Page:An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals - Hume (1751).djvu/73

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Of Justice.

59

implying Consent, should change the Nature of my Actions with regard to a particular Object, as why the reciting of a Liturgy by a Priest, in a certain Habit and Posture, should dedicate a Heap of Brick and Timber, and render it, thenceforth and for ever, sacred.^[1]

These

↑ 'Tis evident, that the Will or Consent alone never transfers Property, nor causes the Obligation of a Promise (for the same Reasoning extends to both) but the will must be exprest by Words or Signs, in order to impose a Tye upon any Man. The Expression, being once brought in as subservient to the Will, soon becomes the principal Part of the Promise; nor will a Man be less bound by his Word, tho' he secretly give a different Direction to his Intention, and with hold the Assent of his Mind. But tho' the Expression makes, on most Occasions, the whole of the Promise, yet it does not always so; and one, who should make use of any Expression, of which he knows not the Meaning, and which he uses without any Sense of the Consequences, would not certainly be bound by it. Nay, tho' he know its Meaning, yet if he uses it in Jest only, and with such Signs as show evidently, he has no serious Intention of binding himself, he would not lie under any Obligation of Performance; but 'tis necessary, that the Words be a perfect Expression of the Will, without any contrary Signs. Nay, even this we must not carry so far as to imagine, that one, whom, by our Quickness of Understanding, we conjecture, from certain Signs, to have an Intention of deceiving us, is not bound by his Expression or verbal Promise, if we accept of it; but must limit this Conclusion to those Cases, where the Signs are of a different Nature from those of Deceit. All those Contradictions are easily accounted for, if Justice arises entirely from its Usefulness to Society; but will never be explain'd on any other Hypothesis.

[p59-1] 'Tis evident, that the Will or Consent alone never transfers Property, nor causes the Obligation of a Promise (for the same Reasoning extends to both) but the will must be exprest by Words or Signs, in order to impose a Tye upon any Man. The Expression, being once brought in as subservient to the Will, soon becomes the principal Part of the Promise; nor will a Man be less bound by his Word, tho' he secretly give a different Direction to his Intention, and with hold the Assent of his Mind. But tho' the Expression makes, on most Occasions, the whole of the Promise, yet it does not always so; and one, who should make use of any Expression, of which he knows not the Meaning, and which he uses without any Sense of the Consequences, would not certainly be bound by it. Nay, tho' he know its Meaning, yet if he uses it in Jest only, and with such Signs as show evidently, he has no serious Intention of binding himself, he would not lie under any Obligation of Performance; but 'tis necessary, that the Words be a perfect Expression of the Will, without any contrary Signs. Nay, even this we must not carry so far as to imagine, that one, whom, by our Quickness of Understanding, we conjecture, from certain Signs, to have an Intention of deceiving us, is not bound by his Expression or verbal Promise, if we accept of it; but must limit this Conclusion to those Cases, where the Signs are of a different Nature from those of Deceit. All those Contradictions are easily accounted for, if Justice arises entirely from its Usefulness to Society; but will never be explain'd on any other Hypothesis.

[1]