We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
If we possess our why of life we can put up with almost any how. – Man does not strive after happiness; only the Englishman does that.
Introductory
This essay is not designed as a reply to Smart's. It has been written after it, in knowledge of it, and from an opposed point of view, but it does not try to answer his arguments point for point, nor to cover just the same ground. Direct criticism of Smart's text is largely confined to parts of section 6, where I have tried to show that a certain ambiguity in Smart's defence of act-utilitarianism, as against other sorts, arises from a deep difficulty in the whole subject. I have not attempted, either, to give an account of all the important issues in the area, still less a critical survey of the major items in the literature; I have pursued those questions which seemed to me the most interesting and have deliberately left out a number of things which are often discussed. Like Smart, I have very largely treated utilitarianism as a system of personal morality rather than as a system of social or political decision, but I have tried to say something, very much in outline, about political aspects in section 7.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.
