OF OTHER RELATIONS.
1. Ideas of Proportional relations.
BESIDES the before-mentioned occasions of time, place, and causality of
comparing or referring things one to another, there are, as I have
said, infinite others, some whereof I shall mention.
First, The first I shall name is some one simple idea, which, being
capable of parts or degrees, affords an occasion of comparing the
subjects wherein it is to one another, in respect of that simple idea,
v.g. whiter, sweeter, equal, more, &c. These relations depending on the
equality and excess of the same simple idea, in several subjects, may
be called, if one will, PROPORTIONAL; and that these are only
conversant about those simple ideas received from sensation or
reflection is so evident that nothing need be said to evince it.
2. Natural relation.
Secondly, Another occasion of comparing things together, or considering
one thing, so as to include in that consideration some other thing, is
the circumstances of their origin or beginning; which being not
afterwards to be altered, make the relations depending thereon as
lasting as the subjects to which they belong, v.g. father and son,
brothers, cousin-germans, &c., which have their relations by one
community of blood, wherein they partake in several degrees:
countrymen, i.e. those who were born in the same country or tract of
ground; and these I call NATURAL RELATIONS: wherein we may observe,
that mankind have fitted their notions and words to the use of common
life, and not to the truth and extent of things. For it is certain,
that, in reality, the relation is the same betwixt the begetter and the
begotten, in the several races of other animals as well as men; but yet
it is seldom said, this bull is the grandfather of such a calf, or that
two pigeons are cousin-germans. It is very convenient that, by distinct
names, these relations should be observed and marked out in mankind,
there being occasion, both in laws and other communications one with
another, to mention and take notice of men under these relations: from
whence also arise the obligations of several duties amongst men:
whereas, in brutes, men having very little or no cause to mind these
relations, they have not thought fit to give them distinct and peculiar
names. This, by the way, may give us some light into the different
state and growth of languages; which being suited only to the
convenience of communication, are proportioned to the notions men have,
and the commerce of thoughts familiar amongst them; and not to the
reality or extent of things, nor to the various respects might be found
among them; nor the different abstract considerations might be framed
about them. Where they had no philosophical notions, there they had no
terms to express them: and it is no wonder men should have framed no
names for those things they found no occasion to discourse of. From
whence it is easy to imagine why, as in some countries, they may have
not so much as the name for a horse; and in others, where they are more
careful of the pedigrees of their horses, than of their own, that there
they may have not only names for particular horses, but also of their
several relations of kindred one to another.
3. Ideas of Instituted or Voluntary relations.
Thirdly, Sometimes the foundation of considering things with reference
to one another, is some act whereby any one comes by a moral right,
power, or obligation to do something. Thus, a general is one that hath
power to command an army, and an army under a general is a collection
of armed men obliged to obey one man. A citizen, or a burgher, is one
who has a right to certain privileges in this or that place. All this
sort depending upon men’s wills, or agreement in society, I call
INSTITUTED, or VOLUNTARY; and may be distinguished from the natural, in
that they are most, if not all of them, some way or other alterable,
and separable from the persons to whom they have sometimes belonged,
though neither of the substances, so related, be destroyed. Now, though
these are all reciprocal, as well as the rest, and contain in them a
reference of two things one to the other; yet, because one of the two
things often wants a relative name, importing that reference, men
usually take no notice of it, and the relation is commonly overlooked:
v. g. a patron and client are easily allowed to be relations, but a
constable or dictator are not so readily at first hearing considered as
such. Because there is no peculiar name for those who are under the
command of a dictator or constable, expressing a relation to either of
them; though it be certain that either of them hath a certain power
over some others, and so is so far related to them, as well as a patron
is to his client, or general to his army.
4. Ideas of Moral relations.
Fourthly, There is another sort of relation, which is the conformity or
disagreement men’s VOLUNTARY ACTIONS have to a RULE to which they are
referred, and by which they are judged of; which, I think, may be
called MORAL RELATION, as being that which denominates our moral
actions, and deserves well to be examined; there being no part of
knowledge wherein we should be more careful to get determined ideas,
and avoid, as much as may be, obscurity and confusion. Human actions,
when with their various ends, objects, manners, and circumstances, they
are framed into distinct complex ideas, are, as has been shown, so many
MIXED MODES, a great part whereof have names annexed to them. Thus,
supposing gratitude to be a readiness to acknowledge and return
kindness received; polygamy to be the having more wives than one at
once: when we frame these notions thus in our minds, we have there so
many determined ideas of mixed modes. But this is not all that concerns
our actions: it is not enough to have determined ideas of them, and to
know what names belong to such and such combinations of ideas. We have
a further and greater concernment, and that is, to know whether such
actions, so made up, are morally good or bad.
