JB/014/452/001: 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/014/452/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(7 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>39</note>
<p>
Dissatisfied as Mr. Bentham was with the term it may<lb/>
still be doubted whether this is in reality any sufficient<lb/>
ground for rejecting the phrase "greatest happiness of the<lb/>
greatest number" &#x2014; &amp; The influence of the phrase upon man's<lb/>
judgements &amp; affections has been so salutary that to abandon it<lb/>
would be no little <del>loss to</del> <add>retardation of</add> moral &amp; political progress.<lb/></p>


<p>
It may be <del>doubted</del> <add>asked</add> whether the objections apply to<lb/>
the terms "<hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> happiness of the <hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> number" &#x2014; Can<lb/>
the happiness of a mere majority be the <hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> happiness? &#x2014;<lb/>
Can a mere majority be the <hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> number? &#x2014; Compared<lb/>
to what is <hi rend="underline">lesser</hi> they may be <hi rend="underline">greater</hi>, &#x2014; but can either of<lb/>
them be the <hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> with a reference to the whole. Are<lb/>
not the cases supposed by Mr Bentham really excluded by<lb/>
the very terms <del>of</del> <add>in which</add> the principle is put [forward? It does<lb/>
not appear a <unclear>simple</unclear> question of majority &amp; minority &#x2014;<lb/>
The <hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> happiness must obviously be <hi rend="underline">maximized</hi> happiness &#x2014;<lb/>
the <hi rend="underline">greatest</hi> number must as obviously be <hi rend="underline">the whole</hi>.<lb/>
Mr Bentham in proposing to employ the term "greatest happiness"<lb/>
<unclear>alone</unclear>, has, it may reasonably be urged, taken much away<lb/>
from the beneficent, &#x2014; the enlarged &#x2014; the diffusive character<lb/>
of his earlier proposition. Yet it was <unclear>due</unclear> to him to present<lb/>
the last <unclear>word</unclear> of his pen on a subject of such<lb/>
transcendent interest.</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

39

Dissatisfied as Mr. Bentham was with the term it may
still be doubted whether this is in reality any sufficient
ground for rejecting the phrase "greatest happiness of the
greatest number" — & The influence of the phrase upon man's
judgements & affections has been so salutary that to abandon it
would be no little loss to retardation of moral & political progress.

It may be doubted asked whether the objections apply to
the terms "greatest happiness of the greatest number" — Can
the happiness of a mere majority be the greatest happiness? —
Can a mere majority be the greatest number? — Compared
to what is lesser they may be greater, — but can either of
them be the greatest with a reference to the whole. Are
not the cases supposed by Mr Bentham really excluded by
the very terms of in which the principle is put [forward? It does
not appear a simple question of majority & minority —
The greatest happiness must obviously be maximized happiness —
the greatest number must as obviously be the whole.
Mr Bentham in proposing to employ the term "greatest happiness"
alone, has, it may reasonably be urged, taken much away
from the beneficent, — the enlarged — the diffusive character
of his earlier proposition. Yet it was due to him to present
the last word of his pen on a subject of such
transcendent interest.



Identifier: | JB/014/452/001"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

452

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

linking material

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f39

Penner

sir john bowring

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[partial fleur de lys motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

5215

Box Contents

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