By a "Method of Ethics" Sidgwick means roughly any type of general theory which claims to unify our various ethical judgments into a coherent system on some principle which is claimed to be self-evident. In the end he comes to the conclusion that the really important methods of ethics reduce to three, which he calls Intuitionism, Egoistic Hedonism, and Utilitarianism or Universalistic Hedonism. (In this context of course "hedonism" is to be understood as "ethical", not as "psychological", hedonism.) I think that there is a good deal to be criticised in this classification, but I must reserve my criticisms for the present. Intuitionism is, roughly speaking, the view that there are a number of fairly concrete ethical axioms of the general form: "Any action of such and such a kind, done in such and such a kind of situation, would be right (or wrong) no matter whether its consequences were good, bad, or indifferent." E.g., common sense would hold that any action which was an instance of deliberate ingratitude to a benefactor would ipso facto be wrong, and that this can be seen by direct inspection without any consideration of the consequences of this action or of the prevalence of similar actions.
Egoistic and Universalistic Hedonism agree in rejecting the view that there are such concrete self-evident ethical axioms as these. Sidgwick points out, what most Egoists and Utilitarians seem to have failed to notice, that Egoism and Utilitarianism cannot do without self-evident ethical propositions altogether. Both would hold it to be self-evident that nothing is ultimately worth aiming at but pleasure and absence of pain. The Egoist finds it self-evident that an individual ought to aim at a maximum balance of happiness for himself, and that, if necessary, he ought to be ready to sacrifice any amount of other men's happiness in order to produce the slightest nett [sic] increase in his own. The Utilitarian, on the other hand, finds it self-evident that each individual ought to aim at the maximum balance of happiness for all sentient beings present and future, and that, if necessary, he ought to be ready to sacrifice any amount of his own happiness provided that he will thereby produce the slightest nett increase in the general happiness. And there might be other very general principles, mainly about the proper distribution of a given amount of happiness, which either Egoists or Utilitarians or both would accept as self-evident . But neither Egoists nor Utilitarians would admit more concrete ethical intuitions than these. Those specific ethical principles, such as the principles of truth-speaking, gratitude to benefactors, etc., which common-sense regards as self-evident and independent of consequences, would be regarded by Egoists and Utilitarians as mere empirical generalisations which tell us what types of action have been found on the whole to maximise individual or general happiness in various commonly recurring types of circumstances. They are thus hypothetical, and not categorical, imperatives; and, when obedience to them would clearly involve a nett sacrifice of individual or general happiness as compared with the results of breaking them, it is our duty to break them.
(C. D. Broad, Five Types of Ethical Theory [London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1930], 148-9 [italics in original])
Note from KBJ: Sidgwick's "Intuitionism" is deontology. Egoistic Hedonism and Universalistic Hedonism are two forms of consequentialism, which is the denial of deontology. "Egoistic Hedonism" is egoism. "Universalistic Hedonism" is utilitarianism. The difference between egoism and utilitarianism is that the latter, but not the former, requires impartiality.
