth in the writings of Mill's master, that most benevolent and
philanthropic of men, Jeremy Bentham. He is true to his principles and he
makes no concessions.
He regards that as in the interest of the individual which tends to add
to the sum total of his pleasures or to diminish the sum total of his
pains. And he understands in the same sense the interest of the
community. [Footnote: _Principles of Morals and Legislation_,
chapter i, Sec 5.] That which serves that interest he sets down as
"conformable to the principle of utility." What is thus conformable he
declares ought to be done, what is not conformable ought not to be done.
Right and wrong he distinguishes in the same manner. "When thus
interpreted," he insists, "the words _ought_, and _right_ and
_wrong_, and others of that stamp, have a meaning; when otherwise,
they have none" [Footnote: _Ibid_., i, 10.]
Of differences in quality between pleasures Bentham takes no account. In
his curious and interesting chapter entitled "Value of a Lot of Pleasure
or Pain, how to be Measured," he enumerates the circumstances which
should determine the value of a pleasure or a pain. They are as follows:
[Footnote: _Ibid_., chapter iv.]
1. Its intensity. 2. Its duration. 3. Its certainty or uncertainty. 4.
Its propinquity or remoteness. 5. Its fecundity. 6. Its purity. 7. Its
extent.
The first four of these characteristics call for no comment. By the
fecundity of a pleasure Bentham understands its likelihood of being
followed by other pleasures; by its purity, the likelihood that it will
not be followed by pains. The characteristic "extent" marks off
utilitarianism from egoism, for it has reference to the number of persons
affected by the pleasure or the pain. The greater the number, the higher
the value in question. The greatest number of pleasures of the highest
value, as free as possible from admixture with pains, is the goal of the
endeavors of the utilitarian. Naturally, when the interests of many
persons are taken into account, the question of the principle according
to which "lots" of pleasure are to be distributed becomes a pressing one.
Bentham decides it as follows: "Everybody to count for one, and nobody
for more than one." [Footnote: See the discussion of Bentham's dictum in
its bearings on justice, J. S. Mill, _Utilitarianism_, chapter v.]
In other words, the distribution should be an impartial one.
At first sight, this account of the relative desirability of pleasures
and undesirability of pains seems sensible enough. Men do desire
pleasure, and they undoubtedly approve the preference given to pleasures
more intense, enduring, certain, immediate, fruitful in further
pleasures, free from painful consequences, and shared by many, over those
which have not these characteristics:
"_Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure_--
Such marks in _pleasures_ and in _pains_ endure.
Such pleasures seek, if _private_ be thy end:
If it be _public_, wide let them _extend_.
Such _pains_ avoid, whichever be thy view;
If pains _must_ come, let them _extend_ to few."
[Footnote: _Principles of Morals and Legislation_, chapter iv, i,
Note.]
These mnemonic lines may well strike many readers as embodying a very
good working rule of common-sense morality; as paying a proper regard to
prudence and to benevolence as well. But there are passages in Bentham
calculated to shake such acquiescence. He writes:
"Now pleasure is in _itself_ a good; nay, even setting aside
immunity from pain, the only good: pain is in itself an evil, and, indeed
without exception, the only evil; or else the words good and evil have no
meaning. And this is alike true of every sort of pain, and of every sort
of pleasure." [Footnote: _Ibid_., chapter x, 10.]
"Let a man's motive be ill-will; call it even malice, envy, cruelty; it
is still a kind of pleasure that is his motive: the pleasure he takes at
the thought of the pain which he sees, or expects to see, his adversary
undergo. Now even this wretched pleasure, taken by itself, is good: it
may be faint; it may be short; it must at any rate be impure: yet, while
it lasts, and before any bad consequences arrive, it is as good as any
other that is not more intense." [Footnote: _Ibid_, note.]
Reflection upon such passages may well lead a man to ask himself:
(1) Is it, after all, the consensus of human opinion that pleasure is the
only good and pain the only evil?
(2) Are some pleasures actually regarded as more desirable than others,
solely through the application of the standard given above?
(3) Can the pleasure of a malignant act properly be called _morally_
good at all?
107. THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN STUART MILL.--Bentham's purely quantitative
estimate of the value of pleasures has aroused in many minds the feeling
that he puts morality upon a low level. [Footnote: In justice to Bentham
it must be borne in mind that his prime interest was not in ethical
theory, but in legislative reform. His doctrine, such as it was, and
applied as he applied it, was a tool of no mean efficacy. Bentham must
count among the real benefactors of mankind.] Mill attempts an
improvement upon his doctrine. "It is quite compatible with the principle
of utility," he writes, "to recognize the fact that some _kinds_ of
pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be
absurd that, while in estimating all other things quality is considered
as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to
depend on quantity alone." [Footnote: _Utilitarianism_, chapter i.]
Thus, Mill distinguishes between higher pleasures and lower, and he gives
a criterion for distinguishing the former from the latter: "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." He refers
the whole matter to the judgment of the "competent;" and, in accordance
with that judgment, decides that: "It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different
opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The
other party to the comparison knows both sides." [Footnote: _Ibid_.]
That some pleasures may properly be called higher than others moralists
of many schools will be ready to admit, but to Mill's criterion of what
proves them to be higher they may demur. Of the delight that a fool takes
in his folly a wise man may be as incapable as a fool is of the enjoyment
of wisdom. With mature years men cease to be competent judges of the
pleasures of boyhood. To each nature, its appropriate choice of
pleasures. That human beings at a given level of intellectual and
emotional development actually desire certain things rather than certain
others does not prove that those things are desirable in any general
sense. It does not prove that men _ought_ to desire them. For that
proof we must look in some other direction; and a critical scrutiny of
the pleasures which moralists ancient and modern have generally accepted
as "higher" reveals a common characteristic which explains their being
thus classed together much better than the appeal to Mill's criterion.
[Footnote: See chapter xxx, Sec 142.]
As has often been pointed out, Mill, while defending Utilitarianism,
really passes beyond it, and his doctrine tends to merge in one widely
different from that of Bentham. For the "Greatest Happiness Principle" he
virtually substitutes the "Highest Happiness Principle." But he scarcely
realizes the significance of his substitution, and he gives an inadequate
account of the significance of higher and lower.
108. THE ARGUMENT FOR UTILITARIANISM.--We have seen above that Bentham
maintains that such words as "ought," "right" and "wrong" have no meaning
unless interpreted after the fashion of the utilitarian. He admits that
his "principle of utility" is not susceptible of direct proof, but claims
that such a proof is needless. [Footnote: Principles of Morals and
Legislation, chapter i, 11.]
Accepting it as a fact revealed by observation that the actual end of
action on the part of every individual is his own happiness as he
conceives it, he appears to have passed on without question to the
further positions, that the _proper_ end of action of the individual
is his own greatest happiness, and, yet, his _proper_ end of action,
as a member of a community, is the greatest happiness of the community.
[Footnote: See the paper entitled "Logical Arrangements, Employed as
Instruments in Legislation" etc., _Memoirs_, Bowring's Edition,
Volume X, page 560.]
The second of these positions cannot be deduced from the first, nor can
the third be inferred from the other two. Bentham appears to have taken
the "principle of utility" for granted; but one coming after him and
scrutinizing his work can scarcely avoid raising the question of the
justice of his assumption. That happiness is the only thing desirable,
and that the happiness of all should be the object aimed at by each, are
propositions which seem to stand in need of proof.
Such proof Mill attempted to furnish. [Footnote: He does not regard his
doctrine as provable in the usual sense; but he adduces what he regards
as "equivalent to proof." _Utilitarianism_, chapter i. ] He argues
as follows:
"The only proof capable of being given that an object 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
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 a fact, we
have not only all the proof 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 ends
of morality." [Footnote: _Utilitarianism_, chapter iv.]
