ry protested, "as an account of Hedonism."
"I don't see that it is at all," cried Leslie.
"I think," I said, "that it represents Bentham's position well enough,
though probably not Bartlett's."
"Oh well," said Parry, "Bentham was only an egoistic Hedonist."
"A what?" said Bartlett.
"An egoistic Hedonist."
"And what may that be?"
"An egoistic Hedonist," Parry was beginning, but Ellis cut him short.
"It's best explained," he said, "by an example. Here, for example,
is Bentham's definition of the pleasures of friendship; they are, he
says, 'those which accompany the persuasion of possessing the goodwill
of such and such individuals, and the right of expecting from them, in
consequence, spontaneous and gratuitous services.'"
We all laughed, though Parry, who loved fair play, could not help
protesting. "You really can't judge," he said, "by a single example."
"Can't you?" cried Ellis; "well then, here's another. 'The pleasures
of piety' are 'those which accompany the persuasion of acquiring
or possessing the favour of God; and the power, in consequence, of
expecting particular favours from him, either in this life or in
another.'"
We laughed again; and Parry said, "Well, I resign myself to your
levity. And after all, it doesn't much matter, for no one now is an
egoistic Hedonist."
"What are we then," asked Bartlett, "you and I?"
"Why, of course, altruistic Hedonists," said Parry.
"And what's the difference?"
"The difference is," Parry began to explain, but Ellis interrupted him
again.
"The difference is," he cried, "that one is a brute and the other a
prig."
"Really, Ellis," Parry began in a tone of remonstrance.
"But, Parry," I interposed, "are you a Utilitarian?"
"Not precisely," he replied; "but my conclusions are much the same
as theirs. And of all the _a priori_ systems I prefer Utilitarianism,
because it is at least clear, simple, and precise."
"That is what I can never see that it is."
"Why, what is your difficulty?"
"In the first place," I said, "the system appears to rest upon a
dogma."
"True," he said, "but that particular dogma--the greatest happiness
of the greatest number--is one which commends itself to everyone's
consciousness."
"I don't believe it!" said Ellis. "Let us take an example. A
crossing-sweeper, we will suppose, is suffering from a certain disease
about which the doctors know nothing. Their only chance of discovering
how to cure it is to vivisec
|