★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<note>Non-seducing <hi rend="superscript">3</hi></note> | <note>Non-seducing <hi rend="superscript">3</hi></note> | ||
<p>But in a society where promises were not observed<lb/>what would be the <add>bad</add> consequence: that the society could<lb/>not be kept together: now that is the very thing that<lb/>is wanted.<add>desired.</add> The informer and his accomplices formed <add>were</add> <lb/>a little society among themselves of which the interests<lb/>were <add>run</add> in opposition to those of the great society of the state.<lb/>the prosperity <add>welfare</add> of the latter depended on the ruin <add>subversion</add> of the<lb/>former. It is a common saying there is a sort of honour<lb/>among thieves: this is true: <add>else what?</add> else in cases which require concert <lb/>there <del>The</del> would be no such thing as thievery. But by <add>for</add> this honour, though<lb/>the thieves themselves are the better, other people <add>the rest</add> in as far as it <del>thus</del> applies<lb/>itself to the giving strength & union to them <add>their</add> in their criminal capacities<lb/>are so much the worse. It is when knaves quarrel, says the<lb/>proverb, that honest men come by <add>get</add> their own.<lb/><p>The proposition then that <del>the</del> to violate a promise <add>promises</add> is immoral, <lb/>if given as an universal one is not true. There<lb/>are cases in which the violation of a promise is not immoral: <lb/>and this is one of them.<lb/></p>But it may be said, admitting this distinction to be<lb/>just <add>in itself</add> , is it such an one as the people will enter into? <lb/>The case, let it be admitted, is one that ought<lb/>to be regarded as an exception to the rule. But<lb/>will the people actually regard it in that light? In<lb/>the case in question the violating of a promise is not<lb/>immoral: the <del>rew</del> engaging <del>people</del> <add>a man</add> then to violate it<lb/>is not immoral: granted: but will not <add>the people in general</add> think it so? <lb/><note>and if they do, will<lb/>it not appear to them<lb/>that he too thought it<lb/>so, and that the government<lb/>who prompted him<lb/>to it thought so too?<lb/></note>This is <add>These are</add> the question to be <sic>consider'd</sic>: for if [they do <del>so the<lb/>case is the same</del> <add>such are their opinions, the case </add> as to the discontent <add>disgust</add> it may] excite in <add>give</add><lb/>them, [the case] is the same as if it were. <add>they were true.</add> This seems<lb/>to be true enough: but what is the inference <add>does it prove</add> ? that the<lb/>measure ought to be embraced? by no means: all that it<lb/><note>proves</note></p> | |||
But in a society where promises were not observed<lb/>what would be the <add>bad</add> consequence: that the society could<lb/>not be kept together: now that is the very thing that<lb/>is wanted.<add>desired.</add> The informer and his accomplices formed <add>were</add> <lb/>a little society among themselves of which the interests<lb/>were <add>run</add> in opposition to those of the great society of the state.<lb/>the prosperity <add>welfare</add> of the latter depended on the ruin <add>subversion</add> of the<lb/>former. It is a common saying there is a sort of honour<lb/>among thieves: this is true: <add>else what?</add> else in cases which require concert <lb/>there <del>The</del> would be no such thing as thievery. But by <add>for</add> this honour, though<lb/>the thieves themselves are the better, other people <add>the rest</add> in as far as it <del>thus</del> applies<lb/>itself to the giving strength & union to them <add>their</add> in their criminal capacities<lb/>are so much the worse. It is when knaves quarrel, says the<lb/>proverb, that honest men come <add>get</add> their own.<lb/>The proposition then that <del>the</del> to violate a promise <add>promises</add> is immoral, <lb/>if given as an universal one is not true. There<lb/>are cases in which the violation of a promise is not immoral: and this is one of them.<lb/>But it may be said, admitting this distinction to be<lb/>just <add>in itself</add> , is it such an one as the people will enter into? | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} |
Indirect Legislation
Non-seducing 3
But in a society where promises were not observed
what would be the bad consequence: that the society could
not be kept together: now that is the very thing that
is wanted.desired. The informer and his accomplices formed were
a little society among themselves of which the interests
were run in opposition to those of the great society of the state.
the prosperity welfare of the latter depended on the ruin subversion of the
former. It is a common saying there is a sort of honour
among thieves: this is true: else what? else in cases which require concert
there The would be no such thing as thievery. But by for this honour, though
the thieves themselves are the better, other people the rest in as far as it thus applies
itself to the giving strength & union to them their in their criminal capacities
are so much the worse. It is when knaves quarrel, says the
proverb, that honest men come by get their own.
The proposition then that the to violate a promise promises is immoral,
if given as an universal one is not true. There
are cases in which the violation of a promise is not immoral:
and this is one of them.
But it may be said, admitting this distinction to be
just in itself , is it such an one as the people will enter into?
The case, let it be admitted, is one that ought
to be regarded as an exception to the rule. But
will the people actually regard it in that light? In
the case in question the violating of a promise is not
immoral: the rew engaging people a man then to violate it
is not immoral: granted: but will not the people in general think it so?
and if they do, will
it not appear to them
that he too thought it
so, and that the government
who prompted him
to it thought so too?
This is These are the question to be consider'd: for if [they do so the
case is the same such are their opinions, the case as to the discontent disgust it may] excite in give
them, [the case] is the same as if it were. they were true. This seems
to be true enough: but what is the inference does it prove ? that the
measure ought to be embraced? by no means: all that it
proves
Identifier: | JB/087/054/003"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 87. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
not numbered |
|||
087 |
indirect legislation |
||
054 |
|||
003 |
|||
text sheet |
4 |
||
recto |
f1 / f2 / f3 / f4 |
||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
27579 |
|||