"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 att.i.tude 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 a.s.signed 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 n.o.body 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 quant.i.ty 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 a.n.a.logous 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 a.s.signed 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 pa.s.s 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 a.s.sumption 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 a.s.sumption.
(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 embarra.s.s 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 cla.s.s 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 x.x.x, 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 inst.i.tutions, 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 pa.s.sively 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 a.s.sumption 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 pa.s.sions or appet.i.tes 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 appet.i.te 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 appet.i.te 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 inc.u.mbent 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 a.s.sume 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 a.s.sumes the principle; Mill advances a doubtful argument; Sidgwick falls back upon intuitions which all will not admit to be indubitable. To his a.s.sertion: "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 a.s.sumed that good in this sense and moral good are the same thing.
His a.s.sumption 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 circ.u.mstances, pleasure is regarded as, from a moral standpoint, a good, and, under other circ.u.mstances, 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 a.s.sumption may be regarded as an aberration.
114. TRANSFIGURED UTILITARIANISM.--It is possible to hold to a utilitarianism more circ.u.mspect 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 compa.s.s 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 ill.u.s.tration above given.