JB/014/448/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/014/448/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(3 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''
<note>35</note>


<p>The greatest happiness principle is not <del>the object of <unclear>open</unclear> attack</del> <add>only attacked</add><lb/>
<del>from</del> <add>by</add> principles <add>openly &amp; professedly</add> opposed <del><gap/></del> to it, &#x2014; it has had to suffer from<lb/>
covert &amp; influential usurpers of its name &amp; authority. And<lb/>
from such sources it has perhaps been most injured. Reference has<lb/>
been made &amp; homage paid to it by principles which have claimed<lb/>
alliance with it &#x2014; while they have in fact been only subordinate to<lb/>
ipse dixitism. This has been too often the position of the<lb/>
preachers of Justice &#x2014; men who under the cloak &amp; covering<lb/>
of an attractive title have generally strung together their<lb/>
directions, &#x2014; precepts, mandates - call them what you will - saying<lb/>
to every body who will listen &#x2014; Do so &amp; so &#x2014; for this is what is<lb/>
required by justice. Two assumptions are here &#x2014; &amp; both<lb/>
are representatives of the ipse-dixit <del>theory</del> system &#x2014; first that<lb/>
Justice is the proper &amp; sufficient standard of reference &#x2014; &amp;<lb/>
2<hi rend="superscript">d</hi>. that this which you are required to do is dictated by<lb/>
justice &#x2014; Assumptions (need it be said?) both unsupported<lb/>
by argument, &#x2014; both gratuitous &amp; dogmatical.</p>
<p>
When Mr Godwin took <add>"Political Justice"</add> for the title of his well-known<lb/>
<del><gap/></del> work &#x2014; <del>"Political</del> he committed an act of insubordination<lb/>
not to say rebellion or high treason against the sovereignty of<lb/>
the - only legitimate - all-ruling principle</p>
<p>Justice is subservient to the greatest happiness<lb/>
happiness principle, or it is not &#x2014; its dictates teach the<lb/>
minimization of misery, &#x2014; &amp; the maximization of happiness &#x2014; or<lb/>
they do not. If they do, &#x2014; &amp; as far as they do &#x2014; they are<lb/>
in accordance with that principle &#x2014; &amp; they represent it.<lb/></p>
<p>But suppose their dictates differ &#x2014; suppose<lb/>
there is dissonance, &#x2014; hostility between the two &#x2014; which is to succumb?<lb/>
Justice &#x2014; or happiness:- the end, &#x2014; or the means?</p>




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

Latest revision as of 09:37, 4 February 2020

Click Here To Edit

35

The greatest happiness principle is not the object of open attack only attacked
from by principles openly & professedly opposed to it, — it has had to suffer from
covert & influential usurpers of its name & authority. And
from such sources it has perhaps been most injured. Reference has
been made & homage paid to it by principles which have claimed
alliance with it — while they have in fact been only subordinate to
ipse dixitism. This has been too often the position of the
preachers of Justice — men who under the cloak & covering
of an attractive title have generally strung together their
directions, — precepts, mandates - call them what you will - saying
to every body who will listen — Do so & so — for this is what is
required by justice. Two assumptions are here — & both
are representatives of the ipse-dixit theory system — first that
Justice is the proper & sufficient standard of reference — &
2d. that this which you are required to do is dictated by
justice — Assumptions (need it be said?) both unsupported
by argument, — both gratuitous & dogmatical.

When Mr Godwin took "Political Justice" for the title of his well-known
work — "Political he committed an act of insubordination
not to say rebellion or high treason against the sovereignty of
the - only legitimate - all-ruling principle

Justice is subservient to the greatest happiness
happiness principle, or it is not — its dictates teach the
minimization of misery, — & the maximization of happiness — or
they do not. If they do, — & as far as they do — they are
in accordance with that principle — & they represent it.

But suppose their dictates differ — suppose
there is dissonance, — hostility between the two — which is to succumb?
Justice — or happiness:- the end, — or the means?



Identifier: | JB/014/448/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 14.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

014

Main Headings

deontology

Folio number

448

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

linking material

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f35

Penner

sir john bowring

Watermarks

hall

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

5211

Box Contents

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