Produced by John Mamoun, Charles Franks and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team

AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS

By David Hume

A 1912 Reprint Of The Edition Of 1777

Information About This E-Text Edition

The following is an e-text of a 1912 reprint of the 1777 edition of
David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Each page
was cut out of the original book with an X-acto knife and fed into an
Automatic Document Feeder Scanner to make this e-text, so the original
book was disbinded in order to save it.

Some adaptations from the original text were made while formatting it
for an e-text. Italics in the original book are capitalized in
this e-text. The original spellings of words are preserved, such as
"connexion" for "connection," "labour" for "labor," etc. Original
footnotes are put in brackets "[]" at the points where they are cited in
the text.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

   AUTHOR'S ADVERTISEMENT
   CONTENTS PAGE
   AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS
   APPENDIX

AUTHOR'S ADVERTISEMENT.

Most of the principles, and reasonings, contained in this volume,

    [Footnote: Volume II. of the posthumous edition of Hume's works
published in 1777 and containing, besides the present ENQUIRY,
A DISSERTATION ON THE PASSIONS, and AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN
UNDERSTANDING. A reprint of this latter treatise has already appeared in
The Religion of Science Library (NO. 45)]

were published in a work in three volumes, called A TREATISE OF HUMAN
NATURE: A work which the Author had projected before he left College,
and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it
successful, he was sensible of his error in going to the press too
early, and he cast the whole anew in the following pieces, where some
negligences in his former reasoning and more in the expression, are,
he hopes, corrected. Yet several writers who have honoured the Author's
Philosophy with answers, have taken care to direct all their batteries
against that juvenile work, which the author never acknowledged, and
have affected to triumph in any advantages, which, they imagined, they
had obtained over it: A practice very contrary to all rules of candour
and fair-dealing, and a strong instance of those polemical artifices
which a bigotted zeal thinks itself authorized to employ. Henceforth,
the Author desires, that the following Pieces may alone be regarded as
containing his philosophical sentiments and principles.

CONTENTS PAGE

      I.    Of the General Principles of Morals
      II.   Of Benevolence
      III.  Of Justice
      IV.   Of Political Society
      V.    Why Utility Pleases
      VI.   Of Qualities Useful to Ourselves
      VII.  Of Qualities Immediately Agreeable to Ourselves
      VIII. Of Qualities Immediately Agreeable to Others
      IX.   Conclusion

APPENDIX.

      I.   Concerning Moral Sentiment
      II.  Of Self-love
      III. Some Farther Considerations with Regard to Justice
      IV.  Of Some Verbal Disputes

AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS

SECTION I. OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MORALS.

DISPUTES with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are,
of all others, the most irksome; except, perhaps, those with persons,
entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they
defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit
of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior
to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments
is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and
the same passionate vehemence, in inforcing sophistry and falsehood.
And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his
tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the
affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.

Those who have denied the reality of moral distinctions, may be ranked
among the disingenuous disputants; nor is it conceivable, that any human
creature could ever seriously believe, that all characters and actions
were alike entitled to the affection and regard of everyone. The
difference, which nature has placed between one man and another, is
so wide, and this difference is still so much farther widened, by
education, example, and habit, that, where the opposite extremes come at
once under our apprehension, there is no scepticism so scrupulous,
and scarce any assurance so determined, as absolutely to deny all
distinction between them. Let a man's insensibility be ever so great,
he must often be touched with the images of Right and Wrong; and let
his prejudices be ever so obstinate, he must observe, that others are
susceptible of like impressions. The only way, therefore, of converting
an antagonist of this kind, is to leave him to himself. For, finding
that nobody keeps up the controversy with him, it is probable he will,
at last, of himself, from mere weariness, come over to the side of
common sense and reason.

There has been a controversy started of late, much better worth
examination, concerning the general foundation of Morals; whether
they be derived from Reason, or from Sentiment; whether we attain
the knowledge of them by a chain of argument and induction, or by an
immediate feeling and finer internal sense; whether, like all sound
judgement of truth and falsehood, they should be the same to every
rational intelligent being; or whether, like the perception of beauty
and deformity, they be founded entirely on the particular fabric and
constitution of the human species.

The ancient philosophers, though they often affirm, that virtue is
nothing but conformity to reason, yet, in general, seem to consider
morals as deriving their existence from taste and sentiment. On the
other hand, our modern enquirers, though they also talk much of the
beauty of virtue, and deformity of vice, yet have commonly endeavoured
to account for these distinctions by metaphysical reasonings, and by
deductions from the most abstract principles of the understanding. Such
confusion reigned in these subjects, that an opposition of the greatest
consequence could prevail between one system and another, and even in
the parts of almost each individual system; and yet nobody, till very
lately, was ever sensible of it. The elegant Lord Shaftesbury, who first
gave occasion to remark this distinction, and who, in general, adhered
to the principles of the ancients, is not, himself, entirely free from
the same confusion.

It must be acknowledged, that both sides of the question are susceptible
of specious arguments. Moral distinctions, it may be said, are
discernible by pure reason: else, whence the many disputes that reign in
common life, as well as in philosophy, with regard to this subject: the
long chain of proofs often produced on both sides; the examples cited,
the authorities appealed to, the analogies employed, the fallacies
detected, the inferences drawn, and the several conclusions adjusted to
their proper principles. Truth is disputable; not taste: what exists
in the nature of things is the standard of our judgement; what each
man feels within himself is the standard of sentiment. Propositions in
geometry may be proved, systems in physics may be controverted; but the
harmony of verse, the tenderness of passion, the brilliancy of wit, must
give immediate pleasure. No man reasons concerning another's beauty; but
frequently concerning the justice or injustice of his actions. In every
criminal trial the first object of the prisoner is to disprove the facts
alleged, and deny the actions imputed to him: the second to prove, that,
even if these actions were real, they might be justified, as innocent
and lawful. It is confessedly by deductions of the understanding, that
the first point is ascertained: how can we suppose that a different
faculty of the mind is employed in fixing the other? On the other hand,
those who would resolve all moral determinations into sentiment,
may endeavour to show, that it is impossible for reason ever to draw
conclusions of this nature. To virtue, say they, it belongs to be
amiable, and vice odious. This forms their very nature or essence. But
can reason or argumentation distribute these different epithets to any
subjects, and pronounce beforehand, that this must produce love,
and that hatred? Or what other reason can we ever assign for these
affections, but the original fabric and formation of the human mind,
which is naturally adapted to receive them?

The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty; and, by
proper representations of the deformity of vice and beauty of virtue,
beget correspondent habits, and engage us to avoid the one, and
embrace the other. But is this ever to be expected from inferences and
conclusions of the understanding, which of themselves have no hold of
the affections or set in motion the active powers of men? They discover
truths: but where the truths which they discover are indifferent, and
beget no desire or aversion, they can have no influence on conduct and
behaviour. What is honourable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is
noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us
to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible, what is evident,
what is probable, what is true, procures only the cool assent of the
understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to
our researches.

Extinguish all the warm feelings and prepossessions in favour of virtue,
and all disgust or aversion to vice: render men totally indifferent
towards these distinctions; and morality is no longer a practical study,
nor has any tendency to regulate our lives and actions.

These arguments on each side (and many more might be produced) are so
plausible, that I am apt to suspect, they may, the one as well as the
other, be solid and satisfactory, and that reason and sentiment concur
in almost all moral determinations and conclusions. The final sentence,
it is probable, which pronounces characters and actions amiable or
odious, praise-worthy or blameable; that which stamps on them the mark
of honour or infamy, approbation or censure; that which renders morality
an active principle and constitutes virtue our happiness, and vice our
misery; it is probable, I say, that this final sentence depends on some
internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole
species. For what else can have an influence of this nature? But
in order to pave the way for such a sentiment, and give a proper
discernment of its object, it is often necessary, we find, that
much reasoning should precede, that nice distinctions be made, just
conclusions drawn, distant comparisons formed, complicated relations
examined, and general facts fixed and ascertained. Some species of
beauty, especially the natural kinds, on their first appearance, command
our affection and approbation; and where they fail of this effect, it is
impossible for any reasoning to redress their influence, or adapt
them better to our taste and sentiment. But in many orders of beauty,
particularly those of the finer arts, it is requisite to employ much
reasoning, in order to feel the proper sentiment; and a false relish
may frequently be corrected by argument and reflection. There are just
grounds to conclude, that moral beauty partakes much of this latter
species, and demands the assistance of our intellectual faculties, in
order to give it a suitable influence on the human mind.

But though this question, concerning the general principles of morals,
be curious and important, it is needless for us, at present, to employ
farther care in our researches concerning it. For if we can be so happy,
in the course of this enquiry, as to discover the true origin of morals,
it will then easily appear how far either sentiment or reason enters
into all determinations of this nature [Footnote: See Appendix I]. In
order to attain this purpose, we shall endeavour to follow a very simple
method: we shall analyse that complication of mental qualities, which
form what, in common life, we call Personal Merit: we shall consider
every attribute of the mind, which renders a man an object either
of esteem and affection, or of hatred and contempt; every habit or
sentiment or faculty, which, if ascribed to any person, implies either
praise or blame, and may enter into any panegyric or satire of his
character and manners. The quick sensibility, which, on this head, is so
universal among mankind, gives a philosopher sufficient assurance, that
he can never be considerably mistaken in framing the catalogue, or incur
any danger of misplacing the objects of his contemplation: he needs only
enter into his own breast for a moment, and consider whether or not he
should desire to have this or that quality ascribed to him, and whether
such or such an imputation would proceed from a friend or an enemy.
The very nature of language guides us almost infallibly in forming a
judgement of this nature; and as every tongue possesses one set of words
which are taken in a good sense, and another in the opposite, the least
acquaintance with the idiom suffices, without any reasoning, to direct
us in collecting and arranging the estimable or blameable qualities of
men. The only object of reasoning is to discover the circumstances
on both sides, which are common to these qualities; to observe that
particular in which the estimable qualities agree on the one hand,
and the blameable on the other; and thence to reach the foundation of
ethics, and find those universal principles, from which all censure or
approbation is ultimately derived. As this is a question of fact, not
of abstract science, we can only expect success, by following the
experimental method, and deducing general maxims from a comparison
of particular instances. The other scientific method, where a general
abstract principle is first established, and is afterwards branched out
into a variety of inferences and conclusions, may be more perfect in
itself, but suits less the imperfection of human nature, and is a common
source of illusion and mistake in this as well as in other subjects.
Men are now cured of their passion for hypotheses and systems in natural
philosophy, and will hearken to no arguments but those which are derived
from experience. It is full time they should attempt a like reformation
in all moral disquisitions; and reject every system of ethics, however
subtle or ingenious, which is not founded on fact and observation.

We shall begin our enquiry on this head by the consideration of the
social virtues, Benevolence and Justice. The explication of them will
probably give us an opening by which the others may be accounted for.

SECTION II. OF BENEVOLENCE.

PART I.

It may be esteemed, perhaps, a superfluous task to prove, that the
benevolent or softer affections are estimable; and wherever they appear,
engage the approbation and good-will of mankind. The epithets
SOCIABLE, GOOD-NATURED, HUMANE, MERCIFUL, GRATEFUL, FRIENDLY, GENEROUS,
BENEFICENT, or their equivalents, are known in all languages, and
universally express the highest merit, which HUMAN NATURE is capable
of attaining. Where these amiable qualities are attended with birth
and power and eminent abilities, and display themselves in the good
government or useful instruction of mankind, they seem even to raise
the possessors of them above the rank of HUMAN NATURE, and make them
approach in some measure to the divine. Exalted capacity, undaunted
courage, prosperous success; these may only expose a hero or politician
to the envy and ill-will of the public: but as soon as the praises are
added of humane and beneficent; when instances are displayed of lenity,
tenderness or friendship; envy itself is silent, or joins the general
voice of approbation and applause.

When Pericles, the great Athenian statesman and general, was on his
death-bed, his surrounding friends, deeming him now insensible, began to
indulge their sorrow for their expiring patron, by enumerating his great
qualities and successes, his conquests and victories, the unusual length
of his administration, and his nine trophies erected over the enemies of
the republic. YOU FORGET, cries the dying hero, who had heard all, YOU
FORGET THE MOST EMINENT OF MY PRAISES, WHILE YOU DWELL SO MUCH ON THOSE
VULGAR ADVANTAGES, IN WHICH FORTUNE HAD A PRINCIPAL SHARE. YOU HAVE
NOT OBSERVED THAT NO CITIZEN HAS EVER YET WORNE MOURNING ON MY ACCOUNT.
[Plut. in Pericle]

In men of more ordinary talents and capacity, the social virtues become,
if possible, still more essentially requisite; there being nothing
eminent, in that case, to compensate for the want of them, or preserve
the person from our severest hatred, as well as contempt. A high
ambition, an elevated courage, is apt, says Cicero, in less perfect
characters, to degenerate into a turbulent ferocity. The more social and
softer virtues are there chiefly to be regarded. These are always good
and amiable [Cic. de Officiis, lib. I].

