JB/159/013/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/159/013/002: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/159/013/002": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/159/013/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/159/013/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<head>Punishment + Restraint. Warburton</head><lb/>
<p>6</p>
In this here <unclear>sums</unclear> I must confess something that rumors<lb/> of <unclear>impropriety</unclear> and <add>begets</add> confusion. The cause for<lb/> <add>error if</add> there be any seems to be in this<lb/>
<p><head>Punishment 𝓧 Restraint Warburton</head></p>
<add>The <unclear>refuse</unclear> to which</add> His Lordship has given the same name of evil<lb/> are mischief and crimes<note>mischiefs then and crimes<lb/> he makes to <unclear>many</unclear> species<lb/> of evils. This with<lb/> submission, is what they<lb/> cannot be: for there is<lb/> not any <del>thing</del> <unclear>genus</unclear>,<lb/> entity <gap/>, of which<lb/> they are both species.<lb/> For <add>A</add> mischief in any sense<lb/> in which the word has a<lb/> meaning by itself is another<lb/> <unclear>form</unclear> or the a <unclear>less</unclear> chance<lb/> of pain, or a<lb/> loss of pleasure, or a chance<lb/> of a loss of pleasure. Pains<lb/> and Pleasures are sensa-tions.<lb/></note>. Mischiefs to which <gap/><lb/>. Crimes <add>on the other hand</add> are acts. But sensations and acts<lb/> and objects that lure no common <gap/> other than<lb/> the universal <gap/> of all real objects. <unclear>Quickly</unclear><lb/> <unclear>executed</unclear>, there is not any thing that a sensation<lb/> is, and that an act is too! How <add>with regard to</add> a mischief<lb/> is not <gap/> synonymous to evil, may for aught I <lb/>know be a species of evil. But a crime being an<lb/> act is not any species of evil. Crimes it is true<lb/> are many of them [productive?] of evil; but it is not this that makes a crime totally an evil. True it is that a <add>crime may be often <unclear>taken</unclear> of as an evil</add> in the in-accuracy<lb/> of popular discourse: <del>a crime may be<lb/> often <unclear>taken</unclear> of as an evil</del>: as in all cases, the<lb/> cause is oft to be confounded with the effect. That<lb/> this can hardly I think be sufficient authority to<lb/> warrant the defining a crime to be an evil, in<lb/> a formal logical <del><gap/></del><add>argument</add>, the <add>presumed</add> object of which is<lb/> to correct <del>the</del> errors that are alleged to have arisen<lb/><del><gap/></del> <add>from improprieties in the use</add> of language.<lb/>
<p>In this there seems I must confess something that savours<lb/>  
<del><gap/></del><add>From</add> These distinctions such as they are his Lordship<lb/> found desires some very important <unclear>inference</unclear><lb/> with regard to practice. Such [with?] as he calls mischiefs<lb/> he thinks it right to combat with as much<lb/> pain as is necessary to <unclear>repel</unclear> them. Such evils as<pb/> <note>and combating them in this manner</note>
of impropriety and <add>begets</add> confusion. The cause of <add>error of</add> it<lb/>
 
