下载

1下载券

加入VIP
  • 专属下载特权
  • 现金文档折扣购买
  • VIP免费专区
  • 千万文档免费下载

上传资料

关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863).doc

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

用户3202804097
2014-01-17 0人阅读 举报 0 0 暂无简介

简介:本文档为《J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)doc》,可适用于人文社科领域

JSMill,Utilitarianism()JSMill,Utilitarianism()Abriefoverviewofthereading:JeremyBentham’s()principleofutilityisopentotheobjectionthatitmaywellsacrificetherightsoftheminorityforthesakeofthehappinessofthemajorityJohnStuartMill(),himselfautilitarian,soughttorescueutilitarianismfromthisandotherobjectionsInhisessayUtilitarianism,Millarguesthatrespectforindividualsrightsas“themostsacredandbindingpartofmorality”iscompatiblewiththeideathatjusticerestsultimatelyonutilitarianconsiderationsButisMillrighttobeconfidentCantheprincipleofutilitysupportthenotionthatsomerightsshouldbeupheldevenifdoingsomakesthemajorityveryunhappyChapterIGeneralRemarksTHEREAREfewcircumstancesamongthosewhichmakeupthepresentconditionofhumanknowledge,moreunlikewhatmighthavebeenexpected,ormoresignificantofthebackwardstateinwhichspeculationonthemostimportantsubjectsstilllingers,thanthelittleprogresswhichhasbeenmadeinthedecisionofthecontroversyrespectingthecriterionofrightandwrongFromthedawnofphilosophy,thequestionconcerningthesummumbonum,or,whatisthesamething,concerningthefoundationofmorality,hasbeenaccountedthemainprobleminspeculativethought,hasoccupiedthemostgiftedintellects,anddividedthemintosectsandschools,carryingonavigorouswarfareagainstoneanotherAndaftermorethantwothousandyearsthesamediscussionscontinue,philosophersarestillrangedunderthesamecontendingbanners,andneitherthinkersnormankindatlargeseemnearertobeingunanimousonthesubject,thanwhentheyouthSocrateslistenedtotheoldProtagoras,andasserted(ifPlato’sdialoguebegroundedonarealconversation)thetheoryofutilitarianismagainstthepopularmoralityofthesocalledsophistItistruethatsimilarconfusionanduncertainty,andinsomecasessimilardiscordance,existrespectingthefirstprinciplesofallthesciences,notexceptingthatwhichisdeemedthemostcertainofthem,mathematicswithoutmuchimpairing,generallyindeedwithoutimpairingatall,thetrustworthinessoftheconclusionsofthosesciencesAnapparentanomaly,theexplanationofwhichis,thatthedetaileddoctrinesofasciencearenotusuallydeducedfrom,nordependfortheirevidenceupon,whatarecalleditsfirstprinciplesWereitnotso,therewouldbenosciencemoreprecarious,orwhoseconclusionsweremoreinsufficientlymadeout,thanalgebrawhichderivesnoneofitscertaintyfromwhatarecommonlytaughttolearnersasitselements,sincethese,aslaiddownbysomeofitsmosteminentteachers,areasfulloffictionsasEnglishlaw,andofmysteriesastheologyThetruthswhichareultimatelyacceptedasthefirstprinciplesofascience,arereallythelastresultsofmetaphysicalanalysis,practisedontheelementarynotionswithwhichthescienceisconversantandtheirrelationtothescienceisnotthatoffoundationstoanedifice,butofrootstoatree,whichmayperformtheirofficeequallywellthoughtheybeneverdugdowntoandexposedtolightButthoughinsciencetheparticulartruthsprecedethegeneraltheory,thecontrarymightbeexpectedtobethecasewithapracticalart,suchasmoralsorlegislationAllactionisforthesakeofsomeend,andrulesofaction,itseemsnaturaltosuppose,musttaketheirwholecharacterandcolourfromtheendtowhichtheyaresubservientWhenweengageinapursuit,aclearandpreciseconceptionofwhatwearepursuingwouldseemtobethefirstthingweneed,insteadofthelastwearetolookforwardtoAtestofrightandwrongmustbethemeans,onewouldthink,ofascertainingwhatisrightorwrong,andnotaconsequenceofhavingalreadyascertaineditThedifficultyisnotavoidedbyhavingrecoursetothepopulartheoryofanaturalfaculty,asenseorinstinct,informingusofrightandwrongForbesidesthattheexistenceofsuchamoralinstinctisitselfoneofthemattersindisputethosebelieversinitwhohaveanypretensionstophilosophy,havebeenobligedtoabandontheideathatitdiscernswhatisrightorwrongintheparticularcaseinhand,asourothersensesdiscernthesightorsoundactuallypresentOurmoralfaculty,accordingtoallthoseofitsinterpreterswhoareentitledtothenameofthinkers,suppliesusonlywiththegeneralprinciplesofmoraljudgmentsitisabranchofourreason,notofoursensitivefacultyandmustbelookedtofortheabstractdoctrinesofmorality,notforperceptionofitintheconcreteTheintuitive,nolessthanwhatmaybetermedtheinductive,schoolofethics,insistsonthenecessityofgenerallawsTheybothagreethatthemoralityofanindividualactionisnotaquestionofdirectperception,butoftheapplicationofalawtoanindividualcaseTheyrecognisealso,toagreatextent,thesamemorallawsbutdifferastotheirevidence,andthesourcefromwhichtheyderivetheirauthorityAccordingtotheoneopinion,theprinciplesofmoralsareevidentapriori,requiringnothingtocommandassent,exceptthatthemeaningofthetermsbeunderstoodAccordingtotheotherdoctrine,rightandwrong,aswellastruthandfalsehood,arequestionsofobservationandexperienceButbothholdequallythatmoralitymustbededucedfromprinciplesandtheintuitiveschoolaffirmasstronglyastheinductive,thatthereisascienceofmoralsYettheyseldomattempttomakeoutalistoftheaprioriprincipleswhicharetoserveasthepremisesofthesciencestillmorerarelydotheymakeanyefforttoreducethosevariousprinciplestoonefirstprinciple,orcommongroundofobligationTheyeitherassumetheordinarypreceptsofmoralsasofaprioriauthority,ortheylaydownasthecommongroundworkofthosemaxims,somegeneralitymuchlessobviouslyauthoritativethanthemaximsthemselves,andwhichhasneversucceededingainingpopularacceptanceYettosupporttheirpretensionsthereoughteithertobesomeonefundamentalprincipleorlaw,attherootofallmorality,oriftherebeseveral,thereshouldbeadeterminateorderofprecedenceamongthemandtheoneprinciple,ortherulefordecidingbetweenthevariousprincipleswhentheyconflict,oughttobeselfevidentToinquirehowfarthebadeffectsofthisdeficiencyhavebeenmitigatedinpractice,ortowhatextentthemoralbeliefsofmankindhavebeenvitiatedormadeuncertainbytheabsenceofanydistinctrecognitionofanultimatestandard,wouldimplyacompletesurveyandcriticism,ofpastandpresentethicaldoctrineItwould,however,beeasytoshowthatwhateversteadinessorconsistencythesemoralbeliefshave,attained,hasbeenmainlyduetothetacitinfluenceofastandardnotrecognisedAlthoughthenonexistenceofanacknowledgedfirstprinciplehasmadeethicsnotsomuchaguideasaconsecrationofmen’sactualsentiments,still,asmen’ssentiments,bothoffavourandofaversion,aregreatlyinfluencedbywhattheysupposetobetheeffectsofthingsupontheirhappiness,theprincipleofutility,orasBenthamlatterlycalledit,thegreatesthappinessprinciple,hashadalargeshareinformingthemoraldoctrinesevenofthosewhomostscornfullyrejectitsauthorityNoristhereanyschoolofthoughtwhichrefusestoadmitthattheinfluenceofactionsonhappinessisamostmaterialandevenpredominantconsiderationinmanyofthedetailsofmorals,howeverunwillingtoacknowledgeitasthefundamentalprincipleofmorality,andthesourceofmoralobligationImightgomuchfurther,andsaythattoallthoseapriorimoralistswhodeemitnecessarytoargueatall,utilitarianargumentsareindispensableItisnotmypresentpurposetocriticisethesethinkersbutIcannothelpreferring,forillustration,toasystematictreatisebyoneofthemostillustriousofthem,theMetaphysicsofEthics,byKantThisremarkableman,whosesystemofthoughtwilllongremainoneofthelandmarksinthehistoryofphilosophicalspeculation,does,inthetreatiseinquestion,laydownauniversalfirstprincipleastheoriginandgroundofmoralobligationitisthis:“Soact,thattheruleonwhichthouactestwouldadmitofbeingadoptedasalawbyallrationalbeings”Butwhenhebeginstodeducefromthispreceptanyoftheactualdutiesofmorality,hefails,almostgrotesquely,toshowthattherewouldbeanycontradiction,anylogical(nottosayphysical)impossibility,intheadoptionbyallrationalbeingsofthemostoutrageouslyimmoralrulesofconductAllheshowsisthattheconsequencesoftheiruniversaladoptionwouldbesuchasnoonewouldchoosetoincurOnthepresentoccasion,Ishall,withoutfurtherdiscussionoftheothertheories,attempttocontributesomethingtowardstheunderstandingandappreciationoftheUtilitarianorHappinesstheory,andtowardssuchproofasitissusceptibleofItisevidentthatthiscannotbeproofintheordinaryandpopularmeaningofthetermQuestionsofultimateendsarenotamenabletodirectproofWhatevercanbeprovedtobegood,mustbesobybeingshowntobeameanstosomethingadmittedtobegoodwithoutproofThemedicalartisprovedtobegoodbyitsconducingtohealthbuthowisitpossibletoprovethathealthisgoodTheartofmusicisgood,forthereason,amongothers,thatitproducespleasurebutwhatproofisitpossibletogivethatpleasureisgoodIf,then,itisassertedthatthereisacomprehensiveformula,includingallthingswhichareinthemselvesgood,andthatwhateverelseisgood,isnotsoasanend,butasamean,theformulamaybeacceptedorrejected,butisnotasubjectofwhatiscommonlyunderstoodbyproofWearenot,however,toinferthatitsacceptanceorrejectionmustdependonblindimpulse,orarbitrarychoiceThereisalargermeaningofthewordproof,inwhichthisquestionisasamenabletoitasanyotherofthedisputedquestionsofphilosophyThesubjectiswithinthecognisanceoftherationalfacultyandneitherdoesthatfacultydealwithitsolelyinthewayofintuitionConsiderationsmaybepresentedcapableofdeterminingtheintellecteithertogiveorwithholditsassenttothedoctrineandthisisequivalenttoproofWeshallexaminepresentlyofwhatnaturearetheseconsiderationsinwhatmannertheyapplytothecase,andwhatrationalgrounds,therefore,canbegivenforacceptingorrejectingtheutilitarianformulaButitisapreliminaryconditionofrationalacceptanceorrejection,thattheformulashouldbecorrectlyunderstoodIbelievethattheveryimperfectnotionordinarilyformedofitsmeaning,isthechiefobstaclewhichimpedesitsreceptionandthatcoulditbecleared,evenfromonlythegrossermisconceptions,thequestionwouldbegreatlysimplified,andalargeproportionofitsdifficultiesremovedBefore,therefore,Iattempttoenterintothephilosophicalgroundswhichcanbegivenforassentingtotheutilitarianstandard,Ishalloffersomeillustrationsofthedoctrineitselfwiththeviewofshowingmoreclearlywhatitis,distinguishingitfromwhatitisnot,anddisposingofsuchofthepracticalobjectionstoitaseitheroriginatein,orarecloselyconnectedwith,mistakeninterpretationsofitsmeaningHavingthuspreparedtheground,IshallafterwardsendeavourtothrowsuchlightasIcanuponthequestion,consideredasoneofphilosophicaltheoryChapterWhatUtilitarianismIsAPASSINGremarkisallthatneedsbegiventotheignorantblunderofsupposingthatthosewhostandupforutilityasthetestofrightandwrong,usetheterminthatrestrictedandmerelycolloquialsenseinwhichutilityisopposedtopleasureAnapologyisduetothephilosophicalopponentsofutilitarianism,foreventhemomentaryappearanceofconfoundingthemwithanyonecapableofsoabsurdamisconceptionwhichisthemoreextraordinary,inasmuchasthecontraryaccusation,ofreferringeverythingtopleasure,andthattooinitsgrossestform,isanotherofthecommonchargesagainstutilitarianism:and,ashasbeenpointedlyremarkedbyanablewriter,thesamesortofpersons,andoftentheverysamepersons,denouncethetheory“asimpracticablydrywhenthewordutilityprecedesthewordpleasure,andastoopracticablyvoluptuouswhenthewordpleasureprecedesthewordutility”Thosewhoknowanythingaboutthematterareawarethateverywriter,fromEpicurustoBentham,whomaintainedthetheoryofutility,meantbyit,notsomethingtobecontradistinguishedfrompleasure,butpleasureitself,togetherwithexemptionfrompainandinsteadofopposingtheusefultotheagreeableortheornamental,havealwaysdeclaredthattheusefulmeansthese,amongotherthingsYetthecommonherd,includingtheherdofwriters,notonlyinnewspapersandperiodicals,butinbooksofweightandpretension,areperpetuallyfallingintothisshallowmistakeHavingcaughtupthewordutilitarian,whileknowingnothingwhateveraboutitbutitssound,theyhabituallyexpressbyittherejection,ortheneglect,ofpleasureinsomeofitsformsofbeauty,ofornament,orofamusementNoristhetermthusignorantlymisappliedsolelyindisparagement,butoccasionallyincomplimentasthoughitimpliedsuperioritytofrivolityandthemerepleasuresofthemomentAndthisperverteduseistheonlyoneinwhichthewordispopularlyknown,andtheonefromwhichthenewgenerationareacquiringtheirsolenotionofitsmeaningThosewhointroducedtheword,butwhohadformanyyearsdiscontinueditasadistinctiveappellation,maywellfeelthemselvescalledupontoresumeit,ifbydoingsotheycanhopetocontributeanythingtowardsrescuingitfromthisutterdegradation**TheauthorofthisessayhasreasonforbelievinghimselftobethefirstpersonwhobroughtthewordutilitarianintouseHedidnotinventit,butadopteditfromapassingexpressioninMrGalt'sAnnalsoftheParishAfterusingitasadesignationforseveralyears,heandothersabandoneditfromagrowingdisliketoanythingresemblingabadgeorwatchwordofsectariandistinctionButasanameforonesingleopinion,notasetofopinionstodenotetherecognitionofutilityasastandard,notanyparticularwayofapplyingitthetermsuppliesawantinthelanguage,andoffers,inmanycases,aconvenientmodeofavoidingtiresomecircumlocutionThecreedwhichacceptsasthefoundationofmorals,Utility,ortheGreatestHappinessPrinciple,holdsthatactionsarerightinproportionastheytendtopromotehappiness,wrongastheytendtoproducethereverseofhappinessByhappinessisintendedpleasure,andtheabsenceofpainbyunhappiness,pain,andtheprivationofpleasureTogiveaclearviewofthemoralstandardsetupbythetheory,muchmorerequirestobesaidinparticular,whatthingsitincludesintheideasofpainandpleasureandtowhatextentthisisleftanopenquestionButthesesupplementaryexplanationsdonotaffectthetheoryoflifeonwhichthistheoryofmoralityisgroundednamely,thatpleasure,andfreedomfrompain,aretheonlythingsdesirableasendsandthatalldesirablethings(whichareasnumerousintheutilitarianasinanyotherscheme)aredesirableeitherforthepleasureinherentinthemselves,orasmeanstothepromotionofpleasureandthepreventionofpainNow,suchatheoryoflifeexcitesinmanyminds,andamongtheminsomeofthemostestimableinfeelingandpurpose,inveteratedislikeTosupposethatlifehas(astheyexpressit)nohigherendthanpleasurenobetterandnoblerobjectofdesireandpursuittheydesignateasutterlymeanandgrovellingasadoctrineworthyonlyofswine,towhomthefollowersofEpicuruswere,ataveryearlyperiod,contemptuouslylikenedandmodernholdersofthedoctrineareoccasionallymadethesubjectofequallypolitecomparisonsbyitsGerman,French,andEnglishassailantsWhenthusattacked,theEpicureanshavealwaysanswered,thatitisnotthey,buttheiraccusers,whorepresenthumannatureinadegradinglightsincetheaccusationsupposeshumanbeingstobecapableofnopleasuresexceptthoseofwhichswinearecapableIfthissuppositionweretrue,thechargecouldnotbegainsaid,butwouldthenbenolongeranimputationforifthesourcesofpleasurewerepreciselythesametohumanbeingsandtoswine,theruleoflifewhichisgoodenoughfortheonewouldbegoodenoughfortheotherThecomparisonoftheEpicureanlifetothatofbeastsisfeltasdegrading,preciselybecauseabeast’spleasuresdonotsatisfyahumanbeing’sconceptionsofhappinessHumanbeingshavefacultiesmoreelevatedthantheanimalappetites,andwhenoncemadeconsciousofthem,donotregardanythingashappinesswhichdoesnotincludetheirgratificationIdonot,indeed,considertheEpicureanstohavebeenbyanymeansfaultlessindrawingouttheirschemeofconsequencesfromtheutilitarianprincipleTodothisinanysufficientmanner,manyStoic,aswellasChristianelementsrequiretobeincludedButthereisnoknownEpicureantheoryoflifewhichdoesnotassigntothepleasuresoftheintellect,ofthefeelingsandimagination,andofthemoralsentiments,amuchhighervalueaspleasuresthantothoseofmeresensationItmustbeadmitted,however,thatutilitarianwritersingeneralhaveplacedthesuperiorityofmentaloverbodilypleasureschieflyinthegreaterpermanency,safety,uncostliness,etc,oftheformerthatis,intheircircumstantialadvantagesratherthanintheirintrinsicnatureAndonallthesepointsutilitarianshavefullyprovedtheircasebuttheymighthavetakentheother,and,asitmaybecalled,higherground,withentireconsistencyItisquitecompatiblewiththeprincipleofutilitytorecognisethefact,thatsomekindsofpleasurearemoredesirableandmorevaluablethanothersItwouldbeabsurdthatwhile,inestimatingallotherthings,qualityisconsideredaswellasquantity,theestimationofpleasuresshouldbesupposedtodependonquantityaloneIfIamasked,whatImeanbydifferenceofqualityinpleasures,orwhatmakesonepleasuremorevaluablethananother,merelyasapleasure,exceptitsbeinggreaterinamount,thereisbutonepossibleanswerOftwopleasures,iftherebeonetowhichalloralmostallwhohaveexperienceofbothgiveadecidedpreference,irrespectiveofanyfeelingofmoralobligationtopreferit,thatisthemoredesirablepleasureIfoneofthetwois,bythosewhoarecompetentlyacquaintedwithboth,placedsofarabovetheotherthattheypreferit,eventhoughknowingittobeattendedwithagreateramountofdiscontent,andwouldnotresignitforanyquantityoftheotherpleasurewhichtheirnatureiscapableof,wearejustifiedinascribingtothepreferredenjoymentasuperiorityinquality,sofaroutweighingquantityastorenderit,incomparison,ofsmallaccountNowitisanunquestionablefactthatthosewhoareequallyacquaintedwith,andequallycapableofappreciatingandenjoying,both,dogiveamostmarkedpreferencetothemannerofexistencewhichemploystheirhigherfacultiesFewhumancreatureswouldconsenttobechangedintoanyoftheloweranimals,forapromiseofthefullestallowanceofabeast’spleasuresnointelligenthumanbeingwouldconsenttobeafool,noinstructedpersonwouldbeanignoramus,nopersonoffeelingandconsciencewouldbeselfishandbase,eventhoughthe

用户评价(0)

关闭

新课改视野下建构高中语文教学实验成果报告(32KB)

抱歉,积分不足下载失败,请稍后再试!

提示

试读已结束,如需要继续阅读或者下载,敬请购买!

文档小程序码

使用微信“扫一扫”扫码寻找文档

1

打开微信

2

扫描小程序码

3

发布寻找信息

4

等待寻找结果

我知道了
评分:

/42

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

VIP

在线
客服

免费
邮箱

爱问共享资料服务号

扫描关注领取更多福利