The principal advantage, which Juvenal discovers in the extensive
capacity of the human species, is that it renders our benevolence also
more extensive, and gives us larger opportunities of spreading our
kindly influence than what are indulged to the inferior creation [Sat.
XV. 139 and seq.]. It must, indeed, be confessed, that by doing good
only, can a man truly enjoy the advantages of being eminent. His exalted
station, of itself but the more exposes him to danger and tempest.
His sole prerogative is to afford shelter to inferiors, who repose
themselves under his cover and protection.

But I forget, that it is not my present business to recommend generosity
and benevolence, or to paint, in their true colours, all the genuine
charms of the social virtues. These, indeed, sufficiently engage every
heart, on the first apprehension of them; and it is difficult to abstain
from some sally of panegyric, as often as they occur in discourse or
reasoning. But our object here being more the speculative, than the
practical part of morals, it will suffice to remark, (what will readily,
I believe, be allowed) that no qualities are more intitled to the
general good-will and approbation of mankind than beneficence and
humanity, friendship and gratitude, natural affection and public spirit,
or whatever proceeds from a tender sympathy with others, and a generous
concern for our kind and species. These wherever they appear seem to
transfuse themselves, in a manner, into each beholder, and to call
forth, in their own behalf, the same favourable and affectionate
sentiments, which they exert on all around.

PART II.

We may observe that, in displaying the praises of any humane, beneficent
man, there is one circumstance which never fails to be amply insisted
on, namely, the happiness and satisfaction, derived to society from
his intercourse and good offices. To his parents, we are apt to say, he
endears himself by his pious attachment and duteous care still more than
by the connexions of nature. His children never feel his authority,
but when employed for their advantage. With him, the ties of love are
consolidated by beneficence and friendship. The ties of friendship
approach, in a fond observance of each obliging office, to those of
love and inclination. His domestics and dependants have in him a sure
resource; and no longer dread the power of fortune, but so far as she
exercises it over him. From him the hungry receive food, the naked
clothing, the ignorant and slothful skill and industry. Like the sun, an
inferior minister of providence he cheers, invigorates, and sustains the
surrounding world.

If confined to private life, the sphere of his activity is narrower;
but his influence is all benign and gentle. If exalted into a higher
station, mankind and posterity reap the fruit of his labours.

As these topics of praise never fail to be employed, and with success,
where we would inspire esteem for any one; may it not thence be
concluded, that the utility, resulting from the social virtues, forms,
at least, a PART of their merit, and is one source of that approbation
and regard so universally paid to them?

When we recommend even an animal or a plant as USEFUL and BENEFICIAL, we
give it an applause and recommendation suited to its nature. As, on the
other hand, reflection on the baneful influence of any of these inferior
beings always inspires us with the sentiment of aversion. The eye is
pleased with the prospect of corn-fields and loaded vine-yards;
horses grazing, and flocks pasturing: but flies the view of briars and
brambles, affording shelter to wolves and serpents.

A machine, a piece of furniture, a vestment, a house well contrived
for use and conveniency, is so far beautiful, and is contemplated with
pleasure and approbation. An experienced eye is here sensible to many
excellencies, which escape persons ignorant and uninstructed.

Can anything stronger be said in praise of a profession, such as
merchandize or manufacture, than to observe the advantages which it
procures to society; and is not a monk and inquisitor enraged when we
treat his order as useless or pernicious to mankind?

The historian exults in displaying the benefit arising from his labours.
The writer of romance alleviates or denies the bad consequences ascribed
to his manner of composition.

In general, what praise is implied in the simple epithet USEFUL! What
reproach in the contrary!

Your Gods, says Cicero [De Nat. Deor. lib. i.], in opposition to the
Epicureans, cannot justly claim any worship or adoration, with whatever
imaginary perfections you may suppose them endowed. They are totally
useless and inactive. Even the Egyptians, whom you so much ridicule,
never consecrated any animal but on account of its utility.

The sceptics assert [Sext. Emp. adrersus Math. lib. viii.], though
absurdly, that the origin of all religious worship was derived from the
utility of inanimate objects, as the sun and moon, to the support
and well-being of mankind. This is also the common reason assigned by
historians, for the deification of eminent heroes and legislators [Diod.
Sic. passim.].

To plant a tree, to cultivate a field, to beget children; meritorious
acts, according to the religion of Zoroaster.

In all determinations of morality, this circumstance of public utility
is ever principally in view; and wherever disputes arise, either in
philosophy or common life, concerning the bounds of duty, the question
cannot, by any means, be decided with greater certainty, than by
ascertaining, on any side, the true interests of mankind. If any false
opinion, embraced from appearances, has been found to prevail; as soon
as farther experience and sounder reasoning have given us juster notions
of human affairs, we retract our first sentiment, and adjust anew the
boundaries of moral good and evil.

Giving alms to common beggars is naturally praised; because it seems
to carry relief to the distressed and indigent: but when we observe the
encouragement thence arising to idleness and debauchery, we regard that
species of charity rather as a weakness than a virtue.

Tyrannicide, or the assassination of usurpers and oppressive princes,
was highly extolled in ancient times; because it both freed mankind from
many of these monsters, and seemed to keep the others in awe, whom the
sword or poniard could not reach. But history and experience having
since convinced us, that this practice increases the jealousy and
cruelty of princes, a Timoleon and a Brutus, though treated with
indulgence on account of the prejudices of their times, are now
considered as very improper models for imitation.

Liberality in princes is regarded as a mark of beneficence, but when
it occurs, that the homely bread of the honest and industrious is often
thereby converted into delicious cates for the idle and the prodigal, we
soon retract our heedless praises. The regrets of a prince, for having
lost a day, were noble and generous: but had he intended to have spent
it in acts of generosity to his greedy courtiers, it was better lost
than misemployed after that manner.

Luxury, or a refinement on the pleasures and conveniences of life, had
not long been supposed the source of every corruption in government, and
the immediate cause of faction, sedition, civil wars, and the total loss
of liberty. It was, therefore, universally regarded as a vice, and was
an object of declamation to all satirists, and severe moralists. Those,
who prove, or attempt to prove, that such refinements rather tend to the
increase of industry, civility, and arts regulate anew our MORAL as well
as POLITICAL sentiments, and represent, as laudable or innocent, what
had formerly been regarded as pernicious and blameable.

Upon the whole, then, it seems undeniable, THAT nothing can bestow more
merit on any human creature than the sentiment of benevolence in an
eminent degree; and THAT a PART, at least, of its merit arises from its
tendency to promote the interests of our species, and bestow happiness
on human society. We carry our view into the salutary consequences
of such a character and disposition; and whatever has so benign an
influence, and forwards so desirable an end, is beheld with complacency
and pleasure. The social virtues are never regarded without their
beneficial tendencies, nor viewed as barren and unfruitful. The
happiness of mankind, the order of society, the harmony of families, the
mutual support of friends, are always considered as the result of their
gentle dominion over the breasts of men.

How considerable a PART of their merit we ought to ascribe to their
utility, will better appear from future disquisitions; [Footnote: Sect.
III. and IV.] as well as the reason, why this circumstance has such a
command over our esteem and approbation. [Footnote: Sect. V.]

SECTION III. OF JUSTICE.

PART I.

THAT Justice is useful to society, and consequently that PART of its
merit, at least, must arise from that consideration, it would be a
superfluous undertaking to prove. That public utility is the SOLE origin
of justice, and that reflections on the beneficial consequences of this
virtue are the SOLE foundation of its merit; this proposition, being
more curious and important, will better deserve our examination and
enquiry.

Let us suppose that nature has bestowed on the human race such profuse
ABUNDANCE of all EXTERNAL conveniencies, that, without any uncertainty
in the event, without any care or industry on our part, every individual
finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites
can want, or luxurious imagination wish or desire. His natural beauty,
we shall suppose, surpasses all acquired ornaments: the perpetual
clemency of the seasons renders useless all clothes or covering: the
raw herbage affords him the most delicious fare; the clear fountain,
the richest beverage. No laborious occupation required: no tillage: no
navigation. Music, poetry, and contemplation form his sole business:
conversation, mirth, and friendship his sole amusement. It seems evident
that, in such a happy state, every other social virtue would flourish,
and receive tenfold increase; but the cautious, jealous virtue of
justice would never once have been dreamed of. For what purpose make a
partition of goods, where every one has already more than enough? Why
give rise to property, where there cannot possibly be any injury? Why
call this object MINE, when upon the seizing of it by another, I need
but stretch out my hand to possess myself to what is equally valuable?
Justice, in that case, being totally useless, would be an idle
ceremonial, and could never possibly have place in the catalogue of
virtues.

We see, even in the present necessitous condition of mankind, that,
wherever any benefit is bestowed by nature in an unlimited abundance,
we leave it always in common among the whole human race, and make no
subdivisions of right and property. Water and air, though the most
necessary of all objects, are not challenged as the property of
individuals; nor can any man commit injustice by the most lavish use and
enjoyment of these blessings. In fertile extensive countries, with few
inhabitants, land is regarded on the same footing. And no topic is so
much insisted on by those, who defend the liberty of the seas, as the
unexhausted use of them in navigation. Were the advantages, procured
by navigation, as inexhaustible, these reasoners had never had any
adversaries to refute; nor had any claims ever been advanced of a
separate, exclusive dominion over the ocean.

It may happen, in some countries, at some periods, that there be
established a property in water, none in land [Footnote: Genesis, chaps.
xiii. and xxi.]; if the latter be in greater abundance than can be used
by the inhabitants, and the former be found, with difficulty, and in
very small quantities.

Again; suppose, that, though the necessities of human race continue the
same as at present, yet the mind is so enlarged, and so replete with
friendship and generosity, that every man has the utmost tenderness for
every man, and feels no more concern for his own interest than for that
of his fellows; it seems evident, that the use of justice would, in
this case, be suspended by such an extensive benevolence, nor would the
divisions and barriers of property and obligation have ever been thought
of. Why should I bind another, by a deed or promise, to do me any
good office, when I know that he is already prompted, by the strongest
inclination, to seek my happiness, and would, of himself, perform the
desired service; except the hurt, he thereby receives, be greater than
the benefit accruing to me? in which case, he knows, that, from my
innate humanity and friendship, I should be the first to oppose myself
to his imprudent generosity. Why raise landmarks between my neighbour's
field and mine, when my heart has made no division between our
interests; but shares all his joys and sorrows with the same force and
vivacity as if originally my own? Every man, upon this supposition,
being a second self to another, would trust all his interests to the
discretion of every man; without jealousy, without partition, without
distinction. And the whole human race would form only one family; where
all would lie in common, and be used freely, without regard to property;
but cautiously too, with as entire regard to the necessities of each
individual, as if our own interests were most intimately concerned.

In the present disposition of the human heart, it would, perhaps, be
difficult to find complete instances of such enlarged affections; but
still we may observe, that the case of families approaches towards it;
and the stronger the mutual benevolence is among the individuals, the
nearer it approaches; till all distinction of property be, in a great
measure, lost and confounded among them. Between married persons, the
cement of friendship is by the laws supposed so strong as to abolish all
division of possessions; and has often, in reality, the force ascribed
to it. And it is observable, that, during the ardour of new enthusiasms,
when every principle is inflamed into extravagance, the community of
goods has frequently been attempted; and nothing but experience of its
inconveniencies, from the returning or disguised selfishness of men,
could make the imprudent fanatics adopt anew the ideas of justice and of
separate property. So true is it, that this virtue derives its existence
entirely from its necessary USE to the intercourse and social state of
mankind.