I take to be this. <add>there be any seems to lie in this.</add></p>
 
<p><add>The objects to which</add> His Lordship has given the same name of evil<lb/>
are mischief and crimes<hi rend="superscript">⊞</hi> <note><hi rend="superscript">⊞</hi> mischiefs then and crimes<lb/>
he makes to many species<lb/>
of evils. This with<lb/>
submission, is what they<lb/>
cannot be: <del>for</del> there is<lb/>
not any <del>thing</del> genus,<lb/>
entity excepted, of which<lb/>
they are both species.<lb/>
<del>For</del> <add>A</add> mischief in any sense<lb/>
in which the word has a<lb/>
meaning by itself <del>or</del> <add>is</add> either<lb/>
pain or the <del>absence</del> <add>less chance</add><lb/>
of <del>pleasures</del>pain, or <del>of</del> a<lb/>  
loss of pleasure, or a chance<lb/>
of a loss of pleasure. Pains<lb/>
and Pleasures are sensations.</note> <del>however</del> Mischiefs <del>are sensations</del> <add>to speak accurately.</add><lb/>
Crimes <add>on the other hand</add> are acts. But sensations and acts<lb/>
are objects that have no common genus other than<lb/>
the universal genus of all real objects. <hi rend="underline">Entity</hi><lb/>
excepted, there is not any thing that a <del>wis</del> sensation<lb/>
is, and that an act is too! Now <add>with regard to</add> a mischief<lb/>
if not <add>perfectly</add> synonymous to evil, may for aught I <lb/>
know be a species of evil. But a crime being an<lb/>
act is not any species of evil. Crimes it is true<lb/>
are <add>many of them</add> productive of evilbut it is not this that makes<lb/>
a crime itself an evil. True it is that <add>a crime may be often spoken of as an evil</add> in the inaccuracy<lb/>
of popular discourse: <del>a crime may be<lb/>
often spoken of as an evil:</del> as in all cases, the<lb/>
cause is oft to be confounded with the effect. But<lb/>
this can hardly I think be sufficient authority to<lb/>
warrant the defining a crime to be an evil, in<lb/>
a formal logical <del>discourse</del> <add>argument</add>, the <add>proposed</add> object of which is<lb/>
to correct <del>the</del> errors that are alleged to have arisen<lb/>
from <del>an abuse</del> <add>from improprieties in the use</add> of language.</p>
<p><del>On</del> <add><del>In</del> From</add> These distinctions such as they are his Lordship<lb/>
<del>found</del> derives some very important inferences<lb/>
with regard to practice. Such evils as he calls mischiefs<lb/>
he thinks it right to combat with as much<lb/>
pain as is necessary to repel them. Such evils as</p>  
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 09:33, 24 August 2021

Click Here To Edit

6

Punishment 𝓧 Restraint – Warburton

In this there seems I must confess something that savours
of impropriety and begets confusion. The cause of error of it
I take to be this. there be any seems to lie in this.

The objects to which His Lordship has given the same name of evil
are mischief and crimes mischiefs then and crimes
he makes to many species
of evils. This with
submission, is what they
cannot be: for there is
not any thing genus,
entity excepted, of which
they are both species.
For A mischief in any sense
in which the word has a
meaning by itself or is either
pain or the absence less chance
of pleasurespain, or of a
loss of pleasure, or a chance
of a loss of pleasure. Pains
and Pleasures are sensations.
however Mischiefs are sensations to speak accurately.
Crimes on the other hand are acts. But sensations and acts
are objects that have no common genus other than
the universal genus of all real objects. Entity
excepted, there is not any thing that a wis sensation
is, and that an act is too! Now with regard to a mischief
if not perfectly synonymous to evil, may for aught I
know be a species of evil. But a crime being an
act is not any species of evil. Crimes it is true
are many of them productive of evil: but it is not this that makes
a crime itself an evil. True it is that a crime may be often spoken of as an evil in the inaccuracy
of popular discourse: a crime may be
often spoken of as an evil:
as in all cases, the
cause is oft to be confounded with the effect. But
this can hardly I think be sufficient authority to
warrant the defining a crime to be an evil, in
a formal logical discourse argument, the proposed object of which is
to correct the errors that are alleged to have arisen
from an abuse from improprieties in the use of language.

On In From These distinctions such as they are his Lordship
found derives some very important inferences
with regard to practice. Such evils as he calls mischiefs
he thinks it right to combat with as much
pain as is necessary to repel them. Such evils as


Identifier: | JB/159/013/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 159.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

159

Main Headings

punishment

Folio number

013

Info in main headings field

punishment & restraint warburton

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f5 / f6 / f7 / f8

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::l v g propatria [britannia motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

caroline vernon

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

53836

Box Contents

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