5. Moral Good and Evil.
Good and evil, as hath been shown, (B. II. chap. xx. Section 2, and
chap. xxi. Section 43,) are nothing but pleasure or pain, or that which
occasions or procures pleasure or pain to us. MORAL GOOD AND EVIL,
then, is only THE CONFORMITY OR DISAGREEMENT OF OUR VOLUNTARY ACTIONS
TO SOME LAW, WHEREBY GOOD OR EVIL IS DRAWN ON US, FROM THE WILL AND
POWER OF THE LAW-MAKER; which good and evil, pleasure or pain,
attending our observance or breach of the law by the decree of the
law-maker, is that we call REWARD and PUNISHMENT.
6. Moral Rules.
Of these moral rules or laws, to which men generally refer, and by
which they judge of the rectitude or gravity of their actions, there
seem to me to be THREE SORTS, with their three different enforcements,
or rewards and punishments. For, since it would be utterly in vain to
suppose a rule set to the free actions of men, without annexing to it
some enforcement of good and evil to determine his will, we must,
wherever we suppose a law, suppose also some reward or punishment
annexed to that law. It would be in vain for one intelligent being to
set a rule to the actions of another, if he had it not in his power to
reward the compliance with, and punish deviation from his rule, by some
good and evil, that is not the natural product and consequence of the
action itself. For that, being a natural convenience or inconvenience,
would operate of itself, without a law. This, if I mistake not, is the
true nature of all law, properly so called.
7. Laws.
The laws that men generally refer their actions to, to judge of their
rectitude or obliquity, seem to me to be these three:—1. The DIVINE
law. 2. The CIVIL law. 3. The law of OPINION or REPUTATION, if I may so
call it. By the relation they bear to the first of these, men judge
whether their actions are sins or duties; by the second, whether they
be criminal or innocent; and by the third, whether they be virtues or
vices.
8. Divine Law the Measure of Sin and Duty.
First, the DIVINE LAW, whereby that law which God has set to the
actions of men,—whether promulgated to them by the light of nature, or
the voice of revelation. That God has given a rule whereby men should
govern themselves, I think there is nobody so brutish as to deny. He
has a right to do it; we are his creatures: he has goodness and wisdom
to direct our actions to that which is best: and he has power to
enforce it by rewards and punishments of infinite weight and duration
in another life; for nobody can take us out of his hands. This is the
only true touchstone of moral rectitude; and, by comparing them to this
law, it is that men judge of the most considerable moral good or evil
of their actions; that is, whether, as duties or sins, they are like to
procure them happiness or misery from the hands of the ALMIGHTY.
9. Civil Law the Measure of Crimes and Innocence.
Secondly, the CIVIL LAW—the rule set by the commonwealth to the actions
of those who belong to it—is another rule to which men refer their
actions; to judge whether they be criminal or no. This law nobody
overlooks: the rewards and punishments that enforce it being ready at
hand, and suitable to the power that makes it: which is the force of
the Commonwealth, engaged to protect the lives, liberties, and
possessions of those who live according to its laws, and has power to
take away life, liberty, or goods, from him who disobeys; which is the
punishment of offences committed against his law.
10. Philosophical Law the Measure of Virtue and Vice.
Thirdly, the LAW OF OPINION OR REPUTATION. Virtue and vice are names
pretended and supposed everywhere to stand for actions in their own
nature right and wrong: and as far as they really are so applied, they
so far are coincident with the divine law above mentioned. But yet,
whatever is pretended, this is visible, that these names, virtue and
vice, in the particular instances of their application, through the
several nations and societies of men in the world, are constantly
attributed only to such actions as in each country and society are in
reputation or discredit. Nor is it to be thought strange, that men
everywhere should give the name of virtue to those actions, which
amongst them are judged praiseworthy; and call that vice, which they
account blamable: since otherwise they would condemn themselves, if
they should think anything right, to which they allowed not
commendation, anything wrong, which they let pass without blame. Thus
the measure of what is everywhere called and esteemed virtue and vice
is this approbation or dislike, praise or blame, which, by a secret and
tacit consent, establishes itself in the several societies, tribes, and
clubs of men in the world: whereby several actions come to find credit
or disgrace amongst them, according to the judgment, maxims, or fashion
of that place. For, though men uniting into politic societies, have
resigned up to the public the disposing of all their force, so that
they cannot employ it against any fellow-citizens any further than the
law of the country directs: yet they retain still the power of thinking
well or ill, approving or disapproving of the actions of those whom
they live amongst, and converse with: and by this approbation and
dislike they establish amongst themselves what they will call virtue
and vice.
