In this paper I register disagreement with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer on three significant issues. First, Sidgwick does not give utilitarianism the advantage over Ros-sian pluralistic intuitionism. Both views are still very much in the running. Second, his du-alism survives their evolutionary argument. The egoist principle is no more or less vulner-able to debunking than the principle of impartial benevolence. Third, though his view on pleasure is not entirely clear, Sidgwick is best understood to be offering a traditional ‘feel-ing-tone’ account of pleasure, rather than a view which gives a significant role to the ‘ap-prehension’ of the subject.
