Henry Sidgwick, answered from the texts and cited to the page.
The question deserves a precise answer, for the term "method" carries a specific weight in my usage. By a method of ethics I mean any rational procedure for determining what an individual ought to do — a systematic mode of bringing reason to bear on the question of right conduct. There are three such methods that have commended themselves to reflective persons, and my inquiry in the Methods of Ethics is largely an examination of how each stands up under sustained scrutiny, and whether they can be reconciled.
The first is Egoism. Its governing principle is that the rational end of conduct for each individual is the maximum of his own happiness or pleasure — pleasures being valued in proportion to their pleasantness, and the aim being the greatest attainable surplus of pleasure over pain for the agent.12 The method proceeds primarily by an empirical-reflective comparison of pleasures, taking as its criterion what the agent himself apprehends as desirable at the time of feeling.3
The second is Intuitionism, though here I must be careful, for the word covers three quite distinct positions. At the most particular level stands perceptional intuitionism, which holds that the rightness of some particular action is immediately known without reference to consequences.4 Above it stands dogmatic intuitionism, which accepts the general rules of common-sense morality — speak truth, keep faith, render to each his own — as themselves axiomatic.5
But the form I find most defensible is philosophical intuitionism, which does not rest content with those current rules but attempts to find a deeper explanation for them, seeking the self-evident axioms that lie beneath.6 It is in that deeper stratum that I locate the axiom of justice, the axiom of prudence, and — most important for what follows — the axiom of rational benevolence: that from the point of view of the universe no one's good is of greater moment than another's, so that a rational agent is bound to aim at good generally.7
The third method is Universalistic Hedonism, or Utilitarianism — the pursuit of the greatest happiness not of the agent alone but of all. And what I find, on examination, is that the axiom of rational benevolence is the rational basis on which the utilitarian system must rest.8 Philosophical intuitionism and utilitarianism are not rivals; the latter stands upon the former as its foundation.
Yet the three methods do not resolve into a single harmonious whole, and I will not pretend otherwise. The deepest difficulty is the relation between egoism and universalism. Even if a man admits the self-evidence of rational benevolence, he may still hold that his own happiness is an end it is irrational for him to sacrifice to any other; and therefore a harmony between the maxim of prudence and the maxim of rational benevolence must somehow be demonstrated if morality is to be made completely rational.9
That demonstration I could not supply. It would be contrary to common sense to deny that the distinction between any one individual and any other is real and fundamental, and I do not see how it can be proved that this distinction is not to be taken as fundamental in determining the ultimate end of rational action.10 That is the dualism of practical reason, honestly stated: reason recommends both the agent's own greatest happiness and the happiness of all, and where the two diverge, no self-evident principle adjudicates between them.
The Principle of Egoistic Hedonism is the widely accepted proposition that the rational end of conduct for each individual is the Maximum of his own Happiness or Pleasure.The Methods of Ethics
define its end as the greatest attainable surplus of pleasure over pain for the agent,--pleasures being valued in proportion to their pleasantness.The Methods of Ethics
pleasure being defined as 'feeling apprehended as desirable by the sentient individual at the time of feeling it.'The Methods of Ethics
We may distinguish Perceptional Intuitionism, according to which it is always the rightness of some particular action that is held to be immediately known.The Methods of Ethics
Dogmatic Intuitionism, in which the general rules of Common Sense are accepted as axiomatic.The Methods of Ethics
Philosophical Intuitionism, which attempts to find a deeper explanation for these current rules.The Methods of Ethics
the axiom of Rational Benevolence is, in my view, required as a rational basis for the Utilitarian system.The Methods of Ethics
the axiom of Rational Benevolence is, in my view, required as a rational basis for the Utilitarian system.The Methods of Ethics
even if a man admits the self-evidence of the principle of Rational Benevolence, he may still hold that his own happiness is an end which it is irrational for him to sacrifice to any other; and that therefore a harmony between the maxim of Prudence and the maxim of Rational Benevolence must be somehow demonstrated, if morality is to be made completely rational.The Methods of Ethics
it would be contrary to Common Sense to deny that the distinction between any one individual and any other is real and fundamental, and that consequently 'I' am concerned with the quality of my existence as an individual in a sense, fundamentally important, in which I am not concerned with the quality of the existence of other individuals.The Methods of Ethics