JB/141/112/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/141/112/002: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
Pip Waller (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>C</p>
<head>Forfeiture of Reputation</head>


<p>who has undergone a degradation of rank is thereby commonly <lb/> rendered worse upon the whole than if he had never <lb/> been possessed of it: because in general simply not <lb/> to possess is not so bad as having possessed to lose. <lb/> To speak with more precision it should seem that the <lb/> characteristic pain of the moral sanction produced by <lb/> such a punishment is in general more than equivalent <lb/> to the sum of such casual benefits of that <lb/> sanction as the punishment fails to take away. </p>
<note>Refutation of <lb/> reputation here <lb/> <gap/> &#x2014; it <lb/> cannot be <gap/> <lb/> <gap/> of Infamy </note>
<p>25</p>
<p> It is common enough to speak of a <hi rend="underline">total</hi> loss of <lb/> reputation; and some Jurists speak of such a loss as <lb/> if it could easily be, and were frequently incurred.<hi rend="superscript">a</hi> But <lb/> such a notion is not compatible with any precise idea <lb/> of the import of that term? So understand this it will <lb/> be necessary to conceive in idea, a certain average or <lb/> mean quantity of reputation equal to <del>0>/del> <add>zero</add> from whence <lb/> degrees of good reputation may be reckoned on one side <del><add>the plus side</add></del> <lb/> and of had reputation on the other <del><add>minus side</add></del>. This means quantity <add>of</add> </p>




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

Revision as of 00:23, 18 November 2017

Click Here To Edit

C

Forfeiture of Reputation

who has undergone a degradation of rank is thereby commonly
rendered worse upon the whole than if he had never
been possessed of it: because in general simply not
to possess is not so bad as having possessed to lose.
To speak with more precision it should seem that the
characteristic pain of the moral sanction produced by
such a punishment is in general more than equivalent
to the sum of such casual benefits of that
sanction as the punishment fails to take away.

Refutation of
reputation here
— it
cannot be
of Infamy

25

It is common enough to speak of a total loss of
reputation; and some Jurists speak of such a loss as
if it could easily be, and were frequently incurred.a But
such a notion is not compatible with any precise idea
of the import of that term? So understand this it will
be necessary to conceive in idea, a certain average or
mean quantity of reputation equal to 0>/del> zero from whence
degrees of good reputation may be reckoned on one side the plus side

and of had reputation on the other minus side. This means quantity of



Identifier: | JB/141/112/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 141.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

24-25

Box

141

Main Headings

rationale of punishment

Folio number

112

Info in main headings field

forfeiture of reputation

Image

002

Titles

Category

copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f25 / f26 / f27 / f28

Penner

Watermarks

[[watermarks::myears [lion with crown motif]]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

caroline fox

Corrections

jeremy bentham

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

48329

Box Contents

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