第63章

Wehavetoaskhow，onUtilitarianprinciples，thisinfluenceistobeexercised。HereIshallassumethat，forhumanbeingsgenerally，lifeontheaverageyieldsapositivebalanceofpleasureoverpain。Thishasbeendeniedbythoughtfulpersons:butthedenialseemstomeclearlyopposedtothecommonexperienceofmankind，asexpressedintheircommonlyacceptedprinciplesofaction。Thegreatmajorityofmen，inthegreatmajorityofconditionsunderwhichhumanlifeislived，certainlyactasifdeathwereoneoftheworstofevils，forthemselvesandforthosewhomtheylove:andtheadministrationofcriminaljusticeproceedsonasimilarassumption。

Assuming，then，thattheaveragehappinessofhumanbeingsisapositivequantity，itseemsclearthat，supposingtheaveragehappinessenjoyedremainsundiminished，Utilitarianismdirectsustomakethenumberenjoyingitasgreataspossible。Butifweforeseeaspossiblethatanincreaseinnumberswillbeaccompaniedbyadecreaseinaveragehappinessorviceversa，apointariseswhichhasnotonlyneverbeenformallynoticed，butwhichseemstohavebeensubstantiallyoverlookedbymanyUtilitarians。ForifwetakeUtilitarianismtoprescribe，astheultimateendofaction，happinessonthewhole，andnotanyindividual’shappiness，unlessconsideredasanelementofthewhole，itwouldfollowthat，iftheadditionalpopulationenjoyonthewholepositivehappiness，weoughttoweightheamountofhappinessgainedbytheextranumberagainsttheamountlostbytheremainder。Sothat，strictlyconceived，thepointuptowhich，onUtilitarianprinciples，populationoughttobeencouragedtoincrease，isnotthatatwhichaveragehappinessisthegreatestpossible，asappearstobeoftenassumedbypoliticaleconomistsoftheschoolofMalthus——butthatatwhichtheproductformedbymultiplyingthenumberofpersonslivingintotheamountofaveragehappinessreachesitsmaximum。

ItmaybewellheretomakearemarkwhichhasawideapplicationinUtilitariandiscussion。TheconclusionjustgivenwearsacertainairofabsurditytotheviewofCommonSense；becauseitsshowofexactnessisgrotesquelyincongruouswithourconsciousnessoftheinevitableinexactnessofallsuchcalculationsinactualpractice。

But，thatourpracticalUtilitarianreasoningsmustnecessarilyberough，isnoreasonfornotmakingthemasaccurateasthecaseadmits；andweshallbemorelikelytosucceedinthisifwekeepbeforeourmindasdistinctlyaspossiblethestricttypeofthecalculationthatweshouldhavetomake，ifalltherelevantconsiderationscouldbeestimatedwithmathematicalprecision。

Thereisonemorepointthatremainstobenoticed。Itisevidentthattheremaybemanydifferentwaysofdistributingthesamequantumofhappinessamongthesamenumberofpersons；inorder，therefore，thattheUtilitariancriterionofrightconductmaybeascompleteaspossible，weoughttoknowwhichofthesewaysistobepreferred。ThisquestionisoftenignoredinexpositionsofUtilitarianism。

Ithasperhapsseemedsomewhatidleassuggestingapurelyabstractandtheoreticalperplexity，thatcouldhavenopracticalexemplification；andnodoubt，ifalltheconsequencesofactionswerecapableofbeingestimatedandsummedupwithmathematicalprecision，weshouldprobablyneverfindtheexcessofpleasureoverpainexactlyequalinthecaseoftwocompetingalternativesofconduct。Buttheveryindefinitenessofallhedonisticcalculations，whichwassufficientlyshowninBookii。，rendersitbynomeansunlikelythattheremaybenocognisabledifferencebetweenthequantitiesofhappinessinvolvedintwosetsofconsequencesrespectively；themoreroughourestimatesnecessarilyare，thelesslikelyweshallbetocometoanycleardecisionbetweentwoapparentlybalancedalternatives。Inallsuchcases，therefore，itbecomespracticallyimportanttoaskwhetheranymodeofdistributingagivenquantumofhappinessisbetterthananyother。NowtheUtilitarianformulaseemstosupplynoanswertothisquestion:

atleastwehavetosupplementtheprincipleofseekingthegreatesthappinessonthewholebysomeprincipleofJustorRightdistributionofthishappiness。

TheprinciplewhichmostUtilitarianshaveeithertacitlyorexpresslyadoptedisthatofpureequality——asgiveninBentham’sformula，``everybodytocountforone，andnobodyformorethanone’’。Andthisprincipleseemstheonlyonewhichdoesnotneedaspecialjustification；for，aswesaw，itmustbereasonabletotreatanyonemaninthesamewayasanyother，iftherebenoreasonapparentfortreatinghimdifferently。[2]

InBo