11. The Measure that Man commonly apply to determine what they call
Virtue and Vice.
That this is the common MEASURE of virtue and vice, will appear to any
one who considers, that, though that passes for vice in one country
which is counted a virtue, or at least not vice, in another, yet
everywhere virtue and praise, vice and blame, go together. Virtue is
everywhere, that which is thought praiseworthy; and nothing else but
that which has the allowance of public esteem is called virtue. Virtue
and praise are so united, that they are called often by the same name.
Sunt sua praemia laudi, says Virgil; and so Cicero, Nihil habet natura
praestantius, quam honestatem, quam laudem, quam dignitatem, quam
decus, which he tells you are all names for the same thing. This is the
language of the heathen philosophers, who well understood wherein their
notions of virtue and vice consisted. And though perhaps, by the
different temper, education, fashion, maxims, or interest of different
sorts of men, it fell out, that what was thought praiseworthy in one
place, escaped not censure in another; and so in different societies,
virtues and vices were changed; yet, as to the main, they for the most
part kept the same everywhere. For, since nothing can be more natural
than to encourage with esteem and reputation that wherein every one
finds his advantage, and to blame and discountenance the contrary; it
is no wonder that esteem and discredit, virtue and vice, should, in a
great measure, everywhere correspond with the unchangeable rule of
right and wrong, which the law of God hath established; there being
nothing that so directly and visibly secures and advances the general
good of mankind in this world, as obedience to the laws he had set
them, and nothing that breeds such mischiefs and confusion, as the
neglect of them. And therefore men, without renouncing all sense and
reason, and their own interest, which they are so constantly true to,
could not generally mistake, in placing their commendation and blame on
that side that really deserved it not. Nay, even those men whose
practice was otherwise, failed not to give their approbation right, few
being depraved to that degree as not to condemn, at least in others,
the faults they themselves were guilty of; whereby, even in the
corruption of manners, the true boundaries of the law of nature, which
ought to be the rule of virtue and vice, were pretty well preferred. So
that even the exhortations of inspired teachers, have not feared to
appeal to common repute: ‘Whatsoever is lovely, whatsoever is of good
report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise,’ &c. (Phil. iv.
8.)
12. Its Inforcement is Commendation and Discredit.
If any one shall imagine that I have forgot my own notion of a law,
when I make the law, whereby men judge of virtue and vice, to be
nothing else but the consent of private men, who have not authority
enough to make a law: especially wanting that which is so necessary and
essential to a law, a power to enforce it: I think I may say, that he
who imagines commendation and disgrace not to be strong motives to men
to accommodate themselves to the opinions and rules of those with whom
they converse, seems little skilled in the nature or history of
mankind: the greatest part whereof we shall find to govern themselves
chiefly, if not solely, by this LAW OF FASHION; and so they do that
which keeps them in reputation with their company, little regard the
laws of God, or the magistrate. The penalties that attend the breach of
God’s laws some, nay perhaps most men, seldom seriously reflect on: and
amongst those that do, many, whilst they break the law, entertain
thoughts of future reconciliation, and making their peace for such
breaches. And as to the punishments due from the laws of the
commonwealth, they frequently flatter themselves with the hopes of
impunity. But no man escapes the punishment of their censure and
dislike, who offends against the fashion and opinion of the company he
keeps, and would recommend himself to. Nor is there one of ten
thousand, who is stiff and insensible enough, to bear up under the
constant dislike and condemnation of his own club. He must be of a
strange and unusual constitution, who can content himself to live in
constant disgrace and disrepute with his own particular society.
Solitude many men have sought, and been reconciled to: but nobody that
has the least thought or sense of a man about him, can live in society
under the constant dislike and ill opinion of his familiars, and those
he converses with. This is a burden too heavy for human sufferance: and
he must be made up of irreconcileable contradictions, who can take
pleasure in company, and yet be insensible of contempt and disgrace
from his companions.
13. These three Laws the Rules of moral Good and Evil.
These three then, first, the law of God; secondly, the law of politic
societies; thirdly, the law of fashion, or private censure, are those
to which men variously compare their actions: and it is by their
conformity to one of these laws that they take their measures, when
they would judge of their moral rectitude, and denominate their actions
good or bad.
14. Morality is the Relation of Voluntary Actions to these Rules.
Whether the rule to which, as to a touchstone, we bring our voluntary
actions, to examine them by, and try their goodness, and accordingly to
name them, which is, as it were, the mark of the value we set upon
them: whether, I say, we take that rule from the fashion of the
country, or the will of a law-maker, the mind is easily able to observe
the relation any action hath to it, and to judge whether the action
agrees or disagrees with the rule; and so hath a notion of moral
goodness or evil, which is either conformity or not conformity of any
action to that rule: and therefore is often called moral rectitude.
