1. Ideas of proportional relations. Besides the before-mentioned occasions of time, place, and
causality of comparing or referring things one to another, there are, as I have said, infinite others,
some whereof I shall mention.
First, The first I shall name is some one simple idea, which, being capable of parts or degrees,
affords an occasion of comparing the subjects wherein it is to one another, in respect of that simple
idea, v.g. whiter, sweeter, equal, more, etc. These relations depending on the equality and excess of
the same simple idea, in several subjects, may be called, if one will, proportional; and that these are
only conversant about those simple ideas received from sensation or reflection is so evident that
nothing need be said to evince it.
2. Natural relation. Secondly, Another occasion of comparing things together, or considering one
thing, so as to include in that consideration some other thing, is the circumstances of their origin or
beginning; which being not afterwards to be altered, make the relations depending thereon as
lasting as the subjects to which they belong, v.g. father and son, brothers, cousin-germans, etc.,
which have their relations by one community of blood, wherein they partake in several degrees:
countrymen, i.e., those who were born in the same country or tract of ground; and these I call
natural relations: wherein we may observe, that mankind have fitted their notions and words to the
use of common life, and not to the truth and extent of things. For it is certain, that, in reality, the
relation is the same betwixt the begetter and the begotten, in the several races of other animals as
well as men; but yet it is seldom said, this bull is the grandfather of such a calf, or that two pigeons
are cousin-germans. It is very convenient that, by distinct names, these relations should be
observed and marked out in mankind, there being occasion, both in laws and other communications
one with another, to mention and take notice of men under these relations: from whence also arise
the obligations of several duties amongst men: whereas, in brutes, men having very little or no
cause to mind these relations, they have not thought fit to give them distinct and peculiar names.
This, by the way, may give us some light into the different state and growth of languages; which
being suited only to the convenience of communication, are proportioned to the notions men have,
and the commerce of thoughts familiar amongst them; and not to the reality or extent of things, nor
to the various respects might be found among them; nor the different abstract considerations might
be framed about them. Where they had no philosophical notions, there they had no terms to
express them: and it is no wonder men should have framed no names for those things they found
no occasion to discourse of. From whence it is easy to imagine why, as in some countries, they may
have not so much as the name for a horse; and in others, where they are more careful of the
pedigrees of their horses, than of their own, that there they may have not only names for particular
horses, but also of their several relations of kindred one to another.
3. Ideas of instituted or voluntary relations. Thirdly, Sometimes the foundation of considering things,
with reference to one another, is some act whereby any one comes by a moral right, power, or
obligation to do something. Thus, a general is one that hath power to command an army; and an
army under a general is a collection of armed men, obliged to obey one man. A citizen, or a burgher,
is one who has a right to certain privileges in this or that place. All this sort depending upon men's
wills, or agreement in society, I call instituted, or voluntary; and may be distinguished from the
natural, in that they are most, if not all of them, some way or other alterable, and separable from the
persons to whom they have sometimes belonged, though neither of the substances, so related, be
destroyed. Now, though these are all reciprocal, as well as the rest, and contain in them a reference
of two things one to the other; yet, because one of the two things often wants a relative name,
importing that reference, men usually take no notice of it, and the relation is commonly overlooked:
v.g. a patron and client ire easily allowed to be relations, but a constable or dictator are not so
readily at first hearing considered as such. Because there is no peculiar name for those who are
under the command of a dictator or constable, expressing a relation to either of them; though it be
certain that either of them hath a certain power over some others, and so is so far related to them,
as well as a patron is to his client, or general to his army.
