But surely it would be better to call the theory after its end (as we have done),[1] since to not a few persons ‘Utilitarianism’ conveys the notion that the end is the useful, which, besides being strictly speaking sheer nonsense, is also misleading. The associations of the useful are transferred to Hedonism, and if these are in some ways unfavourable (Mill’s Util., p. 9), they seem to me in other and more ways to be favourable. The practical man hears of ‘the useful,’ and thinks he has got something solid, while he really is embracing (as I have shown) the cloud of a wild theoretical fiction, from which he would shrink if he saw it apart from its false lights and colours. And on whichever side the balance of advantage lies, no respectable writer can wish to rest on a basis of misunderstanding. The two words ‘useful’ and ‘happiness’ delude not only the public, but perhaps all Utilitarian writers. While they are the terms employed, the question can not possibly be brought to a clear issue; and let me say for myself that I see no good reason why ‘Utilitarianism’ should stand for Hedonism. If ‘happiness’ means well-being or perfection of life, then I am content to say that, with Plato and Aristotle, I hold happiness to be the end; and, although virtue is not a mere means, yet it can be regarded as a means, and so is ‘useful.’ In this sense we, who reject Hedonism, can call ourselves Utilitarians, and the man who thinks he is pushing some counter view by emphasizing ‘happiness’ and ‘usefulness’ does not touch us with his phrases, but rather perhaps confirms us. But pleasure for pleasure’s sake, and life and virtue for the sake of pleasure, is another doctrine, which we repudiate.
