an enquiry concerning human understanding-第21节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


entirely　to　be　forborne；　as　serving　nothing　to　the　discovery
of　truth；　but　only　to　make　the　person　of　an　antagonist
odious。　This　I　observe　in　general；　without　pretending　to
draw　any　advantage　from　it。　I　frankly　submit　to　an
examination　of　this　kind；　and　shall　venture　to　affirm　that
the　doctrines；　both　of　necessity　and　of　liberty；　as　above
explained；　are　not　only　consistent　with　morality；　but　are
absolutely　essential　to　its　support。

　　　　　Necessity　may　be　defined　two　ways；　conformably　to　the
two　definitions　of　；　of　which　it　makes　an　essential
part。　It　consists　either　in　the　constant　conjunction　of　like
objects；　or　in　the　inference　of　the　understanding　from　one
object　to　another。　Now　necessity；　in　both　these　senses；
（which；　indeed；　are　at　bottom　the　same）　has　universally；
though　tacitly；　in　the　schools；　in　the　pulpit；　and　in　common
life；　been　allowed　to　belong　to　the　will　of　man；　and　no　one
has　ever　pretended　to　deny　that　we　can　draw　inferences
concerning　human　actions；　and　that　those　inferences　are
founded　on　the　experienced　union　of　like　actions；　with　like
motives；　inclinations；　and　circumstances。　The　only
particular　in　which　any　one　can　differ；　is；　that　either；
perhaps；　he　will　refuse　to　give　the　name　of　necessity　to
this　property　of　human　actions：　But　as　long　as　the　meaning
is　understood；　I　hope　the　word　can　do　no　harm：　Or　that　he
will　maintain　it　possible　to　discover　something　farther　in
the　operations　of　matter。　But　this；　it　must　be　acknowledged；
can　be　of　no　consequence　to　morality　or　religion；　whatever
it　may　be　to　natural　philosophy　or　metaphysics。　We　may　here
be　mistaken　in　asserting　that　there　is　no　idea　of　any　other
necessity　or　connexion　in　the　actions　of　body：　But　surely　we
ascribe　nothing　to　the　actions　of　the　mind；　but　what
everyone　does；　and　must　readily　allow　of。　We　change　no
circumstance　in　the　received　orthodox　system　with　regard　to
the　will；　but　only　in　that　with　regard　to　material　objects
and　causes。　Nothing；　therefore；　can　be　more　innocent；　at
least；　than　this　doctrine。

　　　　　All　laws　being　founded　on　rewards　and　punishments；　it
is　supposed　as　a　fundamental　principle；　that　these　motives
have　a　regular　and　uniform　influence　on　the　mind；　and　both
produce　the　good　and　prevent　the　evil　actions。　We　may　give
to　this　influence　what　name　we　please；　but；　as　it　is　usually
conjoined　with　the　action；　it　must　be　esteemed　a　；
and　be　looked　upon　as　an　instance　of　that　necessity；　which
we　would　here　establish。

　　　　　The　only　proper　object　of　hatred　or　vengeance　is　a
person　or　creature；　endowed　with　thought　and　consciousness；
and　when　any　criminal　or　injurious　actions　excite　that
passion；　it　is　only　by　their　relation　to　the　person；　or
connexion　with　him。　Actions　are；　by　their　very　nature；
temporary　and　perishing；　and　where　they　proceed　not　from
some　　in　the　character　and　disposition　of　the　person
who　performed　them；　they　can　neither　redound　to　his　honour；
if　good；　nor　infamy；　if　evil。　The　actions　themselves　may　be
blameable；　they　may　be　contrary　to　all　the　rules　of　morality
and　religion：　But　the　person　is　not　answerable　for　them；　and
as　they　proceeded　from　nothing　in　him　that　is　durable　and
constant；　and　leave　nothing　of　that　nature　behind　them；　it
is　impossible　he　can；　upon　their　account；　become　the　object
of　punishment　or　vengeance。　According　to　the　principle；
therefore；　which　denies　necessity；　and　consequently　causes；
a　man　is　as　pure　and　untainted；　after　having　committed　the
most　horrid　crime；　as　at　the　first　moment　of　his　birth；　nor
is　his　character　anywise　concerned　in　his　actions；　since
they　are　not　derived　from　it；　and　the　wickedness　of　the　one
can　never　be　used　as　a　proof　of　the　depravity　of　the　other。

　　　　　Men　are　not　blamed　for　such　actions　as　they　perform
ignorantly　and　casually；　whatever　may　be　the　consequences。
Why？　but　because　the　principles　of　these　actions　are　only
momentary；　and　terminate　in　them　alone。　Men　are　less　blamed
for　such　actions　as　they　perform　hastily　and
unpremeditatedly　than　for　such　as　proceed　from　deliberation。
For　what　reason？　but　because　a　hasty　temper；　though　a
constant　cause　or　principle　in　the　mind；　operates　only　by
intervals；　and　infects　not　the　whole　character。　Again；
repentance　wipes　off　every　crime；　if　attended　with　a
reformation　of　life　and　manners。　How　is　this　to　be　accounted
for？　but　by　asserting　that　actions　render　a　person　criminal
merely　as　they　are　proofs　of　criminal　principles　in　the
mind；　and　when；　by　an　alteration　of　these　principles；　they
cease　to　be　just　proofs；　they　likewise　cease　to　be　criminal。
But；　except　upon　the　doctrine　of　necessity；　they　never　were
just　proofs；　and　consequently　never　were　criminal。