This rule being nothing but a collection of several simple ideas, the
conformity thereto is but so ordering the action, that the simple ideas
belonging to it may correspond to those which the law requires. And
thus we see how moral beings and notions are founded on, and terminated
in, these simple ideas we have received from sensation or reflection.
For example: let us consider the complex idea we signify by the word
murder: and when we have taken it asunder, and examined all the
particulars, we shall find them to amount to a collection of simple
ideas derived from reflection or sensation, viz. First, from REFLECTION
on the operations of our own minds, we have the ideas of willing,
considering, purposing beforehand, malice, or wishing ill to another;
and also of life, or perception, and self-motion. Secondly, from
SENSATION we have the collection of those simple sensible ideas which
are to be found in a man, and of some action, whereby we put an end to
perception and motion in the man; all which simple ideas are
comprehended in the word murder. This collection of simple ideas, being
found by me to agree or disagree with the esteem of the country I have
been bred in, and to be held by most men there worthy praise or blame,
I call the action virtuous or vicious: if I have the will of a supreme
invisible Lawgiver for my rule, then, as I supposed the action
commanded or forbidden by God, I call it good or evil, sin or duty: and
if I compare it to the civil law, the rule made by the legislative
power of the country, I call it lawful or unlawful, a crime or no
crime. So that whencesoever we take the rule of moral actions; or by
what standard soever we frame in our minds the ideas of virtues or
vices, they consist only, and are made up of collections of simple
ideas, which we originally received from sense or reflection: and their
rectitude or obliquity consists in the agreement or disagreement with
those patterns prescribed by some law.
15. Moral actions may be regarded either absolutely, or as ideas of
relation.
To conceive rightly of moral actions, we must take notice of them under
this two-fold consideration. First, as they are in themselves, each
made up of such a collection of simple ideas. Thus drunkenness, or
lying, signify such or such a collection of simple ideas, which I call
mixed modes: and in this sense they are as much POSITIVE ABSOLUTE
ideas, as the drinking of a horse, or speaking of a parrot. Secondly,
our actions are considered as good, bad, or indifferent; and in this
respect they are RELATIVE, it being their conformity to, or
disagreement with some rule that makes them to be regular or irregular,
good or bad; and so, as far as they are compared with a rule, and
thereupon denominated, they come under relation. Thus the challenging
and fighting with a man, as it is a certain positive mode, or
particular sort of action, by particular ideas, distinguished from all
others, is called DUELLING: which, when considered in relation to the
law of God, will deserve the name of sin; to the law of fashion, in
some countries, valour and virtue; and to the municipal laws of some
governments, a capital crime. In this case, when the positive mode has
one name, and another name as it stands in relation to the law, the
distinction may as easily be observed as it is in substances, where one
name, v.g. MAN, is used to signify the thing; another, v.g. FATHER, to
signify the relation.
16. The Denominations of Actions often mislead us.
But because very frequently the positive idea of the action, and its
moral relation, are comprehended together under one name, and the same
word made use of to express both the mode or action, and its moral
rectitude or obliquity: therefore the relation itself is less taken
notice of; and there is often no distinction made between the positive
idea of the action, and the reference it has to a rule. By which
confusion of these two distinct considerations under one term, those
who yield too easily to the impressions of sounds, and are forward to
take names for things, are often misled in their judgment of actions.
Thus, the taking from another what is his, without his knowledge or
allowance, is properly called STEALING: but that name, being commonly
understood to signify also the moral gravity of the action, and to
denote its contrariety to the law, men are apt to condemn whatever they
hear called stealing, as an ill action, disagreeing with the rule of
right. And yet the private taking away his sword from a madman, to
prevent his doing mischief, though it be properly denominated stealing,
as the name of such a mixed mode; yet when compared to the law of God,
and considered in its relation to that supreme rule, it is no sin or
transgression, though the name stealing ordinarily carries such an
intimation with it.
17. Relations innumerable, and only the most considerable here
mentioned.
And thus much for the relation of human actions to a law, which,
therefore, I call MORAL RELATIONS.
