1
results found in
35 ms
Page 1
of 1
[Marginal summary sheet[?]]
[Mainly in copyist’s hand]
14 Jan y 1817
Necessity Cat
3
§ 4. Probity how securable
{16}
A - Yes - difficulties abundant: maintain the result, if there were any need of < > with them - This is not necessary - In such a case the strongest securities than can be ought to be had: - self-regarding interest so long as its form amounts to anything ought therefore in every part of it, to be engaged on the side of the immoral interest -
16
Q. 16 - Teaching then duty for official and predominance regard for universal interest a necessary consequence seems to be that no form of government can be so good as it ought to be and might be, in which any arrangement promising to secure the agreement between personal interest and duty is omitted -
But this agreement how is it affectible?
A It share in universal interest finds not in the breast in question any personal interest opposite to it, it can not but determine disposition i e will at least and for its support for the remainder of universal interest together with the tutilory portions of self regard ng d o. above mentioned saving < > on their part
§.4. Probity how securable
17
Q 18. Good - But in the situation in question by what arrangements can matter be so ordered as that the universal interest with its others as above shall find < > of personal interest to oppose it? -
A. That which in his own conception of it is plainly one of his fewer to effect, a man has not in his own conception any interest in endeavouring to effect. Lodge the power in one man, he sees it in his power to sacrifice universal interest to the adverse portion of his self-regarding d o. to the utmost he will < > lodge it in two, so long as the arrangement < > each will find it necessary to allow the other a share. Keep on this adding to the number of the sharers you will at last to that number in the case in which share in universal interest can not be opposed by personal interest being identical with it
18
Q.18. Of such an arrangement would not universal community or equality of possession be the result? -
A. No - only by special application of the form of the religious sanction be established and preserved: nor thus but in a small
§.4. Probity, how securable
scale: too small for self-defence. Two days together, universal equality could not continue; only by assurance of < > to enjoy can < > of production be produced -
From equalization of share in supreme power no such community or equalization of other possessions would result: the community would be seen to be starving: the equilization, destinction[?]
19
Q.19 - As to this element of aptitude it should seem thus, that the only adequate security is afforded by democracy: and that surprising the others possessed in adequate degree - democracy is the only form best adapted to the attainment of the end -
A - Yes - but this condition never forgot to < > it
20
Q. 20 - It all had a share in the supreme power, only the interest of the majority would thus so far as depends on disposition and endeavour be served not the interest of all
A. But in the interest of the minority sacrificed to d o. of the majority their view versa - No objection to our[?] arrangement that it would not attest[?] impossibilities -
§ 4 Probity, how securable
But interests are so interwoven that the happiness of the majority can not be maximized by any means other than such by which the happiness of all will be maximized -
Similar Items
-
Title: [[Marginal summary sheet[?]] [Mainly]Description: [Marginal summary sheet[?]] [Mainly in copyist’s hand] 14 Jan y 1817 Necessity Cat 1 Theory § 4. Probity how securable 2 §. 4 Probity how securable 9 Q.9 - But said you not that on every occasion man’s conduct is determined by his own conception of his agregate interest during life? A. Yes: and future life may be included 10 Q 10. What? in the case of a thief, ravisher, murderer, without prospect of impunity? A. Yes for as in physics with few exceptions no body acts but were present so in psychics without exception no idea: a motive is an idea of < > pleasure or pain: not present such an idea can not operate: nor although present, but in proportion fierce will which the attention < > to it For example take it murderers case: motive say desire of revenge prospect of escape, none such may be the joint form of the idea of the pain produced by the supposed saying and the pleasure expected from the contemplation of the suffering producable to the injurer, that by the two the capacity of the mind shall be filled up: the idea of the < > punishment thus barred on, or if let in, prevented from preponderating by the weakness of the attention applied to it - § 4 Probity, how securable 11 Q.11. Speaking of a partnership you brought to view interests created by political moral and religious sanctions: in a private partnership in general one thing not sufficient to secure probity as so is partners: if so why not in this public d o? - A. In a private partnership, yes - But in this public d o. I. Political sanction can not impose restored its force is perfectly at the command of the power-holders in question II. So the moral for the most part - III. In there < > when the religious is more apt to extend from or to act in a singular direction, then to be in and act in a proper direction - 12 Q. 12 - In Monarchs case is it so clear that to this purpose the religious number is made quite < > if so what is the cause? A. Causes