utilitarianism-第6节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
decides an action to be good or bad because it is done by a good or a bad man; still less because done by an amiable; a brave; or a benevolent man; or the contrary。 These considerations are relevant; not to the estimation of actions; but of persons; and there is nothing in the utilitarian theory inconsistent with the fact that there are other things which interest us in persons besides the rightness and wrongness of their actions。 The Stoics; indeed; with the paradoxical misuse of language which was part of their system; and by which they strove to raise themselves above all concern about anything but virtue; were fond of saying that he who has that has everything; that he; and only he; is rich; is beautiful; is a king。 But no claim of this description is made for the virtuous man by the utilitarian doctrine。 Utilitarians are quite aware that there are other desirable possessions and qualities besides virtue; and are perfectly willing to allow to all of them their full worth。 They are also aware that a right action does not necessarily indicate a virtuous character; and that actions which are blamable; often proceed from qualities entitled to praise。 When this is apparent in any particular case; it modifies their estimation; not certainly of the act; but of the agent。 I grant that they are; notwithstanding; of opinion; that in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions; and resolutely refuse to consider any mental disposition as good; of which the predominant tendency is to produce bad conduct。 This makes them unpopular with many people; but it is an unpopularity which they must share with every one who regards the distinction between right and wrong in a serious light; and the reproach is not one which a conscientious utilitarian need be anxious to repel。 If no more be meant by the objection than that many utilitarians look on the morality of actions; as measured by the utilitarian standard; with too exclusive a regard; and do not lay sufficient stress upon the other beauties of character which go towards making a human being lovable or admirable; this may be admitted。 Utilitarians who have cultivated their moral feelings; but not their sympathies nor their artistic perceptions; do fall into this mistake; and so do all other moralists under the same conditions。 What can be said in excuse for other moralists is equally available for them; namely; that; if there is to be any error; it is better that it should be on that side。 As a matter of fact; we may affirm that among utilitarians as among adherents of other systems; there is every imaginable degree of rigidity and of laxity in the application of their standard: some are even puritanically rigorous; while others are as indulgent as can possibly be desired by sinner or by sentimentalist。 But on the whole; a doctrine which brings prominently forward the interest that mankind have in the repression and prevention of conduct which violates the moral law; is likely to be inferior to no other in turning the sanctions of opinion again such violations。 It is true; the question; What does violate the moral law? is one on which those who recognise different standards of morality are likely now and then to differ。 But difference of opinion on moral questions was not first introduced into the world by utilitarianism; while that doctrine does supply; if not always an easy; at all events a tangible and intelligible mode of deciding such differences。
It may not be superfluous to notice a few more of the common misapprehensions of utilitarian ethics; even those which are so obvious and gross that it might appear impossible for any person of candour and intelligence to fall into them; since persons; even of considerable mental endowments; often give themselves so little trouble to understand the bearings of any opinion against which they entertain a prejudice; and men are in general so little conscious of this voluntary ignorance as a defect; that the vulgarest misunderstandings of ethical doctrines are continually met with in the deliberate writings of persons of the greatest pretensions both to high principle and to philosophy。 We not uncommonly hear the doctrine of utility inveighed against as a godless doctrine。 If it be necessary to say anything at all against so mere an assumption; we may say that the question depends upon what idea we have formed of the moral character of the Deity。 If it be a true belief that God desires; above all things; the happiness of his creatures; and that this was his purpose in their creation; utility is not only not a godless doctrine; but more profoundly religious than any other。 If it be meant that utilitarianism does not recognise the revealed will of God as the supreme law of morals; I answer; that a utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God; necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals; must fulfil the requirements of utility in a supreme degree。 But others besides utilitarians have been of opinion that the Christian revelation was intended; and is fitted; to inform the hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which should enable them to find for themselves what is right; and incline them to do it when found; rather than to tell them; except in a very general way; what it is; and that we need a doctrine of ethics; carefully followed out; to interpret to us the will God。 Whether this opinion is correct or not; it is superfluous here to discuss; since whatever aid religion; either natural or revealed; can afford to ethical investigation; is as open to the utilitarian moralist as to any other。 He can use it as the testimony of God to the usefulness or hurtfulness of any given course of action; by as good a right as others can use it for the indication of a transcendental law; having no connection with usefulness or with happiness。 Again; Utility is often summarily stigmatised as an immoral doctrine by giving it the name of Expediency; and taking advantage of the popular use of that term to contrast it with Principle。 But the Expedient; in the sense in which it is opposed to the Right; generally means that which is expedient for the particular interest of the agent himself; as when a minister sacrifices the interests of his country to keep himself in place。 When it means anything better than this; it means that which is expedient for some immediate object; some temporary purpose; but which violates a rule whose observance is expedient in a much higher degree。 The Expedient; in this sense; instead of being the same thing with the useful; is a branch of the hurtful。 Thus; it would often be expedient; for the purpose of getting over some momentary embarrassment; or attaining some object immediately useful to ourselves or others; to tell a lie。 But inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity; is one of the most useful; and the enfeeblement of that feeling one of the most hurtful; things to which our conduct can be instrumental; and inasmuch as any; even unintentional; deviation from truth; does that much towards weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion; which is not only the principal support of all present social well…being; but the insufficiency of which does more than any one thing that can be named to keep back civilisation; virtue; everything on which human happiness on the largest scale depends; we feel that the violation; for a present advantage; of a rule of such transcendant expediency; is not expedient; and that he who; for the sake of a convenience to himself or to some other individual; does what depends on him to deprive mankind of the good; and inflict upon them the evil; involved in the greater or less reliance which they can place in each other's word; acts the part of one of their worst enemies。 Yet that even this rule; sacred as it is; admits of possible exceptions; is acknowledged by all moralists; the chief of which is when the withholding of some fact (as of information from a malefactor; or of bad news from a person dangerously ill) would save an individual (especially an individual other than oneself) from great and unmerited evil; and when the withholding can only be effected by denial。 But in order that the exception may not extend itself beyond the need; and may have the least possible effect in weakening reliance on veracity; it ought to be recognised; and; if possible; its limits defined; and if the principle of utility is good for anything; it must be good for weighing these conflicting utilities against one another; and marking out the region within which one or the other preponderates。 Again; defenders of utility often find themselves called upon to reply to such objections as this… that there is not time; previous to action; for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness。 This is exactly as if any one were to say that it is impossible to guide our conduct by Christianity; because there is not time; on every occasion on which anything has to be done; to read through the Old and New Testaments。 The answer to the objection is; that there has been ample time; namely; the whole past duration of the human species。 During all that time; mankind have b