JB/014/079/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/014/079/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>9 Sept 1814 29</p>
<head>Logic or Ethics</head>
<note>Ch <foreign>Summum bonum</foreign></note>
<p>1 <note><foreign>Summum bonum</foreign><lb/>
not in <gap/> <gap/></note></p>
 
<!-- First column of introductory material -->
<p>Mischiefs &#x2014; 1. <gap/>. 2. Int<gap/>. General ill-will<lb/>
3. Produce <unclear>neglect/highest</unclear> if true. &amp; useful morality by<lb/>
causing the whole to be regarded as men <hi rend="underline"><unclear>iforni</unclear></hi><lb/>
matter for <unclear>conversation</unclear>, not a rule for action</p>
 
<p>Good in theory, not fit for practice.<lb/>
When Philosophy or Ethics is all for theory and talk the most <gap/> is absurd, is in<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">a <unclear>lath</unclear></hi> from the <unclear>teeth</unclear> outwards, <gap/> <add>employed</add> in preference.</p>
 
<!-- Second column of introductory material -->
<p>If these were rendered<lb/>
good by other considerations<lb/>
this nonsense would not ruin<lb/>
<add>them but</add> The truth is they were highly<lb/>
sensible to the moral sanction: that rendered them good.</p>
<note>As a <unclear>sovereign</unclear> Titus was the delight<lb/>
of mankind: &#x2014; but notwithstanding<lb/>
his Stoicism if to <gap/>, he<lb/>
was a <unclear>paederast</unclear>.</note>
 
<!-- Full-width text continues -->
<p>But whatsoever may have been their logic, their <unclear>illuces</unclear><lb/>
it may be said were good: whatsoever they were in speculation<lb/>
they were good in practice: the effect was good <del><gap/></del> howsoever<lb/>
it may have been with the cause: and so long as the<lb/>
effect is good, no matter for <add>what</add> the cause. Suppose, <unclear>however</unclear><lb/>
one who always reasons well with you, and always does ill <add>all the while doing ill</add> by<lb/>
you; another who always reasons ill with you, and <add>but</add> always<lb/>
does well by you: for a friend or for a companion, which<lb/>
of them would you rather have? <add>choose?</add></p>
<note>Objective <gap/> <gap/><lb/>
good therefore <gap/><lb/>
<gap/> useful</note>
 
<p>About the answer <del>there</del> <add><del>As the</del> To a question</add> <add>set of questions</add> <add>thus put, what</add> will <add>can</add> not be any <add>a</add> difference.</p>
 
<p>But the truth is &#x2014; of these distant <add>antique</add> sages all that we<lb/>
can <unclear>know</unclear> any sufficient assurance of is their logic &#x2014; delivering<lb/>
this sort of logic a man's moral conduct might have<lb/>
been good or bad just as it happened: <del><gap/></del> morals as in religion<lb/>
nothing is more common: one thing for show another thing for use<lb/>
Of these men all that we have <add>know</add> for certain is their logic:<lb/>
<note><gap/> <foreign>Quere</foreign></note><lb/>
and <del>all ba</del> especially when morals is <add>is</add> the field of it <add>in which it exercises <gap/></add>, all<lb/>
bad <del>logic</del> logic is mischievous. No such <del>By no man can any</del> moral<del>s</del> doctrine<lb/>
<del>can</del> have been embraced but at the <sic>expence</sic> of his understanding:<lb/>
deep indeed must have been <del>his</del> <add>its</add> <unclear>prostraten</unclear> <hi rend="underline"><hi rend="underline">if</hi></hi> strength<lb/>
<unclear>in</unclear> trash such as this can have been swallowed by it.</p>






<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 09:36, 4 February 2020

Click Here To Edit

9 Sept 1814 29

Logic or Ethics Ch Summum bonum

1 Summum bonum
not in

Mischiefs — 1. . 2. Int. General ill-will
3. Produce neglect/highest if true. & useful morality by
causing the whole to be regarded as men iforni
matter for conversation, not a rule for action

Good in theory, not fit for practice.
When Philosophy or Ethics is all for theory and talk the most is absurd, is in
a lath from the teeth outwards, employed in preference.

If these were rendered
good by other considerations
this nonsense would not ruin
them but The truth is they were highly
sensible to the moral sanction: that rendered them good.

As a sovereign Titus was the delight
of mankind: — but notwithstanding
his Stoicism if to , he
was a paederast.

But whatsoever may have been their logic, their illuces
it may be said were good: whatsoever they were in speculation
they were good in practice: the effect was good howsoever
it may have been with the cause: and so long as the
effect is good, no matter for what the cause. Suppose, however
one who always reasons well with you, and always does ill all the while doing ill by
you; another who always reasons ill with you, and but always
does well by you: for a friend or for a companion, which
of them would you rather have? choose?

Objective
good therefore
useful

About the answer there As the To a question set of questions thus put, what will can not be any a difference.

But the truth is — of these distant antique sages all that we
can know any sufficient assurance of is their logic — delivering
this sort of logic a man's moral conduct might have
been good or bad just as it happened: morals as in religion
nothing is more common: one thing for show another thing for use
Of these men all that we have know for certain is their logic:
Quere
and all ba especially when morals is is the field of it in which it exercises , all
bad logic logic is mischievous. No such By no man can any morals doctrine
can have been embraced but at the expence of his understanding:
deep indeed must have been his its prostraten <hi rend="underline">if</hi> strength
in trash such as this can have been swallowed by it.




Identifier: | JB/014/079/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 14.

Date_1

1814-09-09

Marginal Summary Numbering

not numbered

Box

014

Main Headings

deontology

Folio number

079

Info in main headings field

logic or ethics

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

[[page_numbering::c1 / d23[?] / e1]]

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[prince of wales feathers] mj&l 1811]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

colonel aaron burr

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1811

Notes public

ID Number

4842

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in