4. Ideas of moral relations. Fourthly, There is another sort of relation, which is the conformity or
disagreement men's voluntary actions have to a rule to which they are referred, and by which they
are judged of; which, I think, may be called moral relation, as being that which denominates our
moral actions, and deserves well to be examined; there being no part of knowledge wherein we
should be more careful to get determined ideas, and avoid, as much as may be, obscurity and
confusion. Human actions, when with their various ends, objects, manners, and circumstances, they
are framed into distinct complex ideas, are, as has been shown so many mixed modes, a great part
whereof have names annexed to them. Thus, supposing gratitude to be a readiness to acknowledge
and return kindness received; polygamy to be the having more wives than one at once: when we
frame these notions thus in our minds, we have there so many determined ideas of mixed modes.
But this is not all that concerns our actions: it is not enough to have determined ideas of them, and
to know what names belong to such and such combinations of ideas. We have a further and greater
concernment, and that is, to know whether such actions, so made up, are morally good or bad.
5. Moral good and evil. Good and evil, as hath been shown, (Bk. II. chap. xx. SS 2, and chap. xxi.
SS 43,) are nothing but pleasure or pain, or that which occasions or procures pleasure or pain to us.
Moral good and evil, then, is only the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some
law, whereby good or evil is drawn on us, from the will and power of the law-maker; which good and
evil, pleasure or pain, attending our observance or breach of the law by the decree of the lawmaker,
is that we call reward and punishment.
6. Moral rules. Of these moral rules or laws, to which men generally refer, and by which they judge
of the rectitude or pravity of their actions, there seem to me to be three sorts, with their three
different enforcements, or rewards and punishments. For, since it would be utterly in vain to
suppose a rule set to the free actions of men, without annexing to it some enforcement of good and
evil to determine his will, we must, wherever we suppose a law, suppose also some reward or
punishment annexed to that law. It would be in vain for one intelligent being to set a rule to the
actions of another, if he had it not in his power to reward the compliance with, and punish deviation
from his rule, by some good and evil, that is not the natural product and consequence of the action
itself For that, being a natural convenience or inconvenience, would operate of itself, without a law.
This, if I mistake not, is the true nature of all law, properly so called.
7. Laws. The laws that men generally refer their actions to, to judge of their rectitude or obliquity,
seem to me to be these three:--1. The divine law. 2. The civil law. 3. The law of opinion or
reputation, if I may so call it. By the relation they bear to the first of these, men judge whether their
actions are sins or duties; by the second, whether they be criminal or innocent; and by the third,
whether they be virtues or vices.
8. Divine law the measure of sin and duty. First, the divine law, whereby that law which God has set
to the actions of men,--whether promulgated to them by the light of nature, or the voice of revelation.
That God has given a rule whereby men should govern themselves, I think there is nobody so
brutish as to deny. He has a right to do it; we are his creatures: he has goodness and wisdom to
direct our actions to that which is best: and he has power to enforce it by rewards and punishments
of infinite weight and duration in another life; for nobody can take us out of his hands. This is the
only true touchstone of moral rectitude; and, by comparing them to this law, it is that men judge of
the most considerable moral good or evil of their actions; that is, whether, as duties or sins, they are
like to procure them happiness or misery from the hands of the Almighty.
9. Civil law the measure of crimes and innocence. Secondly, the civil law--the rule set by the
commonwealth to the actions of those who belong to it--is another rule to which men refer their
actions; to judge whether they be criminal or no. This law nobody overlooks: the rewards and
punishments that enforce it being ready at hand, and suitable to the power that makes it: which is
the force of the Commonwealth, engaged to protect the lives, liberties, and possessions of those
who live according to its laws, and has power to take away life, liberty, or goods, from him who
disobeys; which is the punishment of offences committed against his law.
10. Philosophical law the measure of virtue and vice. Thirdly, the law of opinion or reputation. Virtue
and vice are names pretended and supposed everywhere to stand for actions in their own nature
right and wrong: and as far as they really are so applied, they so far are coincident with the divine
law above mentioned. But yet, whatever is pretended, this is visible, that these names, virtue and
vice, in the particular instances of their application, through the several nations and societies of men
in the world, are constantly attributed only to such actions as in each country and society are in
reputation or discredit. Nor is it to be thought strange, that men everywhere should give the name of
virtue to those actions, which amongst them are judged praiseworthy; and call that vice, which they
account blamable: since otherwise they would condemn themselves, if they should think anything
right, to which they allowed not commendation, anything wrong, which they let pass without blame.
