“True,” he said, “but that particular dogma—­the greatest happiness of the greatest number—­is one which commends itself to everyone’s consciousness.”

“I don’t believe it!” said Ellis.  “Let us take an example.  A crossing-sweeper, we will suppose, is suffering from a certain disease about which the doctors know nothing.  Their only chance of discovering how to cure it is to vivisect the patient; and it is found, by the hedonistic calculus, that if they do so, a general preponderance of pleasure over pain will result.  Accordingly, they go to the crossing-sweeper and say,’O crossing-sweeper!  In the name of the utilitarian philosophy we call upon you to submit to vivisection.  The tortures you will have to endure, it is true, will be inconceivable:  but think of the result!  A general preponderance in the community at large of pleasure over pain!  For every atom of pain inflicted on you, an atom of pleasure will accrue to somebody else.  Upon you, it is true, will fall the whole of the pain; whereas the pleasure will be so minutely distributed among innumerable individuals that the increment in each case will be almost imperceptible.  No matter, it will be there! and our arithmetic assures us that the total gain in pleasure will exceed the total loss in pain.  It will also be distributed among a greater number of individuals.  Thus all the requirements of the hedonistic calculus are satisfied!  Your duty lies plain before you!  Rise to the height of your destiny, and follow us to the dissecting room!  What do you think the crossing-sweeper would say?  I leave it to Bartlett to express his sentiments!”

“My dear Ellis,” said Parry, “your example is absurd.  The case, to begin with, is one that could not possibly occur.  And even if it did, one could not expect the man who was actually to suffer, to take an impartial view of the situation.”

“But,” I said, “putting the sufferer out of the question, what would really be the opinion of the people for whom he was to suffer?  Do you think they would believe they ought to accept the sacrifice?  Every man, I think, would repudiate it with horror for himself; and what right has he to accept it for other people?”

“On the utilitarian hypothesis,” said Parry, “he certainly ought to.”

“No doubt; but would he?  Utilitarianism claims to rest upon common sense, but, in the case adduced, I venture to think common sense would repudiate it.”

“Perhaps,” he said, “but the example is misleading.  It is a case, as I said, that could not occur—­a mere marginal case.”

“Still,” I said, “a marginal case may suggest a fundamental fallacy.  Anyhow, I cannot see myself that the judgment that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is good has a more obvious and indisputable validity than any other judgments of worth.  It seems to me to be just one judgment among others; and, like the others, it may be true or false.  However, I will not press that point.  But what I should like to insist upon is, that the doctrine which Bartlett seemed to hold—­”