To make this truth more evident, let us reverse the foregoing
suppositions; and carrying everything to the opposite extreme, consider
what would be the effect of these new situations. Suppose a society to
fall into such want of all common necessaries, that the utmost frugality
and industry cannot preserve the greater number from perishing, and the
whole from extreme misery; it will readily, I believe, be admitted, that
the strict laws of justice are suspended, in such a pressing
emergence, and give place to the stronger motives of necessity and
self-preservation. Is it any crime, after a shipwreck, to seize whatever
means or instrument of safety one can lay hold of, without regard to
former limitations of property? Or if a city besieged were perishing
with hunger; can we imagine, that men will see any means of preservation
before them, and lose their lives, from a scrupulous regard to what, in
other situations, would be the rules of equity and justice? The use
and tendency of that virtue is to procure happiness and security, by
preserving order in society: but where the society is ready to perish
from extreme necessity, no greater evil can be dreaded from violence and
injustice; and every man may now provide for himself by all the means,
which prudence can dictate, or humanity permit. The public, even in less
urgent necessities, opens granaries, without the consent of proprietors;
as justly supposing, that the authority of magistracy may, consistent
with equity, extend so far: but were any number of men to assemble,
without the tie of laws or civil jurisdiction; would an equal partition
of bread in a famine, though effected by power and even violence, be
regarded as criminal or injurious?

Suppose likewise, that it should be a virtuous man's fate to fall
into the society of ruffians, remote from the protection of laws and
government; what conduct must he embrace in that melancholy situation?
He sees such a desperate rapaciousness prevail; such a disregard
to equity, such contempt of order, such stupid blindness to future
consequences, as must immediately have the most tragical conclusion,
and must terminate in destruction to the greater number, and in a total
dissolution of society to the rest. He, meanwhile, can have no other
expedient than to arm himself, to whomever the sword he seizes, or
the buckler, may belong: To make provision of all means of defence and
security: And his particular regard to justice being no longer of use
to his own safety or that of others, he must consult the dictates of
self-preservation alone, without concern for those who no longer merit
his care and attention.

When any man, even in political society, renders himself by his crimes,
obnoxious to the public, he is punished by the laws in his goods and
person; that is, the ordinary rules of justice are, with regard to him,
suspended for a moment, and it becomes equitable to inflict on him, for
the BENEFIT of society, what otherwise he could not suffer without wrong
or injury.

The rage and violence of public war; what is it but a suspension of
justice among the warring parties, who perceive, that this virtue is now
no longer of any USE or advantage to them? The laws of war, which then
succeed to those of equity and justice, are rules calculated for the
ADVANTAGE and UTILITY of that particular state, in which men are
now placed. And were a civilized nation engaged with barbarians, who
observed no rules even of war, the former must also suspend their
observance of them, where they no longer serve to any purpose; and must
render every action or recounter as bloody and pernicious as possible to
the first aggressors.

Thus, the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular
state and condition in which men are placed, and owe their origin and
existence to that utility, which results to the public from their strict
and regular observance. Reverse, in any considerable circumstance,
the condition of men: Produce extreme abundance or extreme necessity:
Implant in the human breast perfect moderation and humanity, or perfect
rapaciousness and malice: By rendering justice totally USELESS, you
thereby totally destroy its essence, and suspend its obligation upon
mankind. The common situation of society is a medium amidst all these
extremes. We are naturally partial to ourselves, and to our friends; but
are capable of learning the advantage resulting from a more equitable
conduct. Few enjoyments are given us from the open and liberal hand of
nature; but by art, labour, and industry, we can extract them in great
abundance. Hence the ideas of property become necessary in all civil
society: Hence justice derives its usefulness to the public: And hence
alone arises its merit and moral obligation.

These conclusions are so natural and obvious, that they have not escaped
even the poets, in their descriptions of the felicity attending the
golden age or the reign of Saturn. The seasons, in that first period of
nature, were so temperate, if we credit these agreeable fictions, that
there was no necessity for men to provide themselves with clothes and
houses, as a security against the violence of heat and cold: The
rivers flowed with wine and milk: The oaks yielded honey; and nature
spontaneously produced her greatest delicacies. Nor were these the
chief advantages of that happy age. Tempests were not alone removed from
nature; but those more furious tempests were unknown to human breasts,
which now cause such uproar, and engender such confusion. Avarice,
ambition, cruelty, selfishness, were never heard of: Cordial affection,
compassion, sympathy, were the only movements with which the mind was
yet acquainted. Even the punctilious distinction of MINE and THINE was
banished from among the happy race of mortals, and carried with it the
very notion of property and obligation, justice and injustice.

This POETICAL fiction of the GOLDEN AGE, is in some respects, of a piece
with the PHILOSOPHICAL fiction of the STATE OF NATURE; only that the
former is represented as the most charming and most peaceable condition,
which can possibly be imagined; whereas the latter is painted out as
a state of mutual war and violence, attended with the most extreme
necessity. On the first origin of mankind, we are told, their ignorance
and savage nature were so prevalent, that they could give no mutual
trust, but must each depend upon himself and his own force or cunning
for protection and security. No law was heard of: No rule of justice
known: No distinction of property regarded: Power was the only measure
of right; and a perpetual war of all against all was the result of men's
untamed selfishness and barbarity.

     [Footnote: This fiction of a state of nature, as a state of war,
was not first started by Mr. Hobbes, as is commonly imagined. Plato
endeavours to refute an hypothesis very like it in the second, third,
and fourth books de republica. Cicero, on the contrary, supposes it
certain and universally acknowledged in the following passage. 'Quis
enim vestrum, judices, ignorat, ita naturam rerum tulisse, ut quodam
tempore homines, nondum neque naturali neque civili jure descripto,
fusi per agros ac dispersi vagarentur tantumque haberent quantum manu ac
viribus, per caedem ac vulnera, aut eripere aut retinere potuissent?
Qui igitur primi virtute & consilio praestanti extiterunt, ii perspecto
genere humanae docilitatis atque ingenii, dissipatos unum in locum
congregarunt, eosque ex feritate illa ad justitiam ac mansuetudinem
transduxerunt. Tum res ad communem utilitatem, quas publicas appellamus,
tum conventicula hominum, quae postea civitates nominatae sunt, tum
domicilia conjuncta, quas urbes dicamus, invento & divino & humano jure
moenibus sepserunt. Atque inter hanc vitam, perpolitam humanitate, &
llam immanem, nihil tam interest quam JUS atque VIS. Horum utro uti
nolimus, altero est utendum. Vim volumus extingui. Jus valeat necesse
est, idi est, judicia, quibus omne jus continetur. Judicia displicent,
ant nulla sunt. Vis dominetur necesse est. Haec vident omnes.' Pro Sext.
sec. 42.]

Whether such a condition of human nature could ever exist, or if it
did, could continue so long as to merit the appellation of a STATE,
may justly be doubted. Men are necessarily born in a family-society, at
least; and are trained up by their parents to some rule of conduct and
behaviour. But this must be admitted, that, if such a state of mutual
war and violence was ever real, the suspension of all laws of
justice, from their absolute inutility, is a necessary and infallible
consequence.

The more we vary our views of human life, and the newer and more unusual
the lights are in which we survey it, the more shall we be convinced,
that the origin here assigned for the virtue of justice is real and
satisfactory.

Were there a species of creatures intermingled with men, which, though
rational, were possessed of such inferior strength, both of body and
mind, that they were incapable of all resistance, and could never, upon
the highest provocation, make us feel the effects of their resentment;
the necessary consequence, I think, is that we should be bound by the
laws of humanity to give gentle usage to these creatures, but should
not, properly speaking, lie under any restraint of justice with regard
to them, nor could they possess any right or property, exclusive of such
arbitrary lords. Our intercourse with them could not be called society,
which supposes a degree of equality; but absolute command on the one
side, and servile obedience on the other. Whatever we covet, they must
instantly resign: Our permission is the only tenure, by which they hold
their possessions: Our compassion and kindness the only check, by which
they curb our lawless will: And as no inconvenience ever results from
the exercise of a power, so firmly established in nature, the restraints
of justice and property, being totally USELESS, would never have place
in so unequal a confederacy.

This is plainly the situation of men, with regard to animals; and
how far these may be said to possess reason, I leave it to others to
determine. The great superiority of civilized Europeans above barbarous
Indians, tempted us to imagine ourselves on the same footing with regard
to them, and made us throw off all restraints of justice, and even of
humanity, in our treatment of them. In many nations, the female sex are
reduced to like slavery, and are rendered incapable of all property, in
opposition to their lordly masters. But though the males, when united,
have in all countries bodily force sufficient to maintain this severe
tyranny, yet such are the insinuation, address, and charms of their fair
companions, that women are commonly able to break the confederacy, and
share with the other sex in all the rights and privileges of society.

Were the human species so framed by nature as that each individual
possessed within himself every faculty, requisite both for his own
preservation and for the propagation of his kind: Were all society and
intercourse cut off between man and man, by the primary intention of the
supreme Creator: It seems evident, that so solitary a being would be
as much incapable of justice, as of social discourse and conversation.
Where mutual regards and forbearance serve to no manner of purpose,
they would never direct the conduct of any reasonable man. The headlong
course of the passions would be checked by no reflection on future
consequences. And as each man is here supposed to love himself alone,
and to depend only on himself and his own activity for safety and
happiness, he would, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power,
challenge the preference above every other being, to none of which he
is bound by any ties, either of nature or of interest. But suppose
the conjunction of the sexes to be established in nature, a family
immediately arises; and particular rules being found requisite for
its subsistence, these are immediately embraced; though without
comprehending the rest of mankind within their prescriptions. Suppose
that several families unite together into one society, which is totally
disjoined from all others, the rules, which preserve peace and order,
enlarge themselves to the utmost extent of that society; but becoming
then entirely useless, lose their force when carried one step farther.
But again suppose, that several distinct societies maintain a kind of
intercourse for mutual convenience and advantage, the boundaries of
justice still grow larger, in proportion to the largeness of men's
views, and the force of their mutual connexions. History, experience,
reason sufficiently instruct us in this natural progress of human
sentiments, and in the gradual enlargement of our regards to justice,
in proportion as we become acquainted with the extensive utility of that
virtue.

PART II.

If we examine the PARTICULAR laws, by which justice is directed,
and property determined; we shall still be presented with the same
conclusion. The good of mankind is the only object of all these laws
and regulations. Not only is it requisite, for the peace and interest
of society, that men's possessions should be separated; but the rules,
which we follow, in making the separation, are such as can best be
contrived to serve farther the interests of society.

We shall suppose that a creature, possessed of reason, but unacquainted
with human nature, deliberates with himself what rules of justice or
property would best promote public interest, and establish peace and
security among mankind: His most obvious thought would be, to assign the
largest possessions to the most extensive virtue, and give every one
the power of doing good, proportioned to his inclination. In a perfect
theocracy, where a being, infinitely intelligent, governs by particular
volitions, this rule would certainly have place, and might serve to the
wisest purposes: But were mankind to execute such a law; so great is
the uncertainty of merit, both from its natural obscurity, and from the
self-conceit of each individual, that no determinate rule of conduct
would ever result from it; and the total dissolution of society must
be the immediate consequence. Fanatics may suppose, THAT DOMINION IS
FOUNDED ON GRACE, and THAT SAINTS ALONE INHERIT THE EARTH; but the civil
magistrate very justly puts these sublime theorists on the same footing
with common robbers, and teaches them by the severest discipline, that a
rule, which, in speculation, may seem the most advantageous to society,
may yet be found, in practice, totally pernicious and destructive.

That there were RELIGIOUS fanatics of this kind in England, during
the civil wars, we learn from history; though it is probable, that the
obvious TENDENCY of these principles excited such horror in mankind, as
soon obliged the dangerous enthusiasts to renounce, or at least conceal
their tenets. Perhaps the LEVELLERS, who claimed an equal distribution
of property, were a kind of POLITICAL fanatics, which arose from the
religious species, and more openly avowed their pretensions; as carrying
a more plausible appearance, of being practicable in themselves, as well
as useful to human society. It must, indeed, be confessed, that nature
is so liberal to mankind, that, were all her presents equally divided
among the species, and improved by art and industry, every individual
would enjoy all the necessaries, and even most of the comforts of life;
nor would ever be liable to any ills but such as might accidentally
arise from the sickly frame and constitution of his body. It must also
be confessed, that, wherever we depart from this equality, we rob the
poor of more satisfaction than we add to the rich, and that the slight
gratification of a frivolous vanity, in one individual, frequently costs
more than bread to many families, and even provinces. It may appear
withal, that the rule of equality, as it would be highly USEFUL, is not
altogether IMPRACTICABLE; but has taken place, at least in an imperfect
degree, in some republics; particularly that of Sparta; where it was
attended, it is said, with the most beneficial consequences. Not to
mention that the Agrarian laws, so frequently claimed in Rome, and
carried into execution in many Greek cities, proceeded, all of them,
from a general idea of the utility of this principle.

