utilitarianism-第7章
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！
s。 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 been learning by experience the tendencies of actions； on which experience all the prudence； as well as all the morality of life； are dependent。 People talk as if the commencement of this course of experience had hitherto been put off； and as if； at the moment when some man feels tempted to meddle with the property or life of another； he had to begin considering for the first time whether murder and theft are injurious to human happiness。 Even then I do not think that he would find the question very puzzling； but； at all events； the matter is now done to his hand。 It is truly a whimsical supposition that； if mankind were agreed in considering utility to be the test of morality； they would remain without any agreement as to what is useful； and would take no measures for having their notions on the subject taught to the young； and enforced by law and opinion。 There is no difficulty in proving any ethical standard whatever to work ill； if we suppose universal idiocy to be conjoined with it； but on any hypothesis short of that； mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness； and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude； and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better。 That philosophers might easily do this； even now； on many subjects； that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right； and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on the general happiness； I admit； or rather； earnestly maintain。 The corollaries from the principle of utility； like the precepts of every practical art； admit of indefinite improvement； and； in a progressive state of the human mind； their improvement is perpetually going on。 But to consider the rules of morality as improvable； is one thing； to pass over the intermediate generalisations entirely； and endeavour to test each individual action directly by the first principle； is another。 It is a strange notion that the acknowledgment
