On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
theory . The first section is entitled " property . " Its object is to show that the chum of property in man is inconsistent with the innate and instinctive idea of justice . " The consciousness of indestructible right is a part of our moral being . The consciousness of our humanit y involves the persuasion , that we cannot be owned as a tree or a brute . " The developement of the argument amounts to little more than repetition of the above assertion in different words . It runs thus : — 1 , if one man may be held as property , then every man may be so held ; 2 , a man cannot be held as property because he has rights ; 3 , nor can he , because of the essential equality of men ; 4 , the nature of property precludes man being so held ; 5 , this principle is recognised by the universal indignation excited
towards a man who makes another his slave ; 6 , property supposes obligation in the slave ; and , 7 , man is a rational , moral , immortal being , and therefore cannot be property . To our minds , these allegations are neutralized by the simple question , why not , if it be for his good ? It is certainly conceivable that slavery may be the best training for some moral beings , and
well purchased , as many other things are , by the sacrifice of some portion of their " essential equality , " in which case the " obligation " would follow of course ; the indignation would be misplaced , and the notion of property would be properly extended . We say , it is conceivable ; not that it is so ; that must be decided by argument . But then , in such a discussion ,
it is plain that the combatants join issue on the question of expediency , and conduct their controversy on the principles of utilitarianism ; and to this point , Dr . Charming " , in spite of himself , is obliged to come at last . The second section treats of " rights . " It only amplifies the last particular of the preceding section . The illustration is eloquent , but it helps not on the argument . In fact the whole peculiarity of the writer ' s theory is substantially given up in the following paragraph .
*• In this discussion , I have used the phrase , Public or General Good , in its common acceptation , as signifying the safety and prosperity of a state . Wh y can it not be used in a larger sense ? Why can it not be made to comprehend inward and moral , as well as outward good i * And wh y cannot the former be understood to be incomparably the mo > t important clement of the public weal ? Then , indeed , I should assent to the proposition , that the General Good is the supreme law . So construed , it would support the great truths which I have maintained . Ft would condemn the infliction of wronjf on the humblest individual , as a national calamity . It would plead with us to extend to every individual the means of improving his character and lot . "—p . 20 .
The hypothetical concession hero made would be promptly accepted by every utilitarian who lms any chums to the cha-
Untitled Article
I 96 Channing on Slavery *
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1836, page 196, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2656/page/4/
-