★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<note>Divesting</note> | <note>Divesting</note> | ||
<p>[I hope it will not be said] [and yet it is<lb/> <add>It may be said, as a reason for debarring</add><lb/>like what on other occasions I have heard <add>people from amusements</add><lb/>that on sundays the people <add>they</add> <hi rend="underline">ought</hi> to be<lb/>meditating on <add>busying themshelves about</add> holy things: with which meditation <add>sort of</add><lb/><add>business</add> amusement is at least as incompatible<lb/>as labour. <note>They ought to be ? let it<lb/>be <sic>allow'd</sic><lb/></note> But <hi rend="underline">will</hi> they? That and that only<lb/>is the <del>proper</del> question. <note>Is what ought to be<lb/>done & what [will<lb/>be done] what is<lb/>likely to be done<lb/>precisely the same<lb/>thing?<lb/></note> Is there no difference<lb/>between a man's <add>being</add> subject to a duty and his<lb/>performing it? Is it [a clear <add>sure</add>] <add>the </add> consequence clear<lb/>that <add>without more ado</add> a man will begin <add>set about</add> meditating upon holy<lb/>things as soon as <add>the moment</add> you have tied his hands<lb/>behind him? If it be, then the policy of this<lb/>tying his hands behind him will rest upon<lb/>the <del>wh</del> <add>beneficial effects</add> which in a political view such meditations<lb/><add>exercises</add> are likely to produce. If it be not,<lb/><del>then the prohibition <add>interdiction</add> </del> then there is nothing more<lb/> to be said for it but that <add>&</add> the prohibition <add>interdiction</add> of<lb/>amusements on <del>the<del> a sunday is <del>pernicious</del><lb/>an institution the tendency of which is not to<lb/>prevent but to promote the corruption of good | <p>[I hope it will not be said] , [and yet it is<lb/> <add>It may be said, as a reason for debarring</add><lb/>like what on other occasions I have heard <add>people from amusements</add><lb/> said ] that on sundays the people <add>they</add> <hi rend="underline">ought</hi> to be<lb/>meditating on <add>busying themshelves about</add> holy things: with which meditation <add>sort of</add><lb/><add>business</add> amusement is at least as incompatible<lb/>as labour. <note>They ought to be ? let it<lb/>be <sic>allow'd</sic><lb/></note> But <hi rend="underline">will</hi> they? That and that only<lb/>is the <del>proper</del> question. <note>Is what ought to be<lb/>done & what [will<lb/>be done] what is<lb/>likely to be done<lb/>precisely the same<lb/>thing?<lb/></note> Is there no difference<lb/>between a man's <add>being</add> subject to a duty and his<lb/>performing it? Is it [a clear <add>sure</add>] <add>the </add> consequence clear<lb/>that <add>without more ado</add> a man will begin <add>set about</add> meditating upon holy<lb/>things as soon as <add>the moment</add> you have tied his hands<lb/>behind him? If it be, then the policy of this<lb/>tying his hands behind him will rest upon<lb/>the <del>wh</del> <add>beneficial effects</add> which in a political view such meditations<lb/><add>exercises</add> are likely to produce. If it be not,<lb/><del>then the prohibition <add>interdiction</add></del> then there is nothing more<lb/> to be said for it but that <add>&</add> the prohibition <add>interdiction</add> of<lb/>amusements on <del>the</del> a sunday is <del>pernicious</del><lb/>an institution the tendency of which is not to<lb/>prevent but to promote the corruption of good<lb/>morals, but to promote it.<lb/></p> | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
Indirect Legislation
Divesting
[I hope it will not be said] , [and yet it is
It may be said, as a reason for debarring
like what on other occasions I have heard people from amusements
said ] that on sundays the people they ought to be
meditating on busying themshelves about holy things: with which meditation sort of
business amusement is at least as incompatible
as labour. They ought to be ? let it
be allow'd
But will they? That and that only
is the proper question. Is what ought to be
done & what [will
be done] what is
likely to be done
precisely the same
thing?
Is there no difference
between a man's being subject to a duty and his
performing it? Is it [a clear sure] the consequence clear
that without more ado a man will begin set about meditating upon holy
things as soon as the moment you have tied his hands
behind him? If it be, then the policy of this
tying his hands behind him will rest upon
the wh beneficial effects which in a political view such meditations
exercises are likely to produce. If it be not,
then the prohibition interdiction then there is nothing more
to be said for it but that & the prohibition interdiction of
amusements on the a sunday is pernicious
an institution the tendency of which is not to
prevent but to promote the corruption of good
morals, but to promote it.
|
Identifier: | JB/087/058/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 87. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
not numbered |
|||
|
087 |
indirect legislation |
||
|
058 |
indirect legislation |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
27583 |
|||