That happiness is the _only ultimate_ end, Mill regards as
established by the argument that other things, for example, virtue,
though they come to be valued for themselves, do so only through the fact
that, originally valued as means to the attainment of happiness, they
become, through association, valued even out of this relation, and thus
treated as a part of happiness. [Footnote: _Ibid._]
The defects in Mill's argument have made themselves apparent, not merely
to the opponents of utilitarianism, but even to its advocates. [Footnote:
SIDGWICK, _The Methods of Ethics_, Book III, chapter xiii, Sec 5] We
cannot say that things are desirable in any moral sense, simply because
they are desired. In a loose sense of the word, everything that is or has
been desired by anyone is desirable--it evidently can be desired. When we
say no more than this, we say nothing. But when we call a course of
action desirable we mean more than this; and we are compelled to admit
that a multitude of desirable things are not generally desired. This is
the burden of the lament of every reformer.
Furthermore, it does not appear to follow that, because his own happiness
is a good to each member of a community, the happiness of all must
likewise be a good to each severally. A community in which every man
studies his own interest may conceivably be a community in which no man
regards it as desirable to consult the public weal. That the general
happiness is desirable, in a loose sense of the word, is palpable fact;
it is obvious that it can be desired, for some persons do actually desire
it. But that it is desirable in any sense cannot be inferred from the
fact that all men desire something else, namely, their own individual
happiness.
We must, then, look further for the proof of the utilitarian principle.
Henry Sidgwick, that admirable scholar and most judicial mind, falls back
upon certain intuitions which, he conceives, present themselves as
ultimate and unassailable. He writes:
"Let us reflect upon the clearest and most certain of our moral
intuitions. I find that I undoubtedly seem to perceive, as clearly and
certainly as I see any axiom in Arithmetic or Geometry, that it is
'right' and 'reasonable' for me to treat others as I should think that I
myself ought to be treated under similar conditions, and to do what I
believe to be ultimately conducive to universal Good or Happiness."
And again: "The propositions, 'I ought not to prefer a present lesser
good to a future greater good,' and 'I ought not to prefer my own lesser
good to the greater good of another,' do present themselves as self-
evident; as much (e. g.) as the mathematical axiom that 'if equals be
added to equals the wholes are equal.'" [Footnote: _The Methods of
Ethics_, concluding chapter, Sec 5, and Book III, chapter xiii, Sec 3.]
Whether these intuitions will be accepted as furnishing an indisputably
sound basis for utilitarianism will depend upon one's attitude toward
intuitions in general and the list of intuitions one is inclined to
accept. It is significant that Sidgwick does not accept as self-evident
such subordinate propositions as, "I ought to speak the truth." He
regards their authority as derived from the Greatest Happiness Principle.
109. THE DISTRIBUTION OF HAPPINESS.--The man who accepts the Greatest
Happiness Principle as the sole basis of his ethical doctrine is faced
with the problem of its application in detail. The "greatest good of the
greatest number" is a vague expression. What is properly understood by
"the greatest number"? and upon what principle shall "lots" of happiness
be assigned to each? Very puzzling questions arise when we approach the
problem of the distribution of pleasures and the calculation of their
values. Let us look at them.
I. Who should be considered in the Distribution?
(1) Shall we aim directly at the happiness of all men now living? or
shall we content ourselves with a smaller number? Certainly, with
increasing intelligence and broadening sympathies, men tend toward a more
embracing benevolence.
(2) Shall we admit to the circle generations yet unborn? and, if so, how
far into the future should we look?
(3) Should we make a deliberate attempt to increase the number of those
who may share the common fund of happiness, by striving for an increase
in the number of births? This end has been consciously sought for divers
reasons. The ancestor-worship of China has made the Chinaman eagerly
desirous of leaving behind him those who would devote themselves to him
after he has departed this life. Nations ancient and modern have
endeavored to strengthen the state by providing for an increase in its
population. Shall a similar end be pursued for the ethical purpose of
widening the circle of those who shall live and be happy? Most ethical
teachers do not appear to have regarded this as a corollary to the
doctrine of benevolence.
(4) Shall we enlarge the circle so as to include the lower animals? As
Bentham expressed it: The question is not, "Can they _reason_? nor,
Can they _talk_? but, Can they _suffer_?" [Footnote: _Principles of Morals
and Legislation_, chapter xvii, Sec 4.]