But historians, and even common sense, may inform us, that, however
specious these ideas of PERFECT equality may seem, they are really,
at bottom, IMPRACTICABLE; and were they not so, would be extremely
PERNICIOUS to human society. Render possessions ever so equal, men's
different degrees of art, care, and industry will immediately break that
equality. Or if you check these virtues, you reduce society to the most
extreme indigence; and instead of preventing want and beggary in a
few, render it unavoidable to the whole community. The most rigorous
inquisition too is requisite to watch every inequality on its first
appearance; and the most severe jurisdiction, to punish and redress it.
But besides, that so much authority must soon degenerate into tyranny,
and be exerted with great partialities; who can possibly be possessed
of it, in such a situation as is here supposed? Perfect equality
of possessions, destroying all subordination, weakens extremely the
authority of magistracy, and must reduce all power nearly to a level, as
well as property.

We may conclude, therefore, that, in order to establish laws for the
regulation of property, we must be acquainted with the nature and
situation of man; must reject appearances, which may be false, though
specious; and must search for those rules, which are, on the whole, most
USEFUL and BENEFICIAL. Vulgar sense and slight experience are sufficient
for this purpose; where men give not way to too selfish avidity, or too
extensive enthusiasm.

Who sees not, for instance, that whatever is produced or improved by a
man's art or industry ought, for ever, to be secured to him, in order to
give encouragement to such USEFUL habits and accomplishments? That the
property ought also to descend to children and relations, for the same
USEFUL purpose? That it may be alienated by consent, in order to beget
that commerce and intercourse, which is so BENEFICIAL to human society?
And that all contracts and promises ought carefully to be fulfilled,
in order to secure mutual trust and confidence, by which the general
INTEREST of mankind is so much promoted?

Examine the writers on the laws of nature; and you will always find,
that, whatever principles they set out with, they are sure to terminate
here at last, and to assign, as the ultimate reason for every rule which
they establish, the convenience and necessities of mankind. A concession
thus extorted, in opposition to systems, has more authority than if it
had been made in prosecution of them.

What other reason, indeed, could writers ever give, why this must be
MINE and that YOURS; since uninstructed nature surely never made any
such distinction? The objects which receive those appellations are, of
themselves, foreign to us; they are totally disjoined and separated
from us; and nothing but the general interests of society can form the
connexion.

Sometimes the interests of society may require a rule of justice in
a particular case; but may not determine any particular rule, among
several, which are all equally beneficial. In that case, the slightest
analogies are laid hold of, in order to prevent that indifference and
ambiguity, which would be the source of perpetual dissension. Thus
possession alone, and first possession, is supposed to convey property,
where no body else has any preceding claim and pretension. Many of the
reasonings of lawyers are of this analogical nature, and depend on very
slight connexions of the imagination.

Does any one scruple, in extraordinary cases, to violate all regard to
the private property of individuals, and sacrifice to public interest
a distinction which had been established for the sake of that interest?
The safety of the people is the supreme law: All other particular laws
are subordinate to it, and dependent on it: And if, in the COMMON course
of things, they be followed and regarded; it is only because the
public safety and interest COMMONLY demand so equal and impartial an
administration.

Sometimes both UTILITY and ANALOGY fail, and leave the laws of justice
in total uncertainty. Thus, it is highly requisite, that prescription
or long possession should convey property; but what number of days or
months or years should be sufficient for that purpose, it is impossible
for reason alone to determine. CIVIL LAWS here supply the place of the
natural CODE, and assign different terms for prescription, according to
the different UTILITIES, proposed by the legislator. Bills of exchange
and promissory notes, by the laws of most countries, prescribe sooner
than bonds, and mortgages, and contracts of a more formal nature.

In general we may observe that all questions of property are subordinate
to the authority of civil laws, which extend, restrain, modify,
and alter the rules of natural justice, according to the particular
CONVENIENCE of each community. The laws have, or ought to have, a
constant reference to the constitution of government, the manners, the
climate, the religion, the commerce, the situation of each society. A
late author of genius, as well as learning, has prosecuted this subject
at large, and has established, from these principles, a system of
political knowledge, which abounds in ingenious and brilliant thoughts,
and is not wanting in solidity.

     [Footnote: The author of L'ESPRIT DES LOIX, This illustrious
     writer, however, sets out with a different theory, and
     supposes all right to be founded on certain RAPPORTS or
     relations; which is a system, that, in my opinion, never
     will be reconciled with true philosophy. Father Malebranche,
     as far as I can learn, was the first that started this
     abstract theory of morals, which was afterwards adopted by
     Cudworth, Clarke, and others; and as it excludes all
     sentiment, and pretends to found everything on reason, it
     has not wanted followers in this philosophic age. See
     Section I, Appendix I. With regard to justice, the virtue
     here treated of, the inference against this theory seems
     short and conclusive. Property is allowed to be dependent on
     civil laws; civil laws are allowed to have no other object,
     but the interest of society: This therefore must be allowed
     to be the sole foundation of property and justice. Not to
     mention, that our obligation itself to obey the magistrate
     and his laws is founded on nothing but the interests of
     society. If the ideas of justice, sometimes, do not follow
     the dispositions of civil law; we shall find, that these
     cases, instead of objections, are confirmations of the
     theory delivered above. Where a civil law is so perverse as
     to cross all the interests of society, it loses all its
     authority, and men judge by the ideas of natural justice,
     which are conformable to those interests. Sometimes also
     civil laws, for useful purposes, require a ceremony or form
     to any deed; and where that is wanting, their decrees run
     contrary to the usual tenour of justice; but one who takes
     advantage of such chicanes, is not commonly regarded as an
     honest man. Thus, the interests of society require, that
     contracts be fulfilled; and there is not a more material
     article either of natural or civil justice: But the omission
     of a trifling circumstance will often, by law, invalidate a
     contract, in foro humano, but not in foro conscientiae, as
     divines express themselves. In these cases, the magistrate
     is supposed only to withdraw his power of enforcing the
     right, not to have altered the right. Where his intention
     extends to the right, and is conformable to the interests of
     society; it never fails to alter the right; a clear proof of
     the origin of justice and of property, as assigned above.]

WHAT IS A MAN'S PROPERTY? Anything which it is lawful for him, and for
him alone, to use. BUT WHAT RULE HAVE WE, BY WHICH WE CAN DISTINGUISH
THESE OBJECTS? Here we must have recourse to statutes, customs,
precedents, analogies, and a hundred other circumstances; some of
which are constant and inflexible, some variable and arbitrary. But the
ultimate point, in which they all professedly terminate, is the
interest and happiness of human society. Where this enters not into
consideration, nothing can appear more whimsical, unnatural, and even
superstitious, than all or most of the laws of justice and of property.

Those who ridicule vulgar superstitions, and expose the folly of
particular regards to meats, days, places, postures, apparel, have an
easy task; while they consider all the qualities and relations of the
objects, and discover no adequate cause for that affection or antipathy,
veneration or horror, which have so mighty an influence over a
considerable part of mankind. A Syrian would have starved rather than
taste pigeon; an Egyptian would not have approached bacon: But if these
species of food be examined by the senses of sight, smell, or taste,
or scrutinized by the sciences of chemistry, medicine, or physics, no
difference is ever found between them and any other species, nor
can that precise circumstance be pitched on, which may afford a just
foundation for the religious passion. A fowl on Thursday is lawful
food; on Friday abominable: Eggs in this house and in this diocese,
are permitted during Lent; a hundred paces farther, to eat them is a
damnable sin. This earth or building, yesterday was profane; to-day,
by the muttering of certain words, it has become holy and sacred. Such
reflections as these, in the mouth of a philosopher, one may safely
say, are too obvious to have any influence; because they must always,
to every man, occur at first sight; and where they prevail not, of
themselves, they are surely obstructed by education, prejudice, and
passion, not by ignorance or mistake.

It may appear to a careless view, or rather a too abstracted reflection,
that there enters a like superstition into all the sentiments of
justice; and that, if a man expose its object, or what we call property,
to the same scrutiny of sense and science, he will not, by the most
accurate enquiry, find any foundation for the difference made by moral
sentiment. I may lawfully nourish myself from this tree; but the fruit
of another of the same species, ten paces off, it is criminal for me to
touch. Had I worn this apparel an hour ago, I had merited the severest
punishment; but a man, by pronouncing a few magical syllables, has now
rendered it fit for my use and service. Were this house placed in the
neighbouring territory, it had been immoral for me to dwell in it;
but being built on this side the river, it is subject to a different
municipal law, and by its becoming mine I incur no blame or censure.
The same species of reasoning it may be thought, which so successfully
exposes superstition, is also applicable to justice; nor is it possible,
in the one case more than in the other, to point out, in the object,
that precise quality or circumstance, which is the foundation of the
sentiment.

But there is this material difference between SUPERSTITION and JUSTICE,
that the former is frivolous, useless, and burdensome; the latter is
absolutely requisite to the well-being of mankind and existence of
society. When we abstract from this circumstance (for it is too apparent
ever to be overlooked) it must be confessed, that all regards to right
and property, seem entirely without foundation, as much as the grossest
and most vulgar superstition. Were the interests of society nowise
concerned, it is as unintelligible why another's articulating certain
sounds implying consent, should change the nature of my actions with
regard to a particular object, as why the reciting of a liturgy by a
priest, in a certain habit and posture, should dedicate a heap of brick
and timber, and render it, thenceforth and for ever, sacred.

     [Footnote: It is evident, that the will or consent alone never
transfers property, nor causes the obligation of a promise (for the same
reasoning extends to both), but the will must be expressed by words or
signs, in order to impose a tie upon any man. The expression being once
brought in as subservient to the will, soon becomes the principal part
of the promise; nor will a man be less bound by his word, though he
secretly give a different direction to his intention, and withhold the
assent of his mind. But though the expression makes, on most occasions,
the whole of the promise, yet it does not always so; and one who should
make use of any expression, of which he knows not the meaning, and which
he uses without any sense of the consequences, would not certainly be
bound by it. Nay, though he know its meaning, yet if he use it in jest
only, and with such signs as evidently show, that he has no serious
intention of binding himself, he would not lie under any obligation of
performance; but it is necessary, that the words be a perfect expression
of the will, without any contrary signs. Nay, even this we must
not carry so far as to imagine, that one, whom, by our quickness of
understanding, we conjecture, from certain signs, to have an intention
of deceiving us, is not bound by his expression or verbal promise, if
we accept of it; but must limit this conclusion to those cases where
the signs are of a different nature from those of deceit. All these
contradictions are easily accounted for, if justice arise entirely from
its usefulness to society; but will never be explained on any other
hypothesis.

   It is remarkable that the moral decisions of the JESUITS and other
relaxed casuists, were commonly formed in prosecution of some such
subtilties of reasoning as are here pointed out, and proceed as much
from the habit of scholastic refinement as from any corruption of
the heart, if we may follow the authority of Mons. Bayle. See his
Dictionary, article Loyola. And why has the indignation of mankind risen
so high against these casuists; but because every one perceived, that
human society could not subsist were such practices authorized, and that
morals must always be handled with a view to public interest, more than
philosophical regularity? If the secret direction of the intention, said
every man of sense, could invalidate a contract; where is our security?
And yet a metaphysical schoolman might think, that, where an intention
was supposed to be requisite, if that intention really had not place,
no consequence ought to follow, and no obligation be imposed. The
casuistical subtilties may not be greater than the snbtilties of
lawyers, hinted at above; but as the former are PERNICIOUS, and the
latter INNOCENT and even NECESSARY, this is the reason of the very
different reception they meet with from the world.

   It is a doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the priest, by a secret
direction of his intention, can invalidate any sacrament. This position
is derived from a strict and regular prosecution of the obvious truth,
that empty words alone, without any meaning or intention in the speaker,
can never be attended with any effect. If the same conclusion be not
admitted in reasonings concerning civil contracts, where the affair is
allowed to be of so much less consequence than the eternal salvation
of thousands, it proceeds entirely from men's sense of the danger and
inconvenience of the doctrine in the former case: And we may
thence observe, that however positive, arrogant, and dogmatical any
superstition may appear, it never can convey any thorough persuasion
of the reality of its objects, or put them, in any degree, on a balance
with the common incidents of life, which we learn from daily observation
and experimental reasoning.]

These reflections are far from weakening the obligations of justice, or
diminishing anything from the most sacred attention to property. On
the contrary, such sentiments must acquire new force from the present
reasoning. For what stronger foundation can be desired or conceived for
any duty, than to observe, that human society, or even human nature,
could not subsist without the establishment of it; and will still arrive
at greater degrees of happiness and perfection, the more inviolable the
regard is, which is paid to that duty?

