PLEASURE AS ETHICAL STANDARD 263
is, what society ? In what place or time ? And the greatest sum appears as a constantly receding quantity whose limits are nowhere determinable, being capable of infinite expansion. But in this dilemma one seems to be referred back to the self. What is wanted is the greatest possible happiness for me. But in determining by utility, one is recognizing his pleasure as varying with the pleasure of others ; and here he is called upon to meas- ure an indeterminable reaction. The greatest possible happiness for me alone was the old standard which Mill sought to over- throw.
Not only are we invited to sum an infinite series without limits, but the question of reducing pleasures to a unit scale con- fronts us. For one trained in the atomistic English classical psychology this question seemed to possess no difficulties. And yet no one of the great masters of the school succeeded in lay- ing firm hold on the unit. If pleasures can be summed, they must be arranged upon a common scale in such a way that their differences shall appear, else the phrase remains a mere figure of speech. A crude more-or-less, an indeterminable higher-or- lower, are not sufficient symbols for a calculus. The question is: Can they be scaled ? Grant that there is a quantitative aspect both to quality and to intensity, is this quantitative aspect man- ageable ? And this is the failure of Hedonism as a scientific theory. Its easy more-and-less are common-sense determina- tions which guide men only in simple cases. For complex and intricate problems (and consciousness is called forth to do battle only with stubborn facts.) the rule offers no deliverance. True, it is far easier to say that one flock of sheep is bigger than another than by how many it is bigger, but it is only in cases of doubt that the necessity arises for making the statements ; then recourse must be had to counting. The chief duty of a camp- follower in the army of scientific discoverers is to have allegiance to the flag, faith in the front rank, and to follow. In the pres- ent instance this means that one must believe in the power of the psychologist to scale pleasures and pains in such a way as at length will offer as satisfactory registrations of consciousness as can be had from any other aspect. But this end is not yet.
