The English Utilitarians of whom I am about to give some account were a group of men who for three generations had a conspicuous influence upon English thought and political action.Jeremy Bentham,James Mill and John Stuart Mill,were successively their leaders;and I shall speak of each in turn.It may be well to premise a brief introduction of the method which I have adopted.I have devoted a much greater proportion of my work to biography and to considerations of political and social conditions than would be appropriate to the history of philosophy.The reasons for such a course are very obvious in this case,inasmuch as the Utilitarian doctrines were worked out with a constant reference to practical applications.I think,indeed,that such a reference is often equally present,though not equally conspicuous,in other philosophical schools.But in any case I wish to show how I conceive the relation of my scheme to the scheme more generally adopted by historians of abstract speculation.
I am primarily concerned with the history of a school or sect,not with the history of the arguments by which it justifies itself in the court of pure reason.I must therefore consider the creed as it was actually embodied in the dominant beliefs of the adherents of the school,not as it was expounded in lecture-rooms or treatises on first principles.I deal not with philosophers meditating upon Being and not-Being,but with men actively engaged in framing political platforms and carrying on popular agitations.The great majority even of intelligent partisans are either indifferent to the philosophic creed of their leaders or take it for granted.Its postulates are more or less implied in the doctrines which guide them in practice,but are not explicitly stated or deliberately reasoned out.Not the less the doctrines of a sect,political or religious,may be dependent upon theories which for the greater number remain latent or are recognised only in their concrete application.
Contemporary members of any society,however widely they differ as to results,are employed upon the same problems and,to some extent,use the same methods and make the same assumptions in attempting solutions.There is a certain unity even in the general thought of any given period.Contradictory views imply some common ground.But within this wider unity we find a variety of sects,each of which may be considered as more or less representing a particular method of treating the general problem:and therefore principles which,whether clearly recognised or not,are virtually implied in their party creed and give a certain unity to their teaching.
One obvious principle of unity,or tacit bond of sympathy which holds a sect together depends upon the intellectual idiosyncrasy of the individuals.
Coleridge was aiming at an important truth when he said that every man was born an Aristotelian or a Platonist.(1)Nominalists and realists,intuitionists and empiricists,idealists and materialists,represent different forms of a fundamental antithesis which appears to run through all philosophy.Each thinker is apt to take the postulates congenial to his own mind as the plain dictates of reason.Controversies between such opposites appear to be hopeless.
They have been aptly compared by Dr.Venn to the erection of a snow-bank to dam a river.The snow melts and swells the torrent which it was intended to arrest.Each side reads admitted truths into its own dialect,and infers that its own dialect affords the only valid expression.To regard such antitheses as final and insoluble would be to admit complete scepticism.What is true for one man would not therefore be true --or at least its truth would not be demonstrable --to another.We must trust that reconciliation is achievable by showing that the difference is really less vital and corresponds to a difference of methods or of the spheres within which each mode of thought may be valid.To obtain the point of view from which such a conciliation is possible should be,I hold,one main end of modern philosophising.
The effect of this profound intellectual difference is complicated by other obvious influences.There is,in the first place,the difference of intellectual horizon.Each man has a world of his own and sees a different set of facts.Whether his horizon is that which is visible from his parish steeple or from St.Peter's at Rome,it is still strictly limited:and the outside universe,known vaguely and indirectly,does not affect him like the facts actually present to his perception.The most candid thinkers will come to different conclusions when they are really provided with different sets of fact.In political and social problems every man's opinions are moulded by his social station.The artisan's view of the capitalist,and the capitalist's view of the artisan,are both imperfect,because each has a first-hand knowledge of his own class alone:and,however anxious to be fair,each will take a very different view of the working of political institutions.An apparent concord often covers the widest divergence under the veil of a common formula,because each man has his private mode of interpreting general phrases in terms of concrete fact.