II. How should the "lots" of happiness be measured?
(1) Should everybody count as one, and nobody as more than one? in other
words, should strict impartiality be aimed at?
Dr. Westermarck's striking reply to the argument for impartiality as
urged by Professor Sidgwick has already been quoted. [Footnote: See
chapter v, Sec 16.] Let the reader glance at it again.
It must be confessed that to put one's parents, one's children, one's
neighbors, strangers, foreigners, the brutes, all upon the same level, is
contrary to the moral judgment of savage and civilized alike. It would
seem contrary to the sentiments which lie at the root of the family, the
community, and the state. Nor have we reason to look forward to any
future state of human society in which such lesser groups within the
broad circle of humanity will be done away with, though they tend to
become less exclusive in their demands upon human sympathy.
(2) Suppose that the greatest sum of happiness on the whole could be best
attained by an unequal distribution--by making a limited number very
happy at the expense of the rest. Would this be justifiable? It would be
in harmony with the Greatest Happiness Principle, though not with the
principle of the greatest happiness equally shared.
III. The question of the distribution of happiness in the life of the
individual is not one to be ignored. If we are concerned only with the
quantity of happiness, may we not take as the ethical precept "a short
life and a merry one"--provided the brief span of years be merry enough,
and there be no objection to the choice on the score of harm to others?
This problem is closely analogous to that of the distribution of
pleasures to those who compose the "greatest number" taken into account.
There we were concerned with the shares allotted to individuals; here we
are concerned with the shares assigned to the different parts of a single
life. In the attempt to solve the problem, Bentham's criteria of
intensity, certainty, purity, etc., might naturally be appealed to.
110. THE CALCULUS OF PLEASURES.--Nor are the problems which meet us less
perplexing when we pass from questions of the distribution of pleasures
to that of the calculus of pleasures. How are delights and miseries to be
weighed, and reasonably balanced?
(1) Men desire pleasure, and they desire to avoid pain. The two seem to
be opposed. But men constantly accept pleasures which entail some
suffering, and they avoid pains even at the expense of some pleasure.
Are, however, pleasures and pains strictly commensurable? How much
admixture of pain is called for to reduce the value of a pleasure to
zero? and how much pleasure, added to a pain, will make the whole
emotional state predominantly a pleasurable one? A disagreeable taste and
an agreeable odor may be experienced together, but they cannot be treated
as an algebraic sum. If we do so treat them, we seem to fall back upon
the assumption that the mere fact that the heterogeneous complex is
accepted or rejected is evidence that its ingredients have been measured
and compared. This is an ungrounded assumption.
(2) Undoubtedly men prefer intense pleasures to mild ones, and those
long-continued to those which are fleeting. But what degree of intensity
will overbalance what period of duration? Here, again, we appear to be
without a unit of measure, both in the case of pleasures and of pains.
(3) Obviously, he who would distribute pleasures with impartiality must
take into consideration the natures and capacities of the recipients. All
are not susceptible of pleasure in the same degree, nor are all capable
of enjoying the same pleasures. It is small kindness to a cat to offer it
hay; nor will the miser thank us for the opportunity to enjoy the
pleasures of liberality. The gift which arouses deep emotion in one man,
will leave another cold. The diversity of natures would make the calculus
of pleasures, in any accurate sense of the expression, a most difficult
problem, even if such a calculus were admissible in the case of a single
individual. [Footnote: This difficulty has not been overlooked by the
Utilitarian, see BENTHAM, _Principles of Morals and Legislation_,
chapter vi.]
III. THE DIFFICULTIES OF OTHER SCHOOLS.--It would be unjust to the
utilitarian not to point out that those who advocate other doctrines must
find some way of coping with the difficulties which embarrass him.