let us now they would had as far wide of the mark: effects are matter of notoriety, indication may serve for proof - Monarchs, on some through unbelief, rule given can have had no influence: witness Frederic, Bonaparte, as per their writings. question 3 - as report on others its influence has been rather adverse than conducive: witness not to speak of the French, the Spanish and the Italian § 4 Probity, how securable 13 Q. 13 - But sympathetic sound /social/ interest operating to that extent in which it embraces the whole of the community, you will not deny its existence, or its acting on this side? - A. No - but < > you doing? - 1 In its most < > state this interest is community much weaker than self-regarding - 2 - In this case by reason of its extent it operates in a highly diluted state - 14 Q.14 - Your notion is then that in the situation in question, on the occasion in question mall will in general be determined not only by his self regarding interest but by that part of it in which the interests < > by the < > or moral and the religious sanctions are not comprized (viz. by his own conception which as above < > to be taken for correct) - A. - Yes - that any rate individuals unknown, this is so propable that any arrangement grounded on any other supposition would be unanswerable - 15 Q.15 Are not here great difficulties? - 1 - Estimating relative forms of the portion of personal interest in the one part the share in the universal interest together together with that < > by sympathy for the remainder § 4 Probity how securable and that erected by the tutilory sanctions on the other - 2 Ascertaining the agreement or disagreement between the rate value of the several interests and the man’s own conception of it -
-
Title: [14 Jan y 1817 Necessity Cat]Description: 14 Jan y 1817 Necessity Cat 1 Theory §.4. Probity how securable 17 Q. < > Well, but this democracy /arrangement/ of yours would it not involve in it universal community or universal equality of possessions? A. Not it indeed. Only upon a small scale, and by means of the force of the religious sanction in a special manner employed in the establishing and securing of it - nor then but upon a very small scale, a scale not large enough to constitute a defensible state, can the system of universal community of possessions have place: and as to universal equality of separate possessions it is what could not have place for two days together any where. Make all possessions equal to day, you will have no possessions at all tomorrow: for it is only by the assurance of continuing to enjoy that a man will bestow the pains necessary to produce. If therefore all persons capable of exercising a share in the supreme power had all of them a share in it no such consequence would ensue. Universal community of possessions would to their eyes be universal slavery: nor could they be so blind as not to see that howsoever the case might be in regard to equality of the shares in the supreme power, as to such possessions of which the matter of subsistence and opulence is composed, any equalization incompatible with security would be equalization but in name, destruction - immediate destruction - in effect.
-
Title: [14 Jan y 1817 Necessity Cat]Description: 14 Jan y 1817 Necessity Cat 1 Theory §.4. Probity how securable 16 Q. < > This seems pretty well out of dispute. But now then how is it that matters can /shall/ be so ordered as that in the situation in question that is /viz/ that of a person possessor[?] of a part in the whole of the supreme power in a state this cluster[?] this combination of Military interests shall find nothing or at least nothing effectual to oppose it? A. That which it is plainly /in his own view /conception/ of the matter/ out of a man’s power to effect, he will have no interest in endeavouring to effect. In any endeavour he may be disposed to use for the advancement of his own personal interest at the expence of the universal interest a man in whose hands the whole of the supreme power is lodged in a word an absolute Monarch in a word will find nothing to oppose him. At whatsoever expence to the rest /all the other members /of the commu {-nity he may shut the door of his dwelling /habitation/ /mind/ against the apprehensions of all imaginable sources /instruments/ of pain and meanness[?] in every shape he may crowd into it the assurances of all imaginable instruments of pleasure and security.} /-nity he may crowd together within his own grasp the whole stock of the instruments of felicity and security./ Place /Lodge/ the power in the hands of Instead of one person place the power in the hands of two, each in his endeavours to engross to himself the instruments of felicity will, so long as the arrangement lasts, find an opponent in the other: if in this state of things they continue each of them in possession in his share in the supreme power each will have found himself under the necessity of letting[?] on the other for an equal share of the good things of this world in all their other shapes. Keep on thus adding one such line to the number of sharers in that supreme power at every stop you will be adding one to the number of those whose partial interest is thus advanced at the expence of the universal interest that is of the remainder of the universal interest, till at last you will find that the interest which was the partial interest is become itself the universal interest.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1