The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Or, an Essay Towards an Analysis of the Principles by Which Men Naturally Judge Concerning the Conduct and Character, First of Their Neighbours, and Afterwards of Themselves. to Which Is Added, a Dissertation on the Origin of Languages.Smith, Adam
Philosophy
The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Or, an Essay Towards an Analysis of the Principles by Which Men Naturally Judge Concerning the Conduct and Character, First of Their Neighbours, and Afterwards of Themselves. to Which Is Added, a Dissertation on the Origin of Languages.
Smith, Adam
Ethics -- Early works to 1800; Language and languages -- Early works to 1800
There is a degree of negligence, which would appear to deserve some
chastisement though it should occasion no damage to any body. Thus, if a
person should throw a large stone over a wall into a public street
without giving warning to those who might be passing by, and without
regarding where it was likely to fall, he would undoubtedly deserve some
chastisement. A very accurate police would punish so absurd an action,
even though it had done no mischief. The person who has been guilty of
it, shows an insolent contempt of the happiness and safety of others.
There is real injustice in his conduct. He wantonly exposes his
neighbour to what no man in his senses would chuse to expose himself,
and evidently wants that sense of what is due to his fellow-creatures
which is the basis of justice and of society. Gross negligence therefore
is, in the law, said to be almost equal to malicious design[3]. When any
unlucky consequences happen from such carelessness, the person who has
been guilty of it is often punished as if he had really intended those
consequences; and his conduct, which was only thoughtless and insolent,
and what deserved some chastisement, is considered as atrocious, and as
liable to the severest punishment. Thus if, by the imprudent action
above-mentioned, he should accidentally kill a man, he is, by the laws
of many countries, particularly by the old law of Scotland, liable to
the last punishment. And though this is no doubt excessively severe, it
is not altogether inconsistent with our natural sentiments. Our just
indignation against the folly and inhumanity of his conduct is
exasperated by our sympathy with the unfortunate sufferer. Nothing
however would appear more shocking to our natural sense of equity, than
to bring a man to the scaffold merely for having thrown a stone
carelessly into the street without hurting any body. The folly and
inhumanity of his conduct, however, would in this case be the same; but
still our sentiments would be very different. The consideration of this
difference may satisfy us how much the indignation, even of the
spectator, is apt to be animated by the actual consequences of the
action. In cases of this kind there will, if I am not mistaken, be found
a great degree of severity in the laws of almost all nations; as I have
already observed that in those of an opposite kind there was a very
general relaxation of discipline.
Footnote 3:
Lata culpa prope dolum est.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account