Principles of Morals and

Chapter IX: Of Consciousness
I. So far with regard to the ways in which the will or intention may be
concerned in the production of any incident: we come now to consider
the part which the understanding or perceptive faculty may have borne,
with relation to such incident.
II. A certain act has been done, and that intentionally: that act was
attended with certain circumstances: upon these circumstances depended
certain of its consequences; and amongst the rest, all those which were
of a nature purely physical. Now then, take any one of these circum-
stances, it is plain, that a man, at the time of doing the act from whence
such consequences ensued, may have been either conscious, with re-
spect to this circumstance, or unconscious. In other words, he may ei-
ther have been aware of the circumstance, or not aware: it may either
have been present to his mind, or not present. In the first case, the act
may be said to have been an advised act, with respect to that circum-
stance: in the other case, an unadvised one.
III. There are two points, with regard to which an act may have
been advised or unadvised: 1. The existence of the circumstance itself.
2. The materiality of it.
IV. It is manifest, that with reference to the time of the act, such
circumstance may have been either present, past, or future.
V. An act which is unadvised, is either heedless, or not heedless. It
is termed heedless, when the case is thought to be such, that a person of
ordinary prudence, if prompted by an ordinary share of benevolence,
would have been likely to have bestowed such and so much attention
and reflection upon the material circumstances, as would have effectu-
ally disposed him to prevent the mischievous incident from taking place:

---

Principles of Morals and Legislation/75
not heedless, when the case is not thought to be such as above men-
tioned.
VI. Again. Whether a man did or did not suppose the existence or
materiality of a given circumstance, it may be that he did suppose the
existence and materiality of some circumstance, which either did not
exist, or which, though existing, was not material. In such case the act
may be said to be mis-advised, with respect to such imagined circum-
stance: and it maybe said, that there has been an erroneous supposition,
or a mis-supposal in the case.
VII. Now a circumstance, the existence of which is thus errone-
ously supposed, may be material either, 1. In the way of prevention: or,
2. In that of compensation. It may be said to be material in the way of
prevention, when its effect or tendency, had it existed, would have been
to prevent the obnoxious consequences: in the way of compensation,
when that effect or tendency would have been to produce other conse-
quences, the beneficialness of which would have out-weighed the mis-
chievousness of the others.
VIII. It is manifest that, with reference to the time of the act, such
imaginary circumstance may in either case have been supposed either to
be present, past, or future.
IX. To return to the example exhibited in the preceding chapter.
10. Tyrrel intended to shoot in the direction in which he shot; but he
did not know that the king was riding so near that way. In this case the
act he performed in shooting, the act of shooting, was unadvised, with
respect to the existence of the circumstance of the king’s being so near
riding that way.
11. He knew that the king was riding that way: but at the distance at
which the king was, he knew not of the probability there was that the
arrow would reach him. In this case the act was unadvised, with respect
to the materiality of the circumstance.
12. Somebody had dipped the arrow in poison, without Tyrrel’s
knowing of it. In this case the act was unadvised, with respect to the
existence of a past circumstance.
13. At the very instant that Tyrrel drew the bow, the king being
screened from his view by the foliage of some bushes, was riding furi-
ously, in such manner as to meet the arrow in a direct line: which cir-
cumstance was also more than Tyrrel knew of. In this case the act was
unadvised, with respect to the existence of a present circumstance.
14. The king being at a distance from court, could get nobody to

---

76/Jeremy Bentham
dress his wound till the next day; of which circumstance Tyrrel was not
aware. In this case the act was unadvised, with respect to what was then
future circumstance.
15. Tyrrel knew of the king’s being riding that way, of his being so
near, and so forth; but being deceived by the foliage of the bushes, he
thought he saw a bank between the spot from which he shot, and that to
which the king was riding. In this case the act was mis-advised, pro-
ceeding on the mis-supposal of a preventive circumstance.
16. Tyrrel knew that every thing was as above, nor was he deceived
by the supposition of any preventive circumstance. But he believed the
king to be an usurper: and supposed he was coming up to attack a per-
son whom Tyrrel believed to be the rightful king, and who was riding by
Tyrrel’s side. In this case the act was also mis-advised, but proceeded
on the mis-supposal of a compensative circumstance.
X. Let us observe the connexion there is between intentionality and
consciousness. When the act itself is intentional, and with respect to the
existence of all the circumstances advised, as also with respect to the
materiality of those circumstances, in relation to a given consequence,
and there is no mis-supposal with regard to any preventive circumstance,
that consequence must also be intentional: in other words; advisedness,
with respect to the circumstances, if clear from the mis-supposal of any
preventive circumstance, extends the intentionality from the act to the
consequences. Those consequences may be either directly intentional,
or only obliquely so: but at any rate they cannot but be intentional.
XI. To go on with the example. If Tyrrel intended to shoot in the
direction in which the king was riding up, and knew that the king was
coming to meet the arrow, and knew the probability there was of his
being shot in that same part in which he was shot, or in another as
dangerous, and with that same degree of force, and so forth, and was
not misled by the erroneous supposition of a circumstance by which the
shot would have been prevented from taking place, or any such other
preventive circumstance, it is plain he could not but have intended the
king’s death. Perhaps he did not positively wish it; but for all that, in a
certain sense he intended it.
XII. What heedlessness is in the case of an unadvised act, rashness
is in the case of a misadvised one. A misadvised act then may be either
rash or not rash. It may be termed rash, when the case is thought to be
such, that a person of ordinary prudence, if prompted by an ordinary
share of benevolence, would have employed such and so much attention

---