Thus, the egoist may ignore duties to others, but he cannot free himself
from the problems of the distribution of happiness in his own life and of
the calculus of pleasures. The intuitionist, who, among other precepts,
accepts as ultimate those enjoining upon him justice and benevolence, may
well ask himself toward whom these virtues are to be exercised, and
whether the claims of all who belong to the class in question are
identical in kind and degree. If they are not, he must find some rule for
estimating their relative importance. He who makes it his moral ideal to
Follow Nature, to Strive for Perfection, or to Realize his Capacities,
must determine in detail what conduct, self-regarding and other-
regarding, the acceptance of such aims entails. Only the unreflective can
regard the utilitarian as having a monopoly of the difficulties which
face the moralist. The vague general statement that we should strive to
render others happy--a duty recognized by men of very different schools--
never frees us from the perplexities which arise when it is asked: What
others? With what degree of impartiality? When? By what means? But that
such questions can be approached by a path more satisfactory than that
followed by the utilitarian, there is good reason to maintain. [Footnote:
See, below, chapter xxx, Sec Sec 140-142.]
112. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR UTILITARIANISM.--It is worth while to
summarize what may be said for utilitarianism, and what may be said
against it. It may be argued in its favor:
(1) That it appears to set as the aim of human endeavor, an intelligible
end, and a fairly definite one. Everyone has some notion of what
happiness means, and is not without ideas touching the way to seek his
own happiness, or to contribute to that of others.
(2) The end is one actually desired by men at all stages of intellectual
and moral development. Men are impelled to seek their own happiness, and
there are few who do not feel impelled to take into consideration, to
some degree, at least, the happiness of some others.
(3) The general happiness is not merely desired by some men, but it is
felt to be _desirable;_ that is, it is an end not out of harmony
with the moral judgments of mankind. It makes its appeal to the social
nature of man; it seems to furnish a basis for the exercise of
benevolence and justice.
(4) The utilitarian's clear recognition of the general happiness as the
ultimate end of human endeavor, and his insistence that institutions,
laws and moral maxims must be judged solely by their fitness to serve as
means to that end, have made him an energetic apostle of reform, and
intolerant of old and passively accepted abuses. His insistence upon the
principle of impartiality in the distribution of happiness has made him a
champion of the inarticulate and the oppressed. Whatever one may think of
his abstract principles, the general character of the specific measures
he has advocated must meet with the approval of enlightened moralists of
very different schools.
113. ARGUMENTS AGAINST UTILITARIANISM.--Against utilitarianism as an
ethical theory various objections have been brought or may be brought.
(1) Objection may be taken to the utilitarian assumption that the only
ultimate object of desire is pleasure or happiness.
It was pointed out forcibly by Bishop Butler in the eighteenth century
that men desire many things besides pleasure. Man's desires are an
outcome of his nature, and that results in "particular movements towards
particular external objects"--honor, power, the harm or good of another.
[Footnote: _Sermons_, Preface, Sec 29; cf. Sermon XI.] To be sure, "no
one can act but from a desire, or choice, or preference of his own," but
this is no evidence that what he seeks in acting is always pleasure.
Particular passions or appetites are, Butler ingeniously argues,
"necessarily presupposed by the very idea of an interested pursuit; since
the very idea of interest or happiness consists in this, that an appetite
or affection enjoys its object."
Here we find our attention called to a very important truth, the
significance of which there is danger of our overlooking. Pleasure or
happiness is not something that can be parcelled up and handed about
independently of the nature of the recipient. It is not everyone who can
desire everything and feel pleasure in its attainment. That the objects
of desire and will are many, and that the strivings of conscious
creatures have in view many ends, and vary according to the impulsive and
instinctive endowments of the creatures in question, has been well
brought out in the admirable studies of instinct which we now have at our
disposal. The most ardent devotee of pleasure must recognize, that only
certain pleasures are open to him; that, such as they are, they are a
revelation of his nature and capacities; that pleasures, if sought at
all, cannot be secured directly, but only as the result of a successful
striving for objects not pleasures, which bring pleasure as their
accompaniment. He who would have the pleasure of eating must desire food;
and neither food, nor the eating of food, can be regarded as, _per
se_, pleasure. The pleasure of the brooding hen is beyond the reach of
man, who, however pleasure-loving, cannot desire to sit upon eggs, and so
must forego the pleasure which, in the case of the bird, crowns that
exercise.
