PHILOSOPHY, MORAL. 
ing their criminality, not so much from the 
consequences of tlie individual action, as 
from the consequences which would result 
from such actions becoming general. Thus 
the man, who by the forgery of a one pound 
note, may probably render no individual 
injury worth estimating in the punishment 
of a fellow creature ; and another, who by 
the forgery of a large bill, without direct 
intention, ruins an individual family, are 
both equally culpable in the eye of reason, 
and perhaps as far as punishment is benefi- 
qial to others, he who has forged the one 
pound note deserves greater severity of 
punishment, because the means of commit- 
ting his depredation on society are much 
more practicable than in the other case. 
But in both it is not the individual injury 
sustained that is to regulate the proportion 
of demerit, but the consequences which 
would follow the total destruction of com- 
mercial • intercourse and of mutual confi- 
dence. 
76; By the application of this important 
piinciple, much of that obscurity is dissi- 
pated, which seems to involve some ques- 
tions on morals which are intimately con- 
nected with the well-being of society. 
Many of those violations of veracity, for 
instance, which even benevolence seems to 
authorise, will appear to be direct devia- 
tions from the soundest principles of moral- 
ity, and consequently to be unauthorised 
by benevolence, when viewed in their fair 
extent, however much the immediate con- 
sequences may seem to demand them. — 
There is, however, one restriction to this 
rule which seems to be necessary in order 
to enable us fully to submit to its influence. 
It is whether the probability of our con- 
duct being generally adopted, be sufficient 
to counterbalance the advantages or disad- 
vantages which would arise if such general 
adoption took place. — Let us apply it to 
the c.ase I have already adduced of the vio- 
lation of truth. Now it is very obvious 
that in most cases in which there is any 
strdng tendency to such violation, it arises 
from the desire to remove or avoid some 
ill attending our adherence. Hence the 
temptation to repetition, either by ourselves 
or others, will always be sufficiently power- 
tiil, if no counterbalancing considerations 
prevented to induce us to deviate from 
truth, and therefore the probability of 
our conduct becoming general, is indefl- 
Bitely great, and consequently indefinitely 
strengthens ttie reasons we draw against 
such deviations from their ill effects if they 
become general. — On the other han^, it is 
obvious, that if all who could afford it gave 
to the poor to the extent of their ability, 
the sources of industry would be dried up, 
and society would immediately fall into 
such confusion, that if the ideas of punish- 
ment were not very enlightened, alms-giv- 
ing might be deemed a capital crime. 
Hence we might argue from the general 
principle already laid down, that we ought 
not to give at all ; and we think Paley 
defective in appearance at least for having 
furnished no clue to a solution of the diffi- 
culty. It is immediately solved by the 
restrictive rule which has been laid down ; 
What is the probability that alms-giving 
will become general, or even so general 
as to produce the feared effects in a small 
degree If this be very small, we have 
nothing more to do than to consider which 
is the best direction for our superfluities, 
and give with the certainty that our con- 
duct will not become so universal as to ren- 
der it injurious instead of beneficial. — We 
now proceed, following Hartley as our out- 
line, to consider those rules of conduct by 
which we may safely guide ourselves tlirough 
the intricacies of human life. 
77. The first rule is that we obey the 
Scripture precepts in the natural obvious 
meaning of them. — The Scripture precepts 
are indeed in themselves the rule of life. 
There is, however, the same kind of diffi- 
culty in applying them accurately to parti- 
cular cases, as in applying the above-men- 
tioned most general rule, by means of an 
estimate of the consequences of actions. 
It is impossible in many particular cases to 
determine precisely the connection of tlie 
action with the precept. However, unless 
it would obviously lead a person to act in 
opposition to some or otlier of the following 
ndes, it is the safest way, in the particular 
circumstances of real life, to recollect the 
.Scripture precepts, and follow them in their 
first and most obvious sense. 
78. Secondly, great regard must be had 
both to the dictates of our own moral sense* 
and that of others. It is remarked, with 
great justice, by Dr. Aikin, tliat, in a mind 
whose moral powers have been cultivated, 
second thoughts are seldom the best. The 
first are the impulse of well-regulated feel- 
ing, and are produced instantaneously with- 
out attention to all the petty suggestions of 
self, which crowd themselves in various 
ways into onr minds, and by leading to 
doubt, and then aided by inclination to 
disobey, prevent the efficacy of the con- 
science, and throw a mist over the before 
deal' directions of duty . — Witlj respect to the 