The dilemma seems obvious: As justice evidently tends to promote public
utility and to support civil society, the sentiment of justice is either
derived from our reflecting on that tendency, or like hunger, thirst,
and other appetites, resentment, love of life, attachment to offspring,
and other passions, arises from a simple original instinct in the human
breast, which nature has implanted for like salutary purposes. If the
latter be the case, it follows, that property, which is the object of
justice, is also distinguished by a simple original instinct, and is not
ascertained by any argument or reflection. But who is there that ever
heard of such an instinct? Or is this a subject in which new discoveries
can be made? We may as well expect to discover, in the body, new senses,
which had before escaped the observation of all mankind.

But farther, though it seems a very simple proposition to say, that
nature, by an instinctive sentiment, distinguishes property, yet in
reality we shall find, that there are required for that purpose ten
thousand different instincts, and these employed about objects of the
greatest intricacy and nicest discernment. For when a definition of
PROPERTY is required, that relation is found to resolve itself into
any possession acquired by occupation, by industry, by prescription, by
inheritance, by contract, &c. Can we think that nature, by an original
instinct, instructs us in all these methods of acquisition?

These words too, inheritance and contract, stand for ideas infinitely
complicated; and to define them exactly, a hundred volumes of laws, and
a thousand volumes of commentators, have not been found sufficient. Does
nature, whose instincts in men are all simple, embrace such complicated
and artificial objects, and create a rational creature, without trusting
anything to the operation of his reason?

But even though all this were admitted, it would not be satisfactory.
Positive laws can certainly transfer property. It is by another original
instinct, that we recognize the authority of kings and senates, and mark
all the boundaries of their jurisdiction? Judges too, even though their
sentence be erroneous and illegal, must be allowed, for the sake of
peace and order, to have decisive authority, and ultimately to determine
property. Have we original innate ideas of praetors and chancellors and
juries? Who sees not, that all these institutions arise merely from the
necessities of human society?

All birds of the same species in every age and country, built their
nests alike: In this we see the force of instinct. Men, in different
times and places, frame their houses differently: Here we perceive
the influence of reason and custom. A like inference may be drawn from
comparing the instinct of generation and the institution of property.

How great soever the variety of municipal laws, it must be confessed,
that their chief outlines pretty regularly concur; because the purposes,
to which they tend, are everywhere exactly similar. In like manner, all
houses have a roof and walls, windows and chimneys; though diversified
in their shape, figure, and materials. The purposes of the latter,
directed to the conveniencies of human life, discover not more plainly
their origin from reason and reflection, than do those of the former,
which point all to a like end.

I need not mention the variations, which all the rules of property
receive from the finer turns and connexions of the imagination, and from
the subtilties and abstractions of law-topics and reasonings. There is
no possibility of reconciling this observation to the notion of original
instincts.

What alone will beget a doubt concerning the theory, on which I insist,
is the influence of education and acquired habits, by which we are
so accustomed to blame injustice, that we are not, in every instance,
conscious of any immediate reflection on the pernicious consequences of
it. The views the most familiar to us are apt, for that very reason,
to escape us; and what we have very frequently performed from certain
motives, we are apt likewise to continue mechanically, without
recalling, on every occasion, the reflections, which first determined
us. The convenience, or rather necessity, which leads to justice is so
universal, and everywhere points so much to the same rules, that the
habit takes place in all societies; and it is not without some scrutiny,
that we are able to ascertain its true origin. The matter, however,
is not so obscure, but that even in common life we have every moment
recourse to the principle of public utility, and ask, WHAT MUST BECOME
OF THE WORLD, IF SUCH PRACTICES PREVAIL? HOW COULD SOCIETY SUBSIST
UNDER SUCH DISORDERS? Were the distinction or separation of possessions
entirely useless, can any one conceive, that it ever should have
obtained in society?

Thus we seem, upon the whole, to have attained a knowledge of the force
of that principle here insisted on, and can determine what degree
of esteem or moral approbation may result from reflections on public
interest and utility. The necessity of justice to the support of society
is the sole foundation of that virtue; and since no moral excellence
is more highly esteemed, we may conclude that this circumstance of
usefulness has, in general, the strongest energy, and most entire
command over our sentiments. It must, therefore, be the source of
a considerable part of the merit ascribed to humanity, benevolence,
friendship, public spirit, and other social virtues of that stamp; as it
is the sole source of the moral approbation paid to fidelity, justice,
veracity, integrity, and those other estimable and useful qualities and
principles. It is entirely agreeable to the rules of philosophy, and
even of common reason; where any principle has been found to have a
great force and energy in one instance, to ascribe to it a like
energy in all similar instances. This indeed is Newton's chief rule of
philosophizing [Footnote: Principia. Lib. iii.].

SECTION IV.

OF POLITICAL SOCIETY.

Had every man sufficient SAGACITY to perceive, at all times, the strong
interest which binds him to the observance of justice and equity, and
STRENGTH OF MIND sufficient to persevere in a steady adherence to a
general and a distant interest, in opposition to the allurements of
present pleasure and advantage; there had never, in that case, been any
such thing as government or political society, but each man, following
his natural liberty, had lived in entire peace and harmony with all
others. What need of positive law where natural justice is, of itself,
a sufficient restraint? Why create magistrates, where there never arises
any disorder or iniquity? Why abridge our native freedom, when, in every
instance, the utmost exertion of it is found innocent and beneficial?
It is evident, that, if government were totally useless, it never could
have place, and that the sole foundation of the duty of allegiance is
the ADVANTAGE, which it procures to society, by preserving peace and
order among mankind.

When a number of political societies are erected, and maintain a great
intercourse together, a new set of rules are immediately discovered to
be USEFUL in that particular situation; and accordingly take place under
the title of Laws of Nations. Of this kind are, the sacredness of the
person of ambassadors, abstaining from poisoned arms, quarter in war,
with others of that kind, which are plainly calculated for the ADVANTAGE
of states and kingdoms in their intercourse with each other.

The rules of justice, such as prevail among individuals, are not
entirely suspended among political societies. All princes pretend a
regard to the rights of other princes; and some, no doubt, without
hypocrisy. Alliances and treaties are every day made between independent
states, which would only be so much waste of parchment, if they were not
found by experience to have SOME influence and authority. But here is
the difference between kingdoms and individuals. Human nature cannot
by any means subsist, without the association of individuals; and that
association never could have place, were no regard paid to the laws of
equity and justice. Disorder, confusion, the war of all against all, are
the necessary consequences of such a licentious conduct. But nations
can subsist without intercourse. They may even subsist, in some degree,
under a general war. The observance of justice, though useful among
them, is not guarded by so strong a necessity as among individuals;
and the moral obligation holds proportion with the USEFULNESS. All
politicians will allow, and most philosophers, that reasons of state
may, in particular emergencies, dispense with the rules of justice, and
invalidate any treaty or alliance, where the strict observance of
it would be prejudicial, in a considerable degree, to either of the
contracting parties. But nothing less than the most extreme necessity,
it is confessed, can justify individuals in a breach of promise, or an
invasion of the properties of others.

In a confederated commonwealth, such as the Achaean republic of old, or
the Swiss Cantons and United Provinces in modern times; as the league
has here a peculiar UTILITY, the conditions of union have a peculiar
sacredness and authority, and a violation of them would be regarded as
no less, or even as more criminal, than any private injury or injustice.

The long and helpless infancy of man requires the combination of parents
for the subsistence of their young; and that combination requires the
virtue of chastity or fidelity to the marriage bed. Without such a
UTILITY, it will readily be owned, that such a virtue would never have
been thought of.

     [Footnote: The only solution, which Plato gives to all the
objections that might be raised against the community of women,
established in his imaginary commonwealth, is, [Greek quotation here].
Scite enim istud et dicitur et dicetur, Id quod utile sit honestum esse,
quod autem inutile sit turpe esse. [De Rep lib v p 457 ex edit Ser]. And
this maxim will admit of no doubt, where public utility is concerned,
which is Plato's meaning. And indeed to what other purpose do all the
ideas of chastity and modesty serve? "Nisi utile est quod facimus,
frustra est gloria," says Phaedrus. [Greek quotation here], says
Plutarch, de vitioso pudore. "Nihil eorum quae damnosa sunt, pulchrum
est." The same was the opinion of the Stoics [Greek quotation here; from
Sept. Emp lib III cap 20].

An infidelity of this nature is much more PERNICIOUS in WOMEN than in
MEN. Hence the laws of chastity are much stricter over the one sex than
over the other.

These rules have all a reference to generation; and yet women past
child-bearing are no more supposed to be exempted from them than
those in the flower of their youth and beauty. GENERAL RULES are often
extended beyond the principle whence they first arise; and this in all
matters of taste and sentiment. It is a vulgar story at Paris, that,
during the rage of the Mississippi, a hump-backed fellow went every
day into the Rue de Quincempoix, where the stock-jobbers met in great
crowds, and was well paid for allowing them to make use of his hump as a
desk, in order to sign their contracts upon it. Would the fortune, which
he raised by this expedient, make him a handsome fellow; though it be
confessed, that personal beauty arises very much from ideas of utility?
The imagination is influenced by associations of ideas; which, though
they arise at first from the judgement, are not easily altered by every
particular exception that occurs to us. To which we may add, in
the present case of chastity, that the example of the old would be
pernicious to the young; and that women, continually foreseeing that a
certain time would bring them the liberty of indulgence, would naturally
advance that period, and think more lightly of this whole duty, so
requisite to society.

Those who live in the same family have such frequent opportunities of
licence of this kind, that nothing could prevent purity of manners, were
marriage allowed, among the nearest relations, or any intercourse of
love between them ratified by law and custom. Incest, therefore, being
PERNICIOUS in a superior degree, has also a superior turpitude and moral
deformity annexed to it.

What is the reason, why, by the Athenian laws, one might marry a
half-sister by the father, but not by the mother? Plainly this:
The manners of the Athenians were so reserved, that a man was never
permitted to approach the women's apartment, even in the same family,
unless where he visited his own mother. His step-mother and her children
were as much shut up from him as the woman of any other family, and
there was as little danger of any criminal correspondence between them.
Uncles and nieces, for a like reason, might marry at Athens; but neither
these, nor half-brothers and sisters, could contract that alliance at
Rome, where the intercourse was more open between the sexes. Public
utility is the cause of all these variations.

To repeat, to a man's prejudice, anything that escaped him in private
conversation, or to make any such use of his private letters, is highly
blamed. The free and social intercourse of minds must be extremely
checked, where no such rules of fidelity are established.

Even in repeating stories, whence we can foresee no ill consequences
to result, the giving of one's author is regarded as a piece of
indiscretion, if not of immorality. These stories, in passing from hand
to hand, and receiving all the usual variations, frequently come about
to the persons concerned, and produce animosities and quarrels among
people, whose intentions are the most innocent and inoffensive.

To pry into secrets, to open or even read the letters of others, to
play the spy upon their words and looks and actions; what habits more
inconvenient in society? What habits, of consequence, more blameable?

This principle is also the foundation of most of the laws of good
manners; a kind of lesser morality, calculated for the ease of company
and conversation. Too much or too little ceremony are both blamed, and
everything, which promotes ease, without an indecent familiarity, is
useful and laudable.

Constancy in friendships, attachments, and familiarities, is
commendable, and is requisite to support trust and good correspondence
in society. But in places of general, though casual concourse, where
the pursuit of health and pleasure brings people promiscuously together,
public conveniency has dispensed with this maxim; and custom there
promotes an unreserved conversation for the time, by indulging the
privilege of dropping afterwards every indifferent acquaintance, without
breach of civility or good manners.

Even in societies, which are established on principles the most immoral,
and the most destructive to the interests of the general society, there
are required certain rules, which a species of false honour, as well as
private interest, engages the members to observe. Robbers and pirates,
it has often been remarked, could not maintain their pernicious
confederacy, did they not establish a pew distributive justice among
themselves, and recall those laws of equity, which they have violated
with the rest of mankind.

I hate a drinking companion, says the Greek proverb, who never forgets.
The follies of the last debauch should be buried in eternal oblivion, in
order to give full scope to the follies of the next.

Among nations, where an immoral gallantry, if covered with a thin veil
of mystery, is, in some degree, authorized by custom, there immediately
arise a set of rules, calculated for the conveniency of that attachment.
The famous court or parliament of love in Provence formerly decided all
difficult cases of this nature.