Such considerations as the above have led some moralists to define, as
the end of desire, not pleasure, but self-satisfaction. Every desire, it
is pointed out, strives to satisfy itself in the attainment of its
appropriate object. With the attainment of the object, the desire has
produced its proper fruit and ceases to be. It is admitted that the
satisfaction of desire is accompanied by pleasure, but it is denied that
the pleasure may be properly called the object of the desire, or regarded
as calling it into being: "The appetite of hunger must precede and
condition the pleasure which consists in its satisfaction. It cannot
therefore have that pleasure for its exciting object." [Footnote: GREEN,
_Prolegomena to Ethics_, Book III, chapter i, Sec 161. See also Book
II, chapter ii, Sec 131; Book III, chapter i, Sec Sec 154-160.]
At the same time it is conceded that the idea of a pleasure to be
attained may "reinforce" the desire for an object, may "intensify the
putting forth of energy," and may tend "to sustain and prolong any mode
of action." [Footnote: _Prolegomena to Ethics_, Sec 161; DEWEY,
_Ethics_, chapter xiv, Sec 1, p. 271; MCDOUGALL, _Social
Psychology_, London, 1916, p. 43.] It is further conceded that
pleasures may be consciously aimed at, but it is urged that this does not
result in true self-satisfaction, and is evidence of the existence of
unhealthy desires. [Footnote: _Prolegomena to Ethics_, Sec 158; DEWEY,
_Ethics_ p. 270.]
The utilitarian is not wholly helpless in the face of such objections. He
may argue that, if it is difficult to see how a pleasure which is the
result of a desire may cause the desire, it is equally difficult to see
how it may prolong, reinforce or intensify it. And he may maintain that,
although the pursuit of pleasure, in certain forms, is calculated to
defeat its own aim and is undoubtedly unhealthy, this need not be the
case if one's aim be the true utilitarian one--the happiness of all. The
direct attack upon his Greatest Happiness Principle which consists in the
objection that, if pleasure is the only object of desire, a sum of
pleasures, as not being a pleasure, cannot be desired, [Footnote:
_Prolegomena to Ethics_, Sec 221.] he can put aside with the remark
that no far-reaching and comprehensive aim can be realized at one stroke.
I can desire a long and useful life; this cannot be had all at once. I
can desire a long life full of pleasures; this cannot be enjoyed all at
once either. But each can certainly be the object of desire.
But, when all is said, it remains true that the contention of those, who
distinguish sharply between the satisfaction of desire and the attainment
of pleasure, is of no little importance. It calls our attention to the
following truths:
(a) We have definite instincts and impulses which tend to satisfy
themselves with their appropriate objects.
(b) At their first exercise, our aim could not have been the pleasure
resulting from their satisfaction, for that could not have been foreseen.
(c) Although, after experience, the attainment of pleasure may come to be
our aim in the exercise of many activities, and may often, as far as we
can see, be a natural and not unwholesome aim; it is by no means evident
that, even when we are experienced and reflective, the exercise of our
faculties comes to be regarded _only_ as a means to the attainment
of pleasure.
(d) The hedonist, in maintaining that pleasure is the only ultimate
object of desire, appears, thus, to be committed to the doctrine that the
satisfaction of all other desires is subordinated to the satisfaction of
the desire for pleasure. For this position he can furnish no adequate
proof. Self-evident the doctrine is not.
(e) It is incumbent upon him, as a moralist, to prove, not merely that
all other satisfactions are, but also that they _ought_ to be
subordinated to the satisfaction of the desire for pleasure. This he
appears to assume without proof.
(2) We have seen above [Footnote: See Sec 108.] that the fundamental
principle of utilitarian hedonism, as against egoistic, namely, the
making the Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number the object of the
endeavors of each individual, has not been satisfactorily established by
leading utilitarians. Bentham assumes the principle; Mill advances a
doubtful argument; Sidgwick falls back upon intuitions which all will not
admit to be indubitable. To his assertion: "Reason shows me that if my
happiness is desirable and a good, the equal happiness of any other
person must be equally desirable," [Footnote: _The Methods of
Ethics_, Book III, chapter xiv, Sec 5.] the doubter may reply: Desirable
to whom? to him or to me?
