Sidgwick's Pessimism

Abstract

Both egoism and utilitarian morality seem rational; can either a ‘proof’ or ‘sanctions’ resolve this dualism? A proof succeeds only if the egoist claims, gratuitously, that his happiness is objectively good (a one-place predicate): objectivity or universalization with respect to two-place predicates like ‘right for’ or ‘good for’ is not enough. Sidgwick gets right what Mill, Moore, Hare, and Nagel get wrong. ‘Sanctions’ fail unless the universe is morally governed; there is insufficient independent evidence for this, and postulating it in order to make practical reason coherent is arguing back to front. Sidgwick’s pessimism is vindicated: the dualism remains unresolved.