اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Cambridge moral philosopher Henry Sidgwick transformed modern ethics with his book The Methods of Ethics. Hossein Dabbagh's essay examines three of his key ideas: rule-utilitarianism, ethical intuitionism, and dual practical reason.

May 31, 1838, is the birthday of Henry Sidgwick, the nineteenth-century Cambridge clergyman, economist, and moral philosopher. His contribution to transforming modern ethics is such that his epoch-making book, The Methods of Ethics, is considered by some to be the best and most important book on ethics in the analytic tradition. For instance, Derek Parfit, one of the most eminent Oxford moral philosophers, states in the introduction to his influential book On What Matters that Sidgwick’s book is “the best book that has ever been written on ethics.” The reason, in his view, is that compared to other classic works on ethics, Sidgwick’s book contains “the largest number of true and important claims” (xxxiii). Also, in his book Reasons and Persons, he claims alongside Sidgwick that pleasure is not of ultimate value and that hedonists have grasped “only half the truth” (502). C. D. Broad, Sidgwick’s successor at Cambridge, also believed that The Methods of Ethics was the best treatise written among the classic philosophical works up to that time (143). Rawls, the Harvard moral and political philosopher, held Sidgwick in the highest regard and confessed that Sidgwick’s book is “the first truly academic work in moral theory, modern in both method and spirit.” Likewise, Peter Singer, the distinguished Princeton philosopher of applied ethics, considers Sidgwick’s stature equal to the history of moral philosophy and regards his book as a vast and vital resource for moral reasoning. Students of moral philosophy, like myself, are indebted to the services and virtues of someone like Sidgwick more than they can express. Neglecting his standing in modern moral philosophy is unworthy of philosophy students. Persian-language literature on moral philosophy, however, has unfortunately not achieved this to any great extent. For this reason, a short piece in his memory might perhaps serve as a small tribute to his role and stature. Briefly, three ideas can be highlighted in Sidgwick’s system of moral philosophy: first, the discussion of the normative theory of rule-utilitarianism. Second, the discussion of intuitionism in moral epistemology, which has found many defenders in contemporary ethics, and finally, the discussion of the Dualism of Practical Reason in moral psychology. Below, I will point out some remarks about these ideas in order.
First. Rule-utilitarianism; Sidgwick explicitly defends ethical consequentialism and especially utilitarianism. He believed that the fundamental principle of utilitarianism, namely “maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain,” is an impartial and unbiased principle, and he held that one could officially endorse the validity of this principle with “the Point of View of the Universe.” The Point of View of the Universe becomes even more meaningful in its own right when we recall the Kantian resonance of Sidgwick’s words. That is, the fundamental principle of consequentialists can take the form of a rule and apply to everyone without discrimination. Thomas Nagel, the living moral philosopher at New York University, following Sidgwick, also adopts and defends the expression “The View From Nowhere.” That is, our moral principle must begin from a place that is nowhere and has no prior bias. Brad Hooker, the moral philosopher at the University of Reading, who has made a great contribution to reviving the theory of rule-utilitarianism, considers himself Sidgwick’s heir. In his acclaimed book, Ideal Code, Real World, he regards Sidgwick as the initiator of the theory of rule-utilitarianism and emphasizes that understanding Sidgwick depends on grasping Kant’s “categorical imperative.”
Second. Moral Intuitionism; Sidgwick believed that some (but not all) moral propositions are so self-evident and clear that they can be grasped and understood immediately. He called this immediate grasp Intuition. For example, the consequentialist principle that pleasure should be maximized for all and pain and suffering minimized can, in his view, be apprehended intuitively. He even called such moral intuitions, which everyone can grasp due to their sheer obviousness, rational intuitions. Peter Singer believes that only this kind of intuition escapes the crossfire of psychological relativism and can survive. This means that only rational intuitions are epistemically justified and useful in moral epistemology.
Third. The Dualism of Practical Reason; when we speak of egoism, we can approach it from two perspectives: Psychological Egoism and Rational Egoism. For Sidgwick, what is morally reprehensible and rejected is Psychological Egoism, because it does not take the "other" into account and, in a word, is not impartial. However, in his view, Rational Egoism can be defensible. That is, in a situation where, for example, our child or relatives and the child of a stranger are drowning, reason dictates that one should save one's own child first, as the attachment to them naturally takes precedence. This dualism, however, causes a conflict and contradiction to emerge in Sidgwick's moral system. Meaning that his ethical theory departs from a monistic form and becomes pluralist, and this does not accord with what he was seeking.
It is reported that Sidgwick's Christian-religious beliefs underwent a change from midlife until the end, and he distanced himself from what can be referred to as the traditional view of the Christian Church. He once mentioned his reason for separating from the Church, addressing Christian jurists, declaring: "I am an infidel if this is the way you have faith." Some have even considered him inclined towards homosexuality and have reported his hidden interests in the same sex. Sidgwick "migrated to the other world" on August 28, 1900, due to cancer, ending his 62-year battle with hypocrisy. He was buried in the city of Essex, England, to further enrich the philosopher-nurturing soil of England.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Philosophy
Philosophy
Religion
Philosophy
Philosophy
Discussion0 comments
No comments yet; let yours be the first voice.