(3) Finally, it may be objected that the consistent utilitarian, in
making pleasure, abstractly taken, the only ultimate good, and in
regarding as the sole criterion of right actions their tendency to
produce pleasure, really tears pleasure out of its moral setting
altogether.
Thus Bentham's contention [Footnote: Sec 106, above.] that the pleasure a
man may derive from the exercise of malice or cruelty is, "taken by
itself," good--while it lasts, and before any bad consequences have set
in, as good as any other that is not more intense--derives what
plausibility it has, from an ambiguity in the word "good." Pleasure,
taken by itself, is undoubtedly pleasure, whatever be its source. To
affirm this is mere tautology. And, if we chose to make "good" but a
synonym for pleasure, we remain in the same tautology when we affirm that
every pleasure is a good. But Bentham assumed that good in this sense and
moral good are the same thing.
His assumption is not borne out by the moral judgments of mankind. Even a
cursory view of those moral judgments as revealed in customs, laws and
public opinion makes it evident that, under certain circumstances,
pleasure is regarded as, from a moral standpoint, a good, and, under
other circumstances, an evil. Torn out of its setting, it is simply
pleasure, a psychological phenomenon like any other, with no ethical
significance.
Take the case of the pleasure enjoyed by the malignant man. It may be
intense, if he be peculiarly susceptible to such pleasure. The pain
suffered by his victim may conceivably be less intense. Both may die
before the "bad consequences," that is to say, other pains, arrive. There
may be no spectators. Is, in such a case, the pleasure one to be called a
"good"? Can it _be approved?_ No reflective moralist would maintain
that it can. Which means that the moralists, in all ages, have meant by
"good" something more than pleasure, taken abstractly, and that Bentham's
assumption may be regarded as an aberration.
114. TRANSFIGURED UTILITARIANISM.--It is possible to hold to a
utilitarianism more circumspect and less startling than Bentham's. It is
possible, while maintaining that pleasure is the only thing that an
experienced and reasonable being can regard as ultimately desirable, to
maintain at the same time that it is rash for any man to attempt to seek
his own happiness, or to strive to promote the general happiness, without
taking into very careful consideration the instincts and impulses of man
and the nature of the social organization which has resulted from man's
being what he is. One may argue that the experience of the race is, as a
rule, a safer guide than the independent judgment of the individual; and
that, in the secular endeavor to compass the general happiness, it has
discovered the paths to that goal which may most successfully be
followed. Thus, one may distrust Utopian schemes, recognizing the
significance of custom, law, traditional moral maxims, and public
opinion, and yet remain a utilitarian.
But he who does this must still answer the preceding objections. He must
prove: (1) That pleasure is the only thing ultimately desirable; (2) that
each is under obligation to promote the pleasure of all; (3) that its
mere conduciveness to the production of a preponderance of pleasure makes
an action right, even though the pleasure be a malicious one, as in the
illustration above given.
Still, his doctrine has become less startling, and he has moved in the
direction of a greater harmony with the moral judgments of men generally.
The conduct he recommends need not, as a rule, differ greatly from that
recognized as right by moralists of quite different schools.
Such a utilitarian may easily pass over to a form of doctrine which is
not utilitarian at all. Thus, Sidgwick asks whether there is a measurable
quality of feeling expressed by the word "pleasure," which is independent
of its relation to volition, and strictly undefinable from its
simplicity--"like the quality of feeling expressed by 'sweet,' of which
also we are conscious in varying degrees of intensity;" and he answers:
"For my own part, when the term (pleasure) is used in the more extended
sense which I have adopted, to include the most refined and subtle
intellectual and emotional gratifications, no less than the coarser and
more definite sensual enjoyments, I can find no common quality in the
feelings so designated except some relation to desire or volition."
[Footnote: _The Methods of Ethics_, Book II, chapter ii, Sec 2, 4th
Edition. SIDGWICK never appreciably modified this opinion, which is most
clearly expressed in the Edition quoted.]
When we seek, then, to "give pleasure," are we doing nothing else than
giving recognition to the desire and will of our neighbor? What has
become of the Greatest Happiness Principle? Has it not dissolved into the
doctrine of the Real Social Will?