90 On Definitions. 



twelve, or fifteen, or twenty, or fifty years, is a question which can- 

 not be settled but by some positive enactment on the subject. And 

 even when this is done, the subject is still sufficiently vague and in- 

 definite to give rise to numerous questions, to many doubts, and a 

 great deal of litigation as to the right of authorship and prior inven- 

 tion. 



These examples will be sufficient, it is hoped, to explain clearly 

 what is meant by the general assertion already and repeatedly made, 

 that moral science does not admit of strictly logical definitions. This 

 assertion was proved in the previous part of these observations, in 

 which it was shown that morality was occupied with invisible objects, 

 which could not be brought before the eye, or any of the senses, 

 for the purpose of verifying to each other's satisfaction, the use which 

 we make of the terms employed. The examples now adduced, 

 serve also to illustrate the consequences of that incapability of strict 

 definition, the partial uncertainty of all discussions of this kind, the 

 possibility of being misunderstood in every statement of a moral 

 nature, and the extreme degree of care that is necessary in the use 

 of every term which we employ. 



No human science can be compared in importance with morals, 

 since upon this depends all the happiness of men, whether considered 

 as individuals, or existing in societies. It is impossible to express 

 in too strong terms, the infinite importance of acquiring accurate 

 conceptions of the ideas involved in the various terms which it em- 

 ploys, as well as of adhering in our own use of these terms, to the 

 most strict and logical definitions that can be obtained. Nothing is 

 so much to be deprecated as a loose and careless use of terms, in 

 this, the most important of all sciences. The conduct of individuals 

 cannot be expected to be correct and consistent, while their ideas of 

 their duty are wavering and uncertain. Still less can the conduct 

 of nations and societies be strictly conformable to justice or to their 

 own interest, while the moral conceptions of those who direct them, 

 are fluctuating and ill founded. Numberless disputes, also, which 

 have divided and embittered the sentiments of mankind, would have 

 been prevented or soon removed, had those who entertained them, 

 had an opportunity of coming to a mutual understanding respecting 

 the terms employed in the expression of their opinions. And it 

 cannot be doubted, that the total want of reflection on that uncer- 

 tainty which we have shown to be inherent in the origin of our 

 moral sentiments, has been a fruitful source of that fearful intolerance 

 which has marked so many ages of the history of man. 