　　　　　It　will　be　equally　easy　to　prove；　and　from　the　same
arguments；　that　；　according　to　that　definition
above　mentioned；　in　which　all　men　agree；　is　also　essential
to　morality；　and　that　no　human　actions；　where　it　is　wanting；
are　susceptible　of　any　moral　qualities；　or　can　be　the
objects　either　of　approbation　or　dislike。　For　as　actions　are
objects　of　our　moral　sentiment；　so　far　only　as　they　are
indications　of　the　internal　character；　passions；　and
affections；　it　is　impossible　that　they　can　give　rise　either
to　praise　or　blame；　where　they　proceed　not　from　these
principles；　but　are　derived　altogether　from　external
violence。

　　　　　I　pretend　not　to　have　obviated　or　removed　all
objections　to　this　theory；　with　regard　to　necessity　and
liberty。　I　can　foresee　other　objections；　derived　from　topics
which　have　not　here　been　treated　of。　It　may　be　said；　for
instance；　that；　if　voluntary　actions　be　subjected　to　the
same　laws　of　necessity　with　the　operations　of　matter；　there
is　a　continued　chain　of　necessary　causes；　pre…ordained　and
pre…　determined；　reaching　from　the　original　cause　of　all　to
every　single　volition　of　every　human　creature。　No
contingency　anywhere　in　the　universe；　no　indifference；　no
liberty。　While　we　act；　we　are；　at　the　same　time；　acted　upon。
The　ultimate　Author　of　all　our　volitions　is　the　Creator　of
the　world；　who　first　bestowed　motion　on　this　immense
machine；　and　placed　all　beings　in　that　particular　position；
whence　every　subsequent　event；　by　an　inevitable　necessity；
must　result。　Human　actions；　therefore；　either　can　have　no
moral　turpitude　at　all；　as　proceeding　from　so　good　a　cause；
or　if　they　have　any　turpitude；　they　must　involve　our　Creator
in　the　same　guilt；　while　he　is　acknowledged　to　be　their
ultimate　cause　and　author。　For　as　a　man；　who　fired　a　mine；
is　answerable　for　all　the　consequences　whether　the　train　he
employed　be　long　or　short；　so　wherever　a　continued　chain　of
necessary　causes　is　fixed；　that　Being；　either　finite　or
infinite；　who　produces　the　first；　is　likewise　the　author　of
all　the　rest；　and　must　both　bear　the　blame　and　acquire　the
praise　which　belong　to　them。　Our　clear　and　unalterable　ideas
of　morality　establish　this　rule；　upon　unquestionable
reasons；　when　we　examine　the　consequences　of　any　human
action；　and　these　reasons　must　still　have　greater　force　when
applied　to　the　volitions　and　intentions　of　a　Being
infinitely　wise　and　powerful。　Ignorance　or　impotence　may　be
pleaded　for　so　limited　a　creature　as　man；　but　those
imperfections　have　no　place　in　our　Creator。　He　foresaw；　he
ordained；　he　intended　all　those　actions　of　men；　which　we　so
rashly　pronounce　criminal。　And　we　must　therefore　conclude；
either　that　they　are　not　criminal；　or　that　the　Deity；　not
man；　is　accountable　for　them。　But　as　either　of　these
positions　is　absurd　and　impious；　it　follows；　that　the
doctrine　from　which　they　are　deduced　cannot　possibly　be
true；　as　being　liable　to　all　the　same　objections。　An　absurd
consequence；　if　necessary；　proves　the　original　doctrine　to
be　absurd；　in　the　same　manner　as　criminal　actions　render
criminal　the　original　cause；　if　the　connexion　between　them
be　necessary　and　inevitable。

　　　　　This　objection　consists　of　two　parts；　which　we　shall
examine　separately；　；　that；　if　human　actions　can　be
traced　up；　by　a　necessary　chain；　to　the　Deity；　they　can
never　be　criminal；　on　account　of　the　infinite　perfection　of
that　Being　from　whom　they　are　derived；　and　who　can　intend
nothing　but　what　is　altogether　good　and　laudable。　Or；
；　if　they　be　criminal；　we　must　retract　the
attribute　of　perfection；　which　we　ascribe　to　the　Deity；　and
must　acknowledge　him　to　be　the　ultimate　author　of　guilt　and
moral　turpitude　in　all　his　creatures。

　　　　　The　answer　to　the　first　objection　seems　obvious　and
convincing。　There　are　many　philosophers　who；　after　an　exact
scrutiny　of　all　the　phenomena　of　nature；　conclude；　that　the
W/HOLE；　considered　as　one　system；　is；　in　every　period　of
its　existence；　ordered　with　perfect　benevolence；　and　that
the　utmost　possible　happiness　will；　in　the　end；　result　to
all　created　beings；　without　any　mixture　of　positive　or
absolute　ill　or　misery。　Every　physical　ill；　say　they；　makes
an　essential　part　of　this　benevolent　system；　and　could　not
possibly　be　removed；　even　by　the　Deity　himself；　considered
as　a　wise　agent；　without　giving　entrance　to　greater　ill；　or
excluding　greater　good；　which　will　result　from　it。　From　this
theory；　some　philosophers；　and　the　ancient　　among
the　rest；　d