1
results found in
25 ms
Page 1
of 1
21 Jan y. 1810
Parl y. Reform
Ch.2. Influence
'.1
6
Objector. Do you admitt then that in the case in question a man's conduct may with propriety be determined by authority? - by intellectual authority, according to the explanation you have just been giving of it?
Author. Most assuredly I do: and that by its being determined in this manner, not that I recommend this as the universally preferable mode the trust in question is not broken, nor the design of the institution counteracted.
Objector. But how in this case is the description which you have above been giving /above given by you/ of the obligation attached to the trust conformed to? how in such case can it be said with true[?] that it is by the trustee's own understanding that any view of the matter has been taken?
Author. {The conformity, you will see, is beyond dispute.} Yes: even in this case you will find that by the trustee's own understanding a view of the matter has even[?] in this case been taken: and that it is by that view, and the report made in consequence by his
understanding that his will is determined.
For is it not the work of understanding to form and pronounce a judgment on the strength of another man's? not to speak of that other judgment which to the one in question in many cases is so necessary an accompaniment viz. on the probity of the moral part of the same person's[?] frame[?] /mind/, and not merely of the general strength of the understanding but of the particular strength as applied to the particular subject in hand.
Similar Items
-
Title: [21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform]Description: 21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform Influence Ch.2. Influence 7 If this mode of taking a view of a subject were not allowed of viz. viewing it by proxy as it were and through other eyes, it would not be very easy to say what part of the business of life, extraordinary or even ordinary would be able to go forward: and in what degree if in any the condition of the[?] human would be preferable to that of the quadruped race of the irrational part of the animal kingdom. Not that this observation would of itself be sufficient to justify that part of the definition which is in question /the definition[?], which is the thing objected to/. But what applies directly to the objection is this: of the very matter in question in this case as well as the other a view is by the understanding in question taken: the only difference /difference/ is, that in the one case the view is direct and particular and direct; in the other general, indirect and /oblique [...?], and comparatively/ remote. But in this case the main question /object of consideration/ is - not the sort of influence by which, in the case in question the man's conduct is determined, but the sort of influence by which it is not determined. To the fulfilment of the obligation in question - to the fulfilment of the condition in question to the due exercise of the trust in question what is necessary is that in the formation of the will by which the conduct is determined, no other will nor so much as any supposition concerning any other will should have had any part: and this condition is equally fulfilled whether of the judgment pronounced the ground was composed of a set of particular reasons or of no other particulars than a mass of authority - intellectual authority, as above described.
-
Title: [21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform]Description: 21 Jan y. 1810 Parl y. Reform Influence Ch.2. '.1. 8 8 Objector. Good. So far so good /Agreed/ But if you admitt of influence, what do you get by limiting it to that sort of influence which is exercised {by understanding} over understanding? why not as well admitt of that sort which is exercised by will on will? By the influence exercised on it by understanding is not understanding continually liable to be misled and in consequence conduct misdirected in consequence? But if conduct be misdirected, what matters it whether it be by understanding or by will that is misdirected. Author. Doubtless the one you have been mentioning is a cause of misconduct as well as the other. But in my turn give me leave to put the question is it not better to have but one cause of misconduct than to have two? Now then in between the two causes of misconduct in the case in question the matter stands thus. {Misconduct so far as it has for its cause a deceptitious /an improper/ /a misleading/ influence exercised on understanding by understanding it is in this case impossible to prevent or diminish by any legal arrangements: misconduct so far as in this same case it has for its cause influence exercised by will over will it is not impossible to diminish at least by legal arrangements.}
-
Title: [20 Jan y 1810 Parl y. Reform]Description: 20 Jan y 1810 Parl y. Reform Ch.1. §.3. 16 6 Add the case of the Electors. Objector True, all this: mighty true. But is it worth /can it be worth the/ telling? can there be any use in stating it? Exists there that human being, at least of English race, who could entertain a doubt about it, or who could think of controverting it? Author Oh yes: that there does: and in the seat of that authority which with reference to this subject is /occupies/ the very highest place which the country knows of /looks to/. But of this in another place. + + Infrà Ch.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1