It would make a volume to go over all sorts of RELATIONS: it is not,
therefore, to be expected that I should here mention them all. It
suffices to our present purpose to show by these, what the ideas are we
have of this comprehensive consideration called RELATION. Which is so
various, and the occasions of it so many, (as many as there can be of
comparing things one to another,) that it is not very easy to reduce it
to rules, or under just heads. Those I have mentioned, I think, are
some of the most considerable; and such as may serve to let us see from
whence we get our ideas of relations, and wherein they are founded. But
before I quit this argument, from what has been said give me leave to
observe:
18. All Relations terminate in simple Ideas.
First, That it is evident, that all relation terminates in, and is
ultimately founded on, those simple ideas we have got from sensation or
reflection: so that all we have in our thoughts ourselves, (if we think
of anything, or have any meaning,) or would signify to others, when we
use words standing for relations, is nothing but some simple ideas, or
collections of simple ideas, compared one with another. This is so
manifest in that sort called proportional, that nothing can be more.
For when a man says ‘honey is sweeter than wax,’ it is plain that his
thoughts in this relation terminate in this simple idea, sweetness;
which is equally true of all the rest: though, where they are
compounded, or decompounded, the simple ideas they are made up of, are,
perhaps, seldom taken notice of: v.g. when the word father is
mentioned: first, there is meant that particular species, or collective
idea, signified by the word man; secondly, those sensible simple ideas,
signified by the word generation; and, thirdly, the effects of it, and
all the simple ideas signified by the word child. So the word friend,
being taken for a man who loves and is ready to do good to another, has
all these following ideas to the making of it up: first, all the simple
ideas, comprehended in the word man, or intelligent being; secondly,
the idea of love; thirdly, the idea of readiness or disposition;
fourthly, the idea of action, which is any kind of thought or motion;
fifthly, the idea of good, which signifies anything that may advance
his happiness, and terminates at last, if examined, in particular
simple ideas, of which the word good in general signifies any one; but,
if removed from all simple ideas quite, it signifies nothing at all.
And thus also all moral words terminate at last, though perhaps more
remotely, in a collection of simple ideas: the immediate signification
of relative words, being very often other supposed known relations;
which, if traced one to another, still end in simple ideas.
19. We have ordinarily as clear a Notion of the Relation, as of the
simple ideas in things on which it is founded.
Secondly, That in relations, we have for the most part, if not always,
as clear a notion of THE RELATION as we have of THOSE SIMPLE IDEAS
WHEREIN IT IS FOUNDED: agreement or disagreement, whereon relation
depends, being things whereof we have commonly as clear ideas as of any
other whatsoever; it being but the distinguishing simple ideas, or
their degrees one from another, without which we could have no distinct
knowledge at all. For, if I have a clear idea of sweetness, light, or
extension, I have, too, of equal, or more, or less, of each of these:
if I know what it is for one man to be born of a woman, viz. Sempronia,
I know what it is for another man to be born of the same woman
Sempronia; and so have as clear a notion of brothers as of births, and
perhaps clearer. For if I believed that Sempronia digged Titus out of
the parsley-bed, (as they used to tell children,) and thereby became
his mother; and that afterwards, in the same manner, she digged Caius
out of the parsley-bed, I had as clear a notion of the relation of
brothers between them, as if I had all the skill of a midwife: the
notion that the same woman contributed, as mother, equally to their
births, (though I were ignorant or mistaken in the manner of it,) being
that on which I grounded the relation; and that they agreed in the
circumstance of birth, let it be what it will. The comparing them then
in their descent from the same person, without knowing the particular
circumstances of that descent, is enough to found my notion of their
having, or not having, the relation of brothers. But though the ideas
of PARTICULAR RELATIONS are capable of being as clear and distinct in
the minds of those who will duly consider them as those of mixed modes,
and more determinate than those of substances: yet the names belonging
to relation are often of as doubtful and uncertain signification as
those of substances or mixed modes; and much more than those of simple
ideas. Because relative words, being the marks of this comparison,
which is made only by men’s thoughts, and is an idea only in men’s
minds, men frequently apply them to different comparisons of things,
according to their own imaginations; which do not always correspond
with those of others using the same name.
20. The Notion of Relation is the same, whether the Rule any Action is
compared to be true or false.
Thirdly, That in these I call MORAL RELATIONS, I have a true notion of
relation, by comparing the action with the rule, whether the rule be
true or false. For if I measure anything by a yard, I know whether the
thing I measure be longer or shorter than that supposed yard, though
perhaps the yard I measure by be not exactly the standard: which indeed
is another inquiry. For though the rule be erroneous, and I mistaken in
it; yet the agreement or disagreement observable in that which I
compare with, makes me perceive the relation. Though, measuring by a
wrong rule, I shall thereby be brought to judge amiss of its moral
rectitude; because I have tried it by that which is not the true rule:
yet I am not mistaken in the relation which that action bears to that
rule I compare it to, which is agreement or disagreement.