In societies for play, there are laws required for the conduct of the
game; and these laws are different in each game. The foundation, I own,
of such societies is frivolous; and the laws are, in a great measure,
though not altogether, capricious and arbitrary. So far is there a
material difference between them and the rules of justice, fidelity, and
loyalty. The general societies of men are absolutely requisite for the
subsistence of the species; and the public conveniency, which regulates
morals, is inviolably established in the nature of man, and of the
world, in which he lives. The comparison, therefore, in these respects,
is very imperfect. We may only learn from it the necessity of rules,
wherever men have any intercourse with each other.

They cannot even pass each other on the road without rules. Waggoners,
coachmen, and postilions have principles, by which they give the way;
and these are chiefly founded on mutual ease and convenience. Sometimes
also they are arbitrary, at least dependent on a kind of capricious
analogy like many of the reasonings of lawyers.

     [Footnote: That the lighter machine yield to the heavier, and, in
machines of the same kind, that the empty yield to the loaded; this rule
is founded on convenience. That those who are going to the capital take
place of those who are coming from it; this seems to be founded on some
idea of dignity of the great city, and of the preference of the future
to the past. From like reasons, among foot-walkers, the right-hand
entitles a man to the wall, and prevents jostling, which peaceable
people find very disagreeable and inconvenient.]

To carry the matter farther, we may observe, that it is impossible for
men so much as to murder each other without statutes, and maxims, and an
idea of justice and honour. War has its laws as well as peace; and
even that sportive kind of war, carried on among wrestlers, boxers,
cudgel-players, gladiators, is regulated by fixed principles. Common
interest and utility beget infallibly a standard of right and wrong
among the parties concerned.

SECTION V. WHY UTILITY PLEASES.

PART I.

It seems so natural a thought to ascribe to their utility the praise,
which we bestow on the social virtues, that one would expect to meet
with this principle everywhere in moral writers, as the chief foundation
of their reasoning and enquiry. In common life, we may observe, that the
circumstance of utility is always appealed to; nor is it supposed, that
a greater eulogy can be given to any man, than to display his usefulness
to the public, and enumerate the services, which he has performed to
mankind and society. What praise, even of an inanimate form, if the
regularity and elegance of its parts destroy not its fitness for any
useful purpose! And how satisfactory an apology for any disproportion
or seeming deformity, if we can show the necessity of that particular
construction for the use intended! A ship appears more beautiful to an
artist, or one moderately skilled in navigation, where its prow is wide
and swelling beyond its poop, than if it were framed with a precise
geometrical regularity, in contradiction to all the laws of mechanics. A
building, whose doors and windows were exact squares, would hurt the
eye by that very proportion; as ill adapted to the figure of a human
creature, for whose service the fabric was intended.

What wonder then, that a man, whose habits and conduct are hurtful to
society, and dangerous or pernicious to every one who has an intercourse
with him, should, on that account, be an object of disapprobation, and
communicate to every spectator the strongest sentiment of disgust and
hatred.

     [Footnote: We ought not to imagine, because an inanimate object
may be useful as well as a man, that therefore it ought also, according
to this system, to merit he appellation of VIRTUOUS. The sentiments,
excited by utility, are, in the two cases, very different; and the one
is mixed with affection, esteem, approbation, &c., and not the other. In
like manner, an inanimate object may have good colour and proportions
as well as a human figure. But can we ever be in love with the former?
There are a numerous set of passions and sentiments, of which thinking
rational beings are, by the original constitution of nature, the only
proper objects: and though the very same qualities be transferred to an
insensible, inanimate being, they will not excite the same sentiments.
The beneficial qualities of herbs and minerals are, indeed, sometimes
called their VIRTUES; but this is an effect of the caprice of language,
which out not to be regarded in reasoning. For though there be a species
of approbation attending even inanimate objects, when beneficial, yet
this sentiment is so weak, and so different from that which is directed
to beneficent magistrates or statesman; that they ought not to be ranked
under the same class or appellation.

   A very small variation of the object, even where the same qualities are
preserved, will destroy a sentiment. Thus, the same beauty, transferred
to a different sex, excites no amorous passion, where nature is not
extremely perverted.]

But perhaps the difficulty of accounting for these effects of
usefulness, or its contrary, has kept philosophers from admitting them
into their systems of ethics, and has induced them rather to employ any
other principle, in explaining the origin of moral good and evil. But it
is no just reason for rejecting any principle, confirmed by experience,
that we cannot give a satisfactory account of its origin, nor are able
to resolve it into other more general principles. And if we would
employ a little thought on the present subject, we need be at no loss to
account for the influence of utility, and to deduce it from principles,
the most known and avowed in human nature.

From the apparent usefulness of the social virtues, it has readily
been inferred by sceptics, both ancient and modern, that all moral
distinctions arise from education, and were, at first, invented, and
afterwards encouraged, by the art of politicians, in order to render
men tractable, and subdue their natural ferocity and selfishness, which
incapacitated them for society. This principle, indeed, of precept and
education, must so far be owned to have a powerful influence, that it
may frequently increase or diminish, beyond their natural standard,
the sentiments of approbation or dislike; and may even, in particular
instances, create, without any natural principle, a new sentiment of
this kind; as is evident in all superstitious practices and observances:
But that ALL moral affection or dislike arises from this origin, will
never surely be allowed by any judicious enquirer. Had nature made no
such distinction, founded on the original constitution of the mind, the
words, HONOURABLE and SHAMEFUL, LOVELY and ODIOUS, NOBLE and DESPICABLE,
had never had place in any language; nor could politicians, had they
invented these terms, ever have been able to render them intelligible,
or make them convey any idea to the audience. So that nothing can be
more superficial than this paradox of the sceptics; and it were well,
if, in the abstruser studies of logic and metaphysics, we could as
easily obviate the cavils of that sect, as in the practical and more
intelligible sciences of politics and morals.

The social virtues must, therefore, be allowed to have a natural
beauty and amiableness, which, at first, antecedent to all precept or
education, recommends them to the esteem of uninstructed mankind, and
engages their affections. And as the public utility of these virtues is
the chief circumstance, whence they derive their merit, it follows,
that the end, which they have a tendency to promote, must be some
way agreeable to us, and take hold of some natural affection. It must
please, either from considerations of self-interest, or from more
generous motives and regards.

It has often been asserted, that, as every man has a strong connexion
with society, and perceives the impossibility of his solitary
subsistence, he becomes, on that account, favourable to all those habits
or principles, which promote order in society, and insure to him the
quiet possession of so inestimable a blessing, As much as we value
our own happiness and welfare, as much must we applaud the practice
of justice and humanity, by which alone the social confederacy can
be maintained, and every man reap the fruits of mutual protection and
assistance.

This deduction of morals from self-love, or a regard to private
interest, is an obvious thought, and has not arisen wholly from the
wanton sallies and sportive assaults of the sceptics. To mention no
others, Polybius, one of the gravest and most judicious, as well as most
moral writers of antiquity, has assigned this selfish origin to all our
sentiments of virtue. [Footnote: Undutifulness to parents is disapproved
of by mankind, [Greek quotation inserted here]. Ingratitude for a like
reason (though he seems there to mix a more generous regard) [Greek
quotation inserted here] Lib. vi cap. 4. (Ed. Gronorius.) Perhaps the
historian only meant, that our sympathy and humanity was more enlivened,
by our considering the similarity of our case with that of the person
suffering; which is a just sentiment.] But though the solid practical
sense of that author, and his aversion to all vain subtilties, render
his authority on the present subject very considerable; yet is not
this an affair to be decided by authority, and the voice of nature and
experience seems plainly to oppose the selfish theory.

We frequently bestow praise on virtuous actions, performed in very
distant ages and remote countries; where the utmost subtilty of
imagination would not discover any appearance of self-interest, or
find any connexion of our present happiness and security with events so
widely separated from us.

A generous, a brave, a noble deed, performed by an adversary, commands
our approbation; while in its consequences it may be acknowledged
prejudicial to our particular interest.

Where private advantage concurs with general affection for virtue, we
readily perceive and avow the mixture of these distinct sentiments,
which have a very different feeling and influence on the mind. We
praise, perhaps, with more alacrity, where the generous humane action
contributes to our particular interest: But the topics of praise, which
we insist on, are very wide of this circumstance. And we may attempt to
bring over others to our sentiments, without endeavouring to convince
them, that they reap any advantage from the actions which we recommend
to their approbation and applause.

Frame the model of a praiseworthy character, consisting of all the most
amiable moral virtues: Give instances, in which these display themselves
after an eminent and extraordinary manner: You readily engage the esteem
and approbation of all your audience, who never so much as enquire
in what age and country the person lived, who possessed these noble
qualities: A circumstance, however, of all others, the most material
to self-love, or a concern for our own individual happiness. Once on a
time, a statesman, in the shock and contest of parties, prevailed so far
as to procure, by his eloquence, the banishment of an able adversary;
whom he secretly followed, offering him money for his support during his
exile, and soothing him with topics of consolation in his misfortunes.
ALAS! cries the banished statesman, WITH WHAT REGRET MUST I LEAVE MY
FRIENDS IN THIS CITY, WHERE EVEN ENEMIES ARE SO GENEROUS! Virtue, though
in an enemy, here pleased him: And we also give it the just tribute
of praise and approbation; nor do we retract these sentiments, when we
hear, that the action passed at Athens, about two thousand years ago,
and that the persons' names were Eschines and Demosthenes.

WHAT IS THAT TO ME? There are few occasions, when this question is not
pertinent: And had it that universal, infallible influence supposed,
it would turn into ridicule every composition, and almost every
conversation, which contain any praise or censure of men and manners.

It is but a weak subterfuge, when pressed by these facts and arguments,
to say, that we transport ourselves, by the force of imagination, into
distant ages and countries, and consider the advantage, which we should
have reaped from these characters, had we been contemporaries, and
had any commerce with the persons. It is not conceivable, how a REAL
sentiment or passion can ever arise from a known IMAGINARY interest;
especially when our REAL interest is still kept in view, and is often
acknowledged to be entirely distinct from the imaginary, and even
sometimes opposite to it.

A man, brought to the brink of a precipice, cannot look down without
trembling; and the sentiment of IMAGINARY danger actuates him, in
opposition to the opinion and belief of REAL safety. But the imagination
is here assisted by the presence of a striking object; and yet prevails
not, except it be also aided by novelty, and the unusual appearance of
the object. Custom soon reconciles us to heights and precipices, and
wears off these false and delusive terrors. The reverse is observable in
the estimates which we form of characters and manners; and the more we
habituate ourselves to an accurate scrutiny of morals, the more delicate
feeling do we acquire of the most minute distinctions between vice and
virtue. Such frequent occasion, indeed, have we, in common life, to
pronounce all kinds of moral determinations, that no object of this kind
can be new or unusual to us; nor could any FALSE views or prepossessions
maintain their ground against an experience, so common and familiar.
Experience being chiefly what forms the associations of ideas, it is
impossible that any association could establish and support itself, in
direct opposition to that principle.

Usefulness is agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter
of fact, confirmed by daily observation. But, USEFUL? For what? For
somebody's interest, surely. Whose interest then? Not our own only: For
our approbation frequently extends farther. It must, therefore, be the
interest of those, who are served by the character or action approved
of; and these we may conclude, however remote, are not totally
indifferent to us. By opening up this principle, we shall discover one
great source of moral distinctions.

PART II.

Self-love is a principle in human nature of such extensive energy, and
the interest of each individual is, in general, so closely connected
with that of the community, that those philosophers were excusable, who
fancied that all our concern for the public might be resolved into a
concern for our own happiness and preservation. They saw every moment,
instances of approbation or blame, satisfaction or displeasure
towards characters and actions; they denominated the objects of these
sentiments, VIRTUES, or VICES; they observed, that the former had
a tendency to increase the happiness, and the latter the misery of
mankind; they asked, whether it were possible that we could have any
general concern for society, or any disinterested resentment of the
welfare or injury of others; they found it simpler to consider all
these sentiments as modifications of self-love; and they discovered a
pretence, at least, for this unity of principle, in that close union of
interest, which is so observable between the public and each individual.

