Principles of Morals and

104/Jeremy Bentham
to be entertained against informers; and the consequence it is of that the
judge, in particular, should be proof against the influence of such delu-
sions.
Lastly, The subject of motives is one with which it is necessary to
be acquainted, in order to pass a judgment on any means that may be
proposed for combating offenses in their source.
But before the theoretical foundation for these practical observa-
tions can be completely laid, it is necessary we should say something on
the subject of disposition: which, accordingly, will furnish matter for
the ensuing chapter.

---

Chapter XI: Human Dispositions in General
I. In the foregoing chapter it has been shown at large. that goodness or
badness can not, with any propriety, be predicated of motives. Is there
nothing then about a man that may properly be termed good or bad,
when, on such or such an occasion; he suffers himself to be governed by
such or such a motive. Yes, certainly: his disposition. Now disposition
is a kind of fictitious entity, feigned for the convenience of discourse, in
order to express what there is supposed to be permanent in a man’s
frame of mind, where, on such or such an occasion, he has been influ-
enced by sued or such a motive, to engage in an act, which, as it ap-
peared to him, was of such or such a tendency.
II. It is with disposition as with every thing else: it will be good or
bad according to its effects: according to the effects it has in augmenting
or diminishing the happiness of the community. A man’s disposition
may accordingly be considered in two points of view: according to the
influence it has, either, 1. on his own happiness: or, 2. on the happiness
of others. Viewed in both these lights together, or in either of them indis-
criminately, it may be termed, on the one hand, good; on the other, bad;
or, in flagrant cases, depraved. Viewed in the former of these lights, it
has scarcely any peculiar name, which has as yet been appropriated to
it. It might be termed, though but, inexpressively, frail or infirm, on the
one hand: sound or firm, on the other. Viewed in the other light, it might
be termed beneficent, or meritorious, on the one hand: pernicious or
mischievous, on the other. Now of that branch of a man’s disposition,
the effects of which regard in the first instance only himself, there needs
not much to be said here. To reform it when bad, is the business rather
of the moralist than the legislator: nor is it susceptible of those various

---

106/Jeremy Bentham
modifications which make so material difference in the effects of the
other. Again, with respect to that part of it, the effects whereof regard
others in the first instance, it is only in as far as it is of a mischievous
nature that the penal branch of law has any immediate concern with it:
in as far as it may be of a beneficent nature, it belongs to a hitherto but
little cultivated, and as yet unnamed branch of law, which might be
styled the remuneratory.
III. A man then is said to be of a mischievous disposition, when, by
the influence of no matter what motives, he is presumed to be more apt
to engage, or form intentions of engaging, in acts which are apparently
of a pernicious tendency, than in such as are apparently of a beneficial
tendency: of a meritorious or beneficent disposition in the opposite case.
IV. I say presumed: for, by the supposition, all that appears is one
single action, attended with one single train of circumstances: but from
that degree of consistency and uniformity which experience has shown
to be observable in the different actions of the same person, the prob-
able existence (past or future) of a number of acts of a similar nature, is
naturally and justly inferred from the observation of one single one.
Under such circumstances, such as the motive proves to be in one in-
stance, such is the disposition to be presumed to be in others.
V. I say apparently mischievous: that is, apparently with regard to
him: such as to him appear to possess that tendency: for from the mere
event, independent of what to him it appears beforehand likely to be,
nothing can be inferred on either side. If to him it appears likely to be
mischievous, in such case, though in the upshot it should prove inno-
cent, or even beneficial, it makes no difference; there is not the less
reason for presuming his disposition to be a bad one: if to him it appears
likely to be beneficial or innocent, in such case, though in the upshot it
should prove pernicious, there is not the more reason on that account for
presuming his disposition to be a good one. And here we see the impor-
tance of the circumstances of intentionality, consciousness, unconscious-
ness, and mis-supposal.
VI. The truth of these positions depends upon two others, both of
them sufficiently verified by experience: The one is, that in the ordinary
course of things the consequences of actions commonly turn out con-
formable to intentions. A man who sets up a butcher’s shop, and deals
in beef, when he intends to knock down an ox, commonly does knock
down an ox; though by some unlucky accident he may chance to miss
his blow and knock down a man: he who sets up a grocer’s shop, and

---

Principles of Morals and Legislation/107
deals sugar, when he intends to sell sugar, commonly does sell sugar:
though by some unlucky accident he may chance to sell arsenic in the
room of it.
VII. The other is, that a man who entertains intentions of doing
mischief at one time is apt to entertain the like intentions at another.
VIII. There are two circumstances upon which the nature of the
disposition, as indicated by any act, is liable to depend: 1. The apparent
tendency of the act: 2. The nature of the motive which gave birth to it.
This dependency is subject to different rules, according to the nature of
the motive. In stating them, I suppose all along the apparent tendency of
the act to be, as it commonly is, the same as the real.
IX. 1. Where the tendency of the act is good, and the motive is of
the self-regarding kind. In this case the motive affords no inference on
either side. It affords no indication of a good disposition: but neither
does it afford any indication of a bad one.
A baker sells his bread to a hungry man who asks for it. This, we
see, is one of those acts of which, in ordinary cases, the tendency is
unquestionably good. The baker’s motive is the ordinary commercial
motive of pecuniary interest. It is plain, that there is nothing in the trans-
action, thus stated, that can afford the least ground for presuming that
the baker is a better or a worse man than any of his neighbours.
X. 2. Where the tendency of the act is bad, and the motive, as be-
fore, is of the self-regarding kind. In this case the disposition indicated
is a mischievous one.
A man steals bread out of a baker’s shop: this is one of those of
which the tendency will readily be acknowledged to be bad. Why, and in
what respects it is so, will be stated farther on. His motive, we will say,
is that of pecuniary interest; the desire of getting the value of the bread
for nothing. His disposition, accordingly, appears to be a bad one: for
every one will allow a thievish disposition to be a bad one.
XI. 3. Where the tendency of the act is good, and the motive is the
purely social one of good-will. In this case the disposition indicated is a
beneficent one.
A baker gives a poor man a loaf of bread. His motive is compas-
sion; a name given to the motive of benevolence, in particular cases of
its operation. The disposition indicated by the baker, in this case, is such
as every man will be ready enough to acknowledge to be a good one.
XII. 4. Where the tendency of the act is bad, and the motive is the
purely social one of good-will. Even in this case the disposition which

---