04.02.2013 Views

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ETHICAL THBORY SURVEYED 413<br />

ought to desire the gre<strong>at</strong>est pleasure on the whole, or the<br />

gre<strong>at</strong>est pleasure of the gre<strong>at</strong>est number. These two forms<br />

of Ethical Hedonism are sometimes known as Egoistic<br />

Ethical Hedonism and Univcrsalistic Ethical Hedonism.<br />

In the course of the foregoing discussions a number<br />

of arguments which milit<strong>at</strong>e against the acceptance of<br />

either view have been indic<strong>at</strong>ed. Here again, however,<br />

it is doubtful whether any logical refut<strong>at</strong>ion is possible.<br />

The nearest approach to one is afforded by the argument<br />

already used in this chapter 1 to show th<strong>at</strong> the term "good "<br />

cannot be equ<strong>at</strong>ed with any other concept wh<strong>at</strong>ever. If<br />

this argument is correct, good cannot be equ<strong>at</strong>ed with<br />

pleasure.<br />

Egoistic Ethical Hedonism has often been criticized<br />

on the ground th<strong>at</strong> it is a vulgar and unworthy doctrine,<br />

and repugnant to the moral sense of mankind. If this<br />

objection means anything <strong>at</strong> all, it means th<strong>at</strong> most people<br />

experience intuitions to the effect th<strong>at</strong> some things other<br />

than pleasure are good in themselves, and are not good<br />

merely as a means to the increase of pleasure, the imput<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

of vulgarity arising from the proposal to value merely<br />

as a means to enjoyment th<strong>at</strong> which is valuable in and<br />

for its own sake. Th<strong>at</strong> most people do experience such<br />

intuitions seems to be highly probable.<br />

If it cannot be logically refuted, Ethical Hedonism<br />

cannot be logically demonstr<strong>at</strong>ed.<br />

Of the proposition th<strong>at</strong> pleasure alone is good, or is the<br />

Good, there is not, nor in the n<strong>at</strong>ure of things can there be,<br />

any proof. It rests, as I have tried to show, upon an indefensible<br />

intuition. It is not, therefore, surprising th<strong>at</strong> when philosophers<br />

do endeavour to defend it, they should fall into<br />

inconsistency, as J. S. Mill fell into inconsistency when he<br />

sought to establish the fact th<strong>at</strong> there were different qualities<br />

of pleasure, a higher and a lower.* Now it may be plausibly<br />

suggested th<strong>at</strong> these <strong>at</strong>tempted defences are prompted by<br />

their authors' unconscious recognition th<strong>at</strong> die view th<strong>at</strong><br />

pleasure is the only good is <strong>at</strong> variance with the plain<br />

1 See above, pp. 388, 389.<br />

* See Chapter IX, p. 330.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!