But notwithstanding this frequent confusion of interests, it is easy
to attain what natural philosophers, after Lord Bacon, have affected to
call the experimentum crucis, or that experiment which points out the
right way in any doubt or ambiguity. We have found instances, in
which private interest was separate from public; in which it was
even contrary: And yet we observed the moral sentiment to continue,
notwithstanding this disjunction of interests. And wherever these
distinct interests sensibly concurred, we always found a sensible
increase of the sentiment, and a more warm affection to virtue, and
detestation of vice, or what we properly call, GRATITUDE and REVENGE.
Compelled by these instances, we must renounce the theory, which
accounts for every moral sentiment by the principle of self-love. We
must adopt a more public affection, and allow, that the interests of
society are not, even on their own account, entirely indifferent to
us. Usefulness is only a tendency to a certain end; and it is a
contradiction in terms, that anything pleases as means to an end, where
the end itself no wise affects us. If usefulness, therefore, be a source
of moral sentiment, and if this usefulness be not always considered with
a reference to self; it follows, that everything, which contributes to
the happiness of society, recommends itself directly to our approbation
and good-will. Here is a principle, which accounts, in great part, for
the origin of morality: And what need we seek for abstruse and remote
systems, when there occurs one so obvious and natural?

[FOOTNOTE: It is needless to push our researches so far as to ask, why
we have humanity or a fellow-feeling with others. It is sufficient,
that this is experienced to be a principle in human nature. We must stop
somewhere in our examination of causes; and there are, in every science,
some general principles, beyond which we cannot hope to find any
principle more general. No man is absolutely indifferent to the
happiness and misery of others. The first has a natural tendency to give
pleasure; the second, pain. This every one may find in himself. It is
not probable, that these principles can be resolved into principles
more simple and universal, whatever attempts may have been made to that
purpose. But if it were possible, it belongs not to the present subject;
and we may here safely consider these principles as original; happy, if
we can render all the consequences sufficiently plain and perspicuous!]

Have we any difficulty to comprehend the force of humanity and
benevolence? Or to conceive, that the very aspect of happiness,
joy, prosperity, gives pleasure; that of pain, suffering, sorrow,
communicates uneasiness? The human countenance, says Horace ['Uti
ridentibus arrident, ita flentibus adflent Humani vultus,'--Hor.],
borrows smiles or tears from the human countenance. Reduce a person to
solitude, and he loses all enjoyment, except either of the sensual or
speculative kind; and that because the movements of his heart are not
forwarded by correspondent movements in his fellow-creatures. The signs
of sorrow and mourning, though arbitrary, affect us with melancholy; but
the natural symptoms, tears and cries and groans, never fail to infuse
compassion and uneasiness. And if the effects of misery touch us in so
lively a manner; can we be supposed altogether insensible or indifferent
towards its causes; when a malicious or treacherous character and
behaviour are presented to us?

We enter, I shall suppose, into a convenient, warm, well-contrived
apartment: We necessarily receive a pleasure from its very survey;
because it presents us with the pleasing ideas of ease, satisfaction,
and enjoyment. The hospitable, good-humoured, humane landlord appears.
This circumstance surely must embellish the whole; nor can we easily
forbear reflecting, with pleasure, on the satisfaction which results to
every one from his intercourse and good-offices.

His whole family, by the freedom, ease, confidence, and calm enjoyment,
diffused over their countenances, sufficiently express their happiness.
I have a pleasing sympathy in the prospect of so much joy, and can never
consider the source of it, without the most agreeable emotions.

He tells me, that an oppressive and powerful neighbour had attempted
to dispossess him of his inheritance, and had long disturbed all his
innocent and social pleasures. I feel an immediate indignation arise in
me against such violence and injury.

But it is no wonder, he adds, that a private wrong should proceed from a
man, who had enslaved provinces, depopulated cities, and made the field
and scaffold stream with human blood. I am struck with horror at the
prospect of so much misery, and am actuated by the strongest antipathy
against its author.

In general, it is certain, that, wherever we go, whatever we reflect on
or converse about, everything still presents us with the view of human
happiness or misery, and excites in our breast a sympathetic movement
of pleasure or uneasiness. In our serious occupations, in our careless
amusements, this principle still exerts its active energy.

A man who enters the theatre, is immediately struck with the view of
so great a multitude, participating of one common amusement; and
experiences, from their very aspect, a superior sensibility or
disposition of being affected with every sentiment, which he shares with
his fellow-creatures.

He observes the actors to be animated by the appearance of a full
audience, and raised to a degree of enthusiasm, which they cannot
command in any solitary or calm moment.

Every movement of the theatre, by a skilful poet, is communicated, as
it were by magic, to the spectators; who weep, tremble, resent, rejoice,
and are inflamed with all the variety of passions, which actuate the
several personages of the drama.

Where any event crosses our wishes, and interrupts the happiness of the
favourite characters, we feel a sensible anxiety and concern. But where
their sufferings proceed from the treachery, cruelty, or tyranny of an
enemy, our breasts are affected with the liveliest resentment against
the author of these calamities. It is here esteemed contrary to the
rules of art to represent anything cool and indifferent. A distant
friend, or a confident, who has no immediate interest in the
catastrophe, ought, if possible, to be avoided by the poet; as
communicating a like indifference to the audience, and checking the
progress of the passions.

Few species of poetry are more entertaining than PASTORAL; and every
one is sensible, that the chief source of its pleasure arises from those
images of a gentle and tender tranquillity, which it represents in its
personages, and of which it communicates a like sentiment to the reader.
Sannazarius, who transferred the scene to the sea-shore, though he
presented the most magnificent object in nature, is confessed to have
erred in his choice. The idea of toil, labour, and danger, suffered by
the fishermen, is painful; by an unavoidable sympathy, which attends
every conception of human happiness or misery.

When I was twenty, says a French poet, Ovid was my favourite: Now I am
forty, I declare for Horace. We enter, to be sure, more readily into
sentiments, which resemble those we feel every day: But no passion, when
well represented, can be entirely indifferent to us; because there is
none, of which every man has not, within him, at least the seeds and
first principles. It is the business of poetry to bring every affection
near to us by lively imagery and representation, and make it look like
truth and reality: A certain proof, that, wherever that reality is
found, our minds are disposed to be strongly affected by it.

Any recent event or piece of news, by which the fate of states,
provinces, or many individuals is affected, is extremely interesting
even to those whose welfare is not immediately engaged. Such
intelligence is propagated with celerity, heard with avidity, and
enquired into with attention and concern. The interest of society
appears, on this occasion, to be in some degree the interest of each
individual. The imagination is sure to be affected; though the passions
excited may not always be so strong and steady as to have great
influence on the conduct and behaviour.

The perusal of a history seems a calm entertainment; but would be
no entertainment at all, did not our hearts beat with correspondent
movements to those which are described by the historian.

Thucydides and Guicciardin support with difficulty our attention; while
the former describes the trivial encounters of the small cities of
Greece, and the latter the harmless wars of Pisa. The few persons
interested and the small interest fill not the imagination, and engage
not the affections. The deep distress of the numerous Athenian army
before Syracuse; the danger which so nearly threatens Venice; these
excite compassion; these move terror and anxiety.

The indifferent, uninteresting style of Suetonius, equally with the
masterly pencil of Tacitus, may convince us of the cruel depravity of
Nero or Tiberius: But what a difference of sentiment! While the former
coldly relates the facts; and the latter sets before our eyes the
venerable figures of a Soranus and a Thrasea, intrepid in their fate,
and only moved by the melting sorrows of their friends and kindred. What
sympathy then touches every human heart! What indignation against the
tyrant, whose causeless fear or unprovoked malice gave rise to such
detestable barbarity!

If we bring these subjects nearer: If we remove all suspicion of fiction
and deceit: What powerful concern is excited, and how much superior,
in many instances, to the narrow attachments of self-love and private
interest! Popular sedition, party zeal, a devoted obedience to factious
leaders; these are some of the most visible, though less laudable
effects of this social sympathy in human nature.

The frivolousness of the subject too, we may observe, is not able to
detach us entirely from what carries an image of human sentiment and
affection.

When a person stutters, and pronounces with difficulty, we even
sympathize with this trivial uneasiness, and suffer for him. And it is a
rule in criticism, that every combination of syllables or letters, which
gives pain to the organs of speech in the recital, appears also from a
species of sympathy harsh and disagreeable to the ear. Nay, when we
run over a book with our eye, we are sensible of such unharmonious
composition; because we still imagine, that a person recites it to us,
and suffers from the pronunciation of these jarring sounds. So delicate
is our sympathy!

Easy and unconstrained postures and motions are always beautiful: An
air of health and vigour is agreeable: Clothes which warm, without
burthening the body; which cover, without imprisoning the limbs, are
well-fashioned. In every judgement of beauty, the feelings of the person
affected enter into consideration, and communicate to the spectator
similar touches of pain or pleasure.

     [Footnote: 'Decentior equus cujus astricta suntilia; sed idem
velocior. Pulcher aspectu sit athleta, cujus lacertos execitatio
expressit; idem certamini paratior nunquam enim SPECIES ab UTILITATE
dividitur. Sed hoc quidem discernere modici judicii est.'--Quintilian,
Inst. lib. viii. cap. 3.]

What wonder, then, if we can pronounce no judgement concerning the
character and conduct of men, without considering the tendencies of
their actions, and the happiness or misery which thence arises to
society? What association of ideas would ever operate, were that
principle here totally unactive.

     [Footnote: In proportion to the station which a man possesses,
according to the relations in which he is placed; we always expect from
him a greater or less degree of good, and when disappointed, blame his
inutility; and much more do we blame him, if any ill or prejudice
arise from his conduct and behaviour. When the interests of one country
interfere with those of another, we estimate the merits of a statesman
by the good or ill, which results to his own country from his measures
and councils, without regard to the prejudice which he brings on its
enemies and rivals. His fellow-citizens are the objects, which lie
nearest the eye, while we determine his character. And as nature has
implanted in every one a superior affection to his own country, we never
expect any regard to distant nations, where a competition arises. Not to
mention, that, while every man consults the good of his own community,
we are sensible, that the general interest of mankind is better
promoted, than any loose indeterminate views to the good of a species,
whence no beneficial action could ever result, for want of a duly
limited object, on which they could exert themselves.]

If any man from a cold insensibility, or narrow selfishness of temper,
is unaffected with the images of human happiness or misery, he must be
equally indifferent to the images of vice and virtue: As, on the other
hand, it is always found, that a warm concern for the interests of our
species is attended with a delicate feeling of all moral distinctions;
a strong resentment of injury done to men; a lively approbation of their
welfare. In this particular, though great superiority is observable
of one man above another; yet none are so entirely indifferent to the
interest of their fellow-creatures, as to perceive no distinctions
of moral good and evil, in consequence of the different tendencies of
actions and principles. How, indeed, can we suppose it possible in any
one, who wears a human heart, that if there be subjected to his censure,
one character or system of conduct, which is beneficial, and another
which is pernicious to his species or community, he will not so much
as give a cool preference to the former, or ascribe to it the smallest
merit or regard? Let us suppose such a person ever so selfish; let
private interest have ingrossed ever so much his attention; yet in
instances, where that is not concerned, he must unavoidably feel SOME
propensity to the good of mankind, and make it an object of choice, if
everything else be equal. Would any man, who is walking along, tread as
willingly on another's gouty toes, whom he has no quarrel with, as on
the hard flint and pavement? There is here surely a difference in the
case. We surely take into consideration the happiness and misery of
others, in weighing the several motives of action, and incline to the
former, where no private regards draw us to seek our own promotion or
advantage by the injury of our fellow-creatures. And if the principles
of humanity are capable, in many instances, of influencing our actions,
they must, at all times, have some authority over our sentiments, and
give us a general approbation of what is useful to society, and blame of
what is dangerous or pernicious. The degrees of these sentiments may
be the subject of controversy; but the reality of their existence, one
should think, must be admitted in every theory or system.

A creature, absolutely malicious and spiteful, were there any such in
nature, must be worse than indifferent to the images of vice and virtue.
All his sentiments must be inverted, and directly opposite to those,
which prevail in the human species. Whatever contributes to the good of
mankind, as it crosses the constant bent of his wishes and desires, must
produce uneasiness and disapprobation; and on the contrary, whatever is
the source of disorder and misery in society, must, for the same reason,
be regarded with pleasure and complacency. Timon, who probably from
his affected spleen more than an inveterate malice, was denominated the
manhater, embraced Alcibiades with great fondness. GO ON, MY BOY! cried
he, ACQUIRE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE: YOU WILL ONE DAY, I FORESEE,
BE THE CAUSE OF GREAT CALAMITIES TO THEM [Footnote: Plutarch fit vita
Ale.]. Could we admit the two principles of the Manicheans, it is an
infallible consequence, that their sentiments of human actions, as well
as of everything else, must be totally opposite, and that every instance
of justice and humanity, from its necessary tendency, must please the
one deity and displease the other. All mankind so far resemble the good
principle, that, where interest or revenge or envy perverts not our
disposition, we are always inclined, from our natural philanthropy, to
give the preference to the happiness of society, and consequently to
virtue above its opposite. Absolute, unprovoked, disinterested malice
has never perhaps place in any human breast; or if it had, must there
pervert all the sentiments of morals, as well as the feelings of
humanity. If the cruelty of Nero be allowed entirely voluntary, and not
rather the effect of constant fear and resentment; it is evident that
Tigellinus, preferably to Seneca or Burrhus, must have possessed his
steady and uniform approbation.

