Sidgwick's Methodology

Sidgwick'sMethodology STEVEN SVERDLIK HENRY SIDGWICK(1838--19OO) OCCUPIES a curious position in the history of modern ethical thought. There are those who regard his treatise The Methods of Ethics (1st edition, 1874; 7th edition, 19o7) as the culmination of "classical" utilitarianism, the doctrine that our sole moral obligation is to produce the greatest possible amount of satisfaction in the world. He is often said to be superior to Mill and Bentham in subtlety and force. C. D. Broad, who was far from being a utilitarian himself, maintained that Sidgwick's book was the best work on ethics in English, and possibly in any language. Certainly the care and rigor with which Sidgwick examines the main ethical theories known to him---ethical egoism, "Intuititionism," and utilitarianism--are impressive . Yet it cannot be denied that interest in his work has diminished since his death. During his lifetime there was an active polemical literature surrounding his views. Afterward he was treated with respect by a number of the more important English-speaking moral philosophers. Moore, Ross, Marcus Singer, Brandt, and Rawls, for example, all refer frequently to his treatise. On the other hand, there are few extended commentaries on his work of any value, with two important exceptions: Broad's Five Types of Ethical Theory (193o) and the recent magisterial work of Jerome Schneewind, Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. Schneewind's work suggests that interest in Sidgwick's The Method ofEthics may at last be reviving. (Sidgwick's other works on politics, economics, ethics, and general philosophy have not recently sparked any discussion at all, it seems.) Part of the reason may be the revival of interest in utilitarianism itself. It has also been suggested to me I that Moore's criticisms of his teacher influenced Sidgwick's decline in reputation. Perhaps the decline in Moore's own influence has caused people to re-examine Sidgwick. Finally, one can mention the fact that John Rawls has shown a good deal of interest in Sidgwick, the latest example of this being his preface to the recent Hackett 1 Byan anonymousreferee,to whomI am indebtedfor numeroushelpfulcomments.I was alsoaidedby the stimulationof MarcusSingerin his 1983NEH SummerSeminar. [537] 538 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 23:4 OCTOBER ~985 reissue of the Methods. Rawls's great stature in contemporary ethics has perhaps had an indirect effect upon the reputation of Sidgwick. What is of particular interest to me in this paper is the claim that Rawls has advanced that both he and Sidgwick have used the method of"reflective equilibrium" to establish ethical conclusions. Indeed, Rawls suggests that this method represents the traditional way that moral philosophers have approached their task of constructing a moral theory? This claim of spiritual kinship with Sidgwick may seem odd, inasmuch as it is well known that Rawls regards utilitarianism as a defective substantive theory. But what is involved here is the claim that Rawls and Sigdwick employ the same method. Even if it is true that they reach different conclusions, it is interesting to inquire whether they at least proceed to establish their conclusions in the same way. And, of course, the issue is not purely exegetical. The proper methodology of ethics is at the present time a matter of fierce debate, and the position of such an astute philosopher as Sidgwick on this issue is undoubtedly of great interest. In this present paper I examine the question of what method Sidgwick actually employed in establishing his utilitarianism. It is a reasonable assumption that whatever method he employed to argue for utilitarianism was the method he regarded as most defensible. I propose to proceed by first stating three different views of his methodology to be found in the literature -those of Rawls, Schneewind, and Peter Singer. I claim that there is something plausible, but also something puzzling, in both Singer's and Schneewind's views. I thus defend Rawls's reading of Sidgwick, though I concede that Singer has an important objection to make against it. But I conclude that there is an even deeper objection to Singer's interpretation, and that therefore Rawls's view is the least dissatisfying understanding of Sidgwick's approach. The first...