第44章

Ifsomethingbewantinginthisdefence，itmayperhapsbesuppliedfromMillhimself。Theimportanceofcultivatingasensitiveloveoftruthis，hesays，sogreatastopossessa’transcendentexpediency’(72*)nottobeviolatedbytemporaryconsiderations。WhendiscussingthequestionofjusticeMillinsistsupontheimportanceoftheconfidenceinourfellow-creaturesascorrespondingtothe’verygroundworkofourexistence。’Thegeneralrule，thatis，correspondstoanindividualqualitywhichisessentialtothesocialunion。A

strongsenseofveracityisunconditionallygood，thoughcircumstancesmayrequireexceptionstoanyrulewhenstatedintermsofoutwardconduct。Lyingmaybenecessary，butshouldalwaysbepainful。Thisisfamiliargroundonwhichitisneedlesstodwell。Butanothercriticismofthe’criterion’ismoreimportantandleadstooneofMill’smostcharacteristicarguments。Thegreatesthappinesscriterion，itisoftensaid，willbeinterpreteddifferentlyasmenformdifferentjudgmentsofwhatconstituteshappiness。The’felicificcalculus’willgivedifferentresultsforthephilosopherandtheclown，thesensualistandtheascetic，thesavageandthecivilisedman；anditispartoftheempiricistcontentionthatinfactthestandardhasvariedwidely。Millhimselfobserves，andheisonlyfollowingLocke(73*)andHume，’thatmoralityhasvariedwidely；

hasinsomecasessanctionedpracticesthemostrevolting’toothers，andthatthe’universalwillofmankindisuniversalonlyinitsdiscordance。’(74*)ItisindeedpreciselyforthatreasonthattheUtilitarianhasdefinedtoaccepttheauthorityofthe’moralsense’andappealedtofacts。Thebeliefthatourfeelingisright，simplybecauseitisours，isthe’mentalinfirmitywhichBentham’sphilosophytendstocorrectandDrWhewell’stoperpetuate。’(75*)Thatistosay，Benthamcanlaydownan’objectivecriterion’becausehecalculatesactualpainsandpleasures。Butwillnotthiscriterionbeafterall’subjective’

becauseourestimateofpainsandpleasuresissodiscordant？

Milltriestomeetthisbyafamousdistinctionbetweenthequalitiesofpleasures。Benthamhadinsistedthatonepleasurewasasgoodasanother。’Quantityofpleasurebeingequal，push-pinisasgoodaspoetry。’(76*)Millnowdeclaresthatitisquitecompatiblewiththeprincipleofutilitytorecognisethefactthatsomekindsofpleasurearemoredesirableandmorevaluablethanothers。’Wemustconsider’quality’aswellas’quantity。’(77*)The’onlycompetentjudges，’heargues，arethosewhohaveknownboth。Now，itisan’unquestionablefact’

thatthosewhohavethisadvantagepreferthehigherorintellectualtothelowerorsensualpleasures。ItisbettertobeaSocratesdissatisfiedthanafoolsatisfied。Ifthefoolorthepigdissentsitisbecauseheonlyknowshisownsideofthequestion。(78*)

Answersareonlytooobvious。Whatis’quantity’asdistinguishedfrom’quality’ofpleasure？Thestatement，’Acubicfootofwaterweighslessthanacubicfootoflead’isintelligible；butwhatisthecorrespondingpropositionaboutpleasure？Canweask，Howmuchbenevolenceisequaltohowmuchhunger？The’howmuch’isstrictlymeaningless。Moreover，arenotbothSocratesandthepigrightintheirjudgment？Pig’s-washissurelybetterforthepigthandialogue；anddialoguemaybebetterforSocratesthanpig’s-wash。If’desirable’meansthatpleasurewhicheachdesires，eachmayberight。Ifitmeanssomequalityindependentoftheagent，wehavetheoldfallacywhichinpoliticaleconomymakes’value’something’objective。’All’value’mustdependuponthemanaswellasuponthething。AndthisagainsuggeststhatneitherSocratesnoraChristiansaintwouldreallymakethesupposedassertion。Itisnottrueabsolutelythat’intellectual’pleasuresaresimply’better’thansensual。Eachisbetterincertaincircumstances。Therearetimeswheneventhesaintprefersaglassofwatertoreligiousmusings；andmomentswhenevenafoolmayattimesfindsuchintellectualpleasuresashecanenjoybetterthanaglassofwine。ThisseemstobesoobviousthatwemustsuspectMillofhastilystop