A statesman or patriot, who serves our own country in our own time, has
always a more passionate regard paid to him, than one whose beneficial
influence operated on distant ages or remote nations; where the good,
resulting from his generous humanity, being less connected with us,
seems more obscure, and affects us with a less lively sympathy. We may
own the merit to be equally great, though our sentiments are not raised
to an equal height, in both cases. The judgement here corrects the
inequalities of our internal emotions and perceptions; in like manner,
as it preserves us from error, in the several variations of images,
presented to our external senses. The same object, at a double distance,
really throws on the eye a picture of but half the bulk; yet we imagine
that it appears of the same size in both situations; because we know
that on our approach to it, its image would expand on the eye, and that
the difference consists not in the object itself, but in our
position with regard to it. And, indeed, without such a correction of
appearances, both in internal and external sentiment, men could
never think or talk steadily on any subject; while their fluctuating
situations produce a continual variation on objects, and throw them into
such different and contrary lights and positions.

     [Footnote: For a little reason, the tendencies of actions and
characters, not their real accidental consequences, are alone regarded
in our more determinations or general judgements; though in our real
feeling or sentiment, we cannot help paying greater regard to one whose
station, joined to virtue, renders him really useful to society, then
to one, who exerts the social virtues only in good intentions and
benevolent affections. Separating the character from the furtone, by an
easy and necessary effort of thought, we pronounce these persons alike,
and give them the appearance: But is not able entirely to prevail our
sentiment.

   Why is this peach-tree said to be better than that other; but because
it produces more or better fruit? And would not the same praise be given
it, though snails or vermin had destroyed the peaches, before they came
to full maturity? In morals too, is not THE TREE KNOWN BY THE FRUIT?
And cannot we easily distinguish between nature and accident, in the one
case as well as in the other?]

The more we converse with mankind, and the greater social intercourse we
maintain, the more shall we be familiarized to these general preferences
and distinctions, without which our conversation and discourse could
scarcely be rendered intelligible to each other. Every man's interest
is peculiar to himself, and the aversions and desires, which result
from it, cannot be supposed to affect others in a like degree. General
language, therefore, being formed for general use, must be moulded on
some more general views, and must affix the epithets of praise or blame,
in conformity to sentiments, which arise from the general interests of
the community. And if these sentiments, in most men, be not so strong as
those, which have a reference to private good; yet still they must make
some distinction, even in persons the most depraved and selfish; and
must attach the notion of good to a beneficent conduct, and of evil to
the contrary. Sympathy, we shall allow, is much fainter than our concern
for ourselves, and sympathy with persons remote from us much fainter
than that with persons near and contiguous; but for this very reason it
is necessary for us, in our calm judgements and discourse concerning
the characters of men, to neglect all these differences, and render
our sentiments more public and social. Besides, that we ourselves often
change our situation in this particular, we every day meet with persons
who are in a situation different from us, and who could never converse
with us were we to remain constantly in that position and point of
view, which is peculiar to ourselves. The intercourse of sentiments,
therefore, in society and conversation, makes us form some general
unalterable standard, by which we may approve or disapprove of
characters and manners. And though the heart takes not part entirely
with those general notions, nor regulates all its love and hatred by
the universal abstract differences of vice and virtue, without regard
to self, or the persons with whom we are more intimately connected;
yet have these moral differences a considerable influence, and being
sufficient, at least for discourse, serve all our purposes in company,
in the pulpit, on the theatre, and in the schools.

     [Footnote: It is wisely ordained by nature, that private
connexions should commonly prevail over univeral views and
considerations; otherwise our affections and actions would be dissopated
and lost, for want of a proper limited object. Thus a small benefit done
to ourselves, or our near friends, excites more lively sentiments
of love and approbation than a great benefit done to a distant
commonwealth: But still we know here, as in all the senses, to correct
these inequalities by reflection, and retain a general standard of vice
and virtue, founded chiefly on a general usefulness.]

Thus, in whatever light we take this subject, the merit, ascribed to
the social virtues, appears still uniform, and arises chiefly from that
regard, which the natural sentiment of benevolence engages us to pay to
the interests of mankind and society. If we consider the principles of
the human make, such as they appear to daily experience and observation,
we must, A PRIORI, conclude it impossible for such a creature as man to
be totally indifferent to the well or ill-being of his fellow-creatures,
and not readily, of himself, to pronounce, where nothing gives him any
particular bias, that what promotes their happiness is good, what tends
to their misery is evil, without any farther regard or consideration.
Here then are the faint rudiments, at least, or outlines, of a GENERAL
distinction between actions; and in proportion as the humanity of the
person is supposed to increase, his connexion with those who are injured
or benefited, and his lively conception of their misery or happiness;
his consequent censure or approbation acquires proportionable vigour.
There is no necessity, that a generous action, barely mentioned in an
old history or remote gazette, should communicate any strong feelings
of applause and admiration. Virtue, placed at such a distance, is like a
fixed star, which, though to the eye of reason it may appear as luminous
as the sun in his meridian, is so infinitely removed as to affect the
senses, neither with light nor heat. Bring this virtue nearer, by our
acquaintance or connexion with the persons, or even by an eloquent
recital of the case; our hearts are immediately caught, our sympathy
enlivened, and our cool approbation converted into the warmest
sentiments of friendship and regard. These seem necessary and infallible
consequences of the general principles of human nature, as discovered in
common life and practice.

Again; reverse these views and reasonings: Consider the matter a
posteriori; and weighing the consequences, enquire if the merit of
social virtue be not, in a great measure, derived from the feelings of
humanity, with which it affects the spectators. It appears to be matter
of fact, that the circumstance of UTILITY, in all subjects, is a source
of praise and approbation: That it is constantly appealed to in all
moral decisions concerning the merit and demerit of actions: That it is
the SOLE source of that high regard paid to justice, fidelity, honour,
allegiance, and chastity: That it is inseparable from all the other
social virtues, humanity, generosity, charity, affability, lenity,
mercy, and moderation: And, in a word, that it is a foundation of
the chief part of morals, which has a reference to mankind and our
fellow-creatures.

It appears also, that, in our general approbation of characters and
manners, the useful tendency of the social virtues moves us not by any
regards to self-interest, but has an influence much more universal
and extensive. It appears that a tendency to public good, and to the
promoting of peace, harmony, and order in society, does always, by
affecting the benevolent principles of our frame, engage us on the side
of the social virtues. And it appears, as an additional confirmation,
that these principles of humanity and sympathy enter so deeply into all
our sentiments, and have so powerful an influence, as may enable them
to excite the strongest censure and applause. The present theory is the
simple result of all these inferences, each of which seems founded on
uniform experience and observation.

Were it doubtful, whether there were any such principle in our nature
as humanity or a concern for others, yet when we see, in numberless
instances, that whatever has a tendency to promote the interests of
society, is so highly approved of, we ought thence to learn the force of
the benevolent principle; since it is impossible for anything to please
as means to an end, where the end is totally indifferent. On the other
hand, were it doubtful, whether there were, implanted in our nature, any
general principle of moral blame and approbation, yet when we see, in
numberless instances, the influence of humanity, we ought thence to
conclude, that it is impossible, but that everything which promotes the
interest of society must communicate pleasure, and what is pernicious
give uneasiness. But when these different reflections and observations
concur in establishing the same conclusion, must they not bestow an
undisputed evidence upon it?

It is however hoped, that the progress of this argument will bring a
farther confirmation of the present theory, by showing the rise of other
sentiments of esteem and regard from the same or like principles.

SECTION VI. OF QUALITIES USEFUL TO OURSELVES.

PART I.

IT seems evident, that where a quality or habit is subjected to our
examination, if it appear in any respect prejudicial to the person
possessed of it, or such as incapacitates him for business and action,
it is instantly blamed, and ranked among his faults and imperfections.
Indolence, negligence, want of order and method, obstinacy, fickleness,
rashness, credulity; these qualities were never esteemed by any one
indifferent to a character; much less, extolled as accomplishments or
virtues. The prejudice, resulting from them, immediately strikes our
eye, and gives us the sentiment of pain and disapprobation.

No quality, it is allowed, is absolutely either blameable or
praiseworthy. It is all according to its degree. A due medium, says
the Peripatetics, is the characteristic of virtue. But this medium is
chiefly determined by utility. A proper celerity, for instance, and
dispatch in business, is commendable. When defective, no progress is
ever made in the execution of any purpose: When excessive, it engages
us in precipitate and ill-concerted measures and enterprises: By such
reasonings, we fix the proper and commendable mediocrity in all moral
and prudential disquisitions; and never lose view of the advantages,
which result from any character or habit. Now as these advantages
are enjoyed by the person possessed of the character, it can never
be SELF-LOVE which renders the prospect of them agreeable to us,
the spectators, and prompts our esteem and approbation. No force of
imagination can convert us into another person, and make us fancy, that
we, being that person, reap benefit from those valuable qualities,
which belong to him. Or if it did, no celerity of imagination could
immediately transport us back, into ourselves, and make us love and
esteem the person, as different from us. Views and sentiments, so
opposite to known truth and to each other, could never have place, at
the same time, in the same person. All suspicion, therefore, of selfish
regards, is here totally excluded. It is a quite different principle,
which actuates our bosom, and interests us in the felicity of the person
whom we contemplate. Where his natural talents and acquired abilities
give us the prospect of elevation, advancement, a figure in life,
prosperous success, a steady command over fortune, and the execution of
great or advantageous undertakings; we are struck with such agreeable
images, and feel a complacency and regard immediately arise towards him.
The ideas of happiness, joy, triumph, prosperity, are connected with
every circumstance of his character, and diffuse over our minds a
pleasing sentiment of sympathy and humanity.

     [Footnote: One may venture to affirm, that there is no human
nature, to whom the appearance of happiness (where envy or revenge has
no place) does not give pleasure, that of misery, uneasiness. This
seems inseparable from our make and constitution. But they are only more
generous minds, that are thence prompted to seek zealously the good of
others, and to have a real passion for their welfare. With men of narrow
and ungenerous spirits, this sympathy goes not beyond a slight
feeling of the imagination, which serves only to excite sentiments
of complacency or ensure, and makes them apply to the object either
honorable or dishonorable appellations. A griping miser, for instance,
praises extremely INDUSTRY and FRUGALITY even in others, and sets them,
in his estimation, above all the other virtues. He knows the good that
results from them, and feels that species of happiness with a more
lively sympathy, than any other you could represent to him; though
perhaps he would not part with a shilling to make the fortune of the
industrious man, whom he praises so highly.]

Let us suppose a person originally framed so as to have no manner of
concern for his fellow-creatures, but to regard the happiness and
misery of all sensible beings with greater indifference than even two
contiguous shades of the same colour. Let us suppose, if the prosperity
of nations were laid on the one hand, and their ruin on the other, and
he were desired to choose; that he would stand like the schoolman's ass,
irresolute and undetermined, between equal motives; or rather, like the
same ass between two pieces of wood or marble, without any inclination
or propensity to either side. The consequence, I believe, must be
allowed just, that such a person, being absolutely unconcerned, either
for the public good of a community or the private utility of others,
would look on every quality, however pernicious, or however beneficial,
to society, or to its possessor, with the same indifference as on the
most common and uninteresting object.

But if, instead of this fancied monster, we suppose a MAN to form
a judgement or determination in the case, there is to him a plain
foundation of preference, where everything else is equal; and however
cool his choice may be, if his heart be selfish, or if the persons
interested be remote from him; there must still be a choice or
distinction between what is useful, and what is pernicious. Now this
distinction is the same in all its parts, with the MORAL DISTINCTION,
whose foundation has been so often, and so much in vain, enquired after.
The same endowments of the mind, in every circumstance, are agreeable
to the sentiment of morals and to that of humanity; the same temper is
susceptible of high degrees of the one sentiment and of the other;
and the same alteration in the objects, by their nearer approach or
by connexions, enlivens the one and the other. By all the rules of
philosophy, therefore, we must conclude, that these sentiments are
originally the same; since, in each particular, even the most minute,
they are governed by the same laws, and are moved by the same objects.