his is why thepeople, during the French Revolution, destroyed once more the institu-tions they had themselves created, because all institutions are incompat-ible with the abstract self-consciousness of equality

freedom is just as much a basicdetermination of the will as weight is a basic determination of bodie

such terms, are thestamps of man's unfreedom. It is by such cnmplextitles that a pecsoa is defined and ideocitied

n is nor boro freeAt birth he is firmly tied to his mother throughthe umbilical cord. He is physically cut freefrom her. But this culling fru is not merely abiological act. It is symbolic and most significant.Henceforth, he is an individual, who throughupbringing is prepared to play his full role as amember of societ

. Utilitarianism would do well then to acknow-ledge the evident fact that among the things that makepeople happy is not only making other people happy, butbeing taken up or involved in any of avast range of projects,or- if we waive the evangelical and moralizing associationsof the word - commitments. One can be committed to suchthings-asaperson, a cause,an institution, a career, one's own'genius, or the pursuit of danger.

When the agentis not seeing the situation from a utilitarian point of view,the appeal cannot force him to do so; and if hedoes comeround to seeing it from a utilitarian point of view, there isvirtually nothing left for the appeal to do.

THERE is a time with all passions when they are merelyfatalities, when they drag their victim down with the weight oftheir folly

A foreigner passing throughAthens who knew how to read faces told Socrates to his facethat he was a mot:strum— that he contained within him everykind of foul vice and lust. And Socrates answered merely:'You know me, sir l'

Every moral code, in opposition to laisser aller,* is an example of tyranny against 'nature', and against 'reason', too: but that cannot be an objection to it, or else wewould have to turn around and decree on the basis of some other moral code that all kinds of tyranny and unreason were impermissible

that is really the tenet that all moralists endeavour toaccount for—the real foundation of morality, which people have been seeking for thousands of years like the philosophers' stone.

It is compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact,that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuablethan others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all otherthings, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation ofpleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.

Bentham thinks, in fact motivated primarily by egoisticconsiderations-a concern for our own personal pleasure. But, if pleas-ure is intrinsically good, then morally it does not matter whose pleasureis involved, and we ought to strive to maximize pleasure in general.

By contrast, to preserve one’s life is a duty, and besides this everyone hasan immediate inclination to it.

There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeedanything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation,excepting only a good will.

How can we make sense of contingency and freedom in a worlddetermined by a God who must choose the best possible world to create?

whether the choice an individual makes on any givenoccasion is wholly determined by his internal state—perception of hiscircumstances and his relevant beliefs, desires, and general characterdispositions


ȓ#
ȓ#ȓ"ĢÛ/ȓȓȓ  O
ȓ  ȓ !&Ąȓ7 ȓF8³ȓ,ȓ
-
 "ȓȓ 
ȓ  ȓ )
ȓ  ȓOsȓ ƀ ȓ ȓȓ 
IȓȀ.:ȓ ȓ Ɓ?ȓȓOȓ ¦ȓ
ȓ
:
iȓž

GX£¹\c©¹ §¹}c¹³}›¹‹š›³§¹XŽ¹}š{©¹ }™ ̈cg>¹ H››a¹}c¹}X¹ }cX£‹cš©¹³}cš¹™cš¹^›°š ̈c¹£€{}5¹E°¹ }c¹³}›¹šc®}c£¹‹š›³©¹š›¤¹X·§¹›¹ }cX¤®¹Dš›}c£©¹ ³§a›™¹©¹X¹°©cŽc§©¹³{}!