A Note on Macaulay and the Utilitarians
| Author | J. C. Rees |
| Published date | 01 October 1956 |
| Date | 01 October 1956 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1956.tb00851.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
NOTES
AND
REVIEW
ARTICLES
315
general and In the particular case of America. are not without shrewdness. But possibly the
most striking thing about his essay
IS
its friendly tone towards the United States and its
grasp of the importance
of
Anglo-American relations. Less than two decades before
Denison wrote, and within his own childhood memory, Britain and America had been
involved in a war which had left understandable bitterness on both sides; and Denison in
later life was
to
show no inclination to err
on
the side of excessive liberal-mindedness. Yet
he closes his essay with these words (p. 294):
England and America are both too wise, and one
at
least swayed by councils
too
moderate, to allow the prosecution of
a
spirit
of
rivalry and petty jealousies to disturb
the harmony
of
the Christian world.
Let
us
not indulge in
gloomy
anticipations,
or
torment ourselves with imagining the possible occurrence of more serious causes
of
offence. England may justly be proud
of
her child; America may regard her parent with
affection and respect: both may concur in displaying to the world the power of enterprise
and active industry; the inestimable benefits of popular representation in government,
of
equal and impartial laws: both may diffuse over either hemisphere, and, if united, with
tenfold power, the light of civilization and the blessings of freedom.
A
NOTE
ON
MACAULAY AND
THE
UTILITARIANS
J.
C.
REES
University College
of
Swansea
‘MA~AIJLAY’,
wrote
J.
S.
Mill
to his wife in 1855, ‘is what
all
cockneys are, an intellectual
dwarf‘;’ but
in
his
Autobiography
Mill
admits that there was truth in several of Macaulay’s
strictures on his father’s method of argument in the
Essay
on
Government-an
essay which
the younger Utilitarians regarded as ‘a masterpiece of political wisdom’? The force
of
Macaulay’s objections have, however, seldom been recognized) and it is the chief aim of
this note to draw attention to onc particular criticism, made in the discussion arising out
of Macaulay’s original review
of
Mill’s work, the importance
of
which seems to have passed
altogether unnoticed.
I
am referring to Macaulay’s anticipation
of
Sidgwick and Moore in
detecting &he ‘naturalistic fallacy’ in Benthamite philosophy.
In his book
Logic
und
the Busis
of
Erhics
Professor A.
N.
Prior has a chapter on the
history
of
the refutation
of
the naturalistic fallacy, and in it he states that, to the best
of
his knowledge, the first writer to charge Bentham, in effect, with committing the naturalistic
fallacy was Sidgwick,‘ who wrote in
The
Methods
of
Eihics:
when Bentham explains
. . .
that his fundamental principle ‘states the greatest happiness
instead of xcviii; but it is evident that he is referring to the review of
Norions
of
the Ameri-
cans
by
a Travelling Bachelor
and
Travels
in
North America
by Captain Basil Hall,
R.N.
’
F.
A. Hayek,
John Stuurt Mill and Harriet Taylor
(London, 1951),
223.
*
Autobiography
(World’s
Classics edition), pp.
134
and
87.
Mr.
R.
P.
Anschutz
is
one writer who realizes how effective Macaulay’s criticisms were.
‘Macaulay’s great merit’, he says, ‘is that in criticising the political theory
of
the Utilitarians
he goes to the root
of
the matter and concentrates upon the logic
of
their arguments.’
The
Philosophy
of
J.
S.
Mill
(Oxford, 1953). p.
82.
‘
A.
N.
Prior,
Logic
and
the Basis
of
Ethics
(Oxford, 1949),
pp.
104-5.
To continue reading
Request your trial