utilitarianism-第6部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

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