Thus the measure of what is everywhere called and esteemed virtue and vice is this approbation or
dislike, praise or blame, which, by a secret and tacit consent, establishes itself in the several
societies, tribes, and clubs of men in the world: whereby several actions come to find credit or
disgrace amongst them, according to the judgment, maxims, or fashion of that place. For, though
men uniting into politic societies, have resigned up to the public the disposing of all their force, so
that they cannot employ it against any fellow-citizens any further than the law of the country directs:
yet they retain still the power of thinking well or ill, approving or disapproving of the actions of those
whom they live amongst, and converse with: and by this approbation and dislike they establish
amongst themselves what they will call virtue and vice.
11. The measure that men commonly apply to determine what they call virtue and vice. That this is
the common measure of virtue and vice, will appear to any one who considers, that, though that
passes for vice in one country which is counted a virtue, or at least not vice, in another, yet
everywhere virtue and praise, vice and blame, go together. Virtue is everywhere, that which is
thought praiseworthy; and nothing else but that which has the allowance of public esteem is called
virtue. Virtue and praise are so united, that they are called often by the same name. Sunt sua
praemia laudi, says Virgil; and so Cicero, Nihil habet natura praestantius, quam honestatem, quam
laudem, quam dignitatem, quam decus, which he tells you are all names for the same thing. This is
the language of the heathen philosophers, who well understood wherein their notions of virtue and
vice consisted. And though perhaps, by the different temper, education, fashion, maxims, or interest
of different sorts of men, it fell out, that what was thought praiseworthy in one place, escaped not
censure in another; and so in different societies, virtues and vices were changed: yet, as to the
main, they for the most part kept the same everywhere. For, since nothing can be more natural than
to encourage with esteem and reputation that wherein every one finds his advantage, and to blame
and discountenance the contrary; it is no wonder that esteem and discredit, virtue and vice, should,
in a great measure, everywhere correspond with the unchangeable rule of right and wrong, which
the law of God hath established; there being nothing that so directly and visibly secures and
advances the general good of mankind in this world, as obedience to the laws he has set them, and
nothing that breeds such mischiefs and confusion, as the neglect of them. And therefore men,
without renouncing al sense and reason, and their own interest, which they are so constantly true
to, could not generally mistake, in placing their commendation and blame on that side that really
deserved it not. Nay, even those men whose practice was otherwise, failed not to give their
approbation right, few being depraved to that degree as not to condemn, at least in others, the faults
they themselves were guilty of; whereby, even in the corruption of manners, the true boundaries of
the law of nature, which ought to be the rule of virtue and vice, were pretty well preferred. So that
even the exhortations of inspired teachers, have not feared to appeal to common repute:
"Whatsoever is lovely, whatsoever is of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise,"
etc. (Phil. 4. 8.)
12. Its enforcement is commendation and discredit. If any one shall imagine that I have forgot my
own notion of a law, when I make the law, whereby men judge of virtue and vice, to be nothing else
but the consent of private men, who have not authority enough to make a law: especially wanting
that which is so necessary and essential to a law, a power to enforce it: I think I may say, that he
who imagines commendation and disgrace not to be strong motives to men to accommodate
themselves to the opinions and rules of those with whom they converse, seems little skilled in the
nature or history of mankind: the greatest part whereof we shall find to govern themselves chiefly, if
not solely, by this law of fashion; and so they do that which keeps them in reputation with their
company, little regard the laws of God, or the magistrate. The penalties that attend the breach of
God's laws some, nay perhaps most men, seldom seriously reflect on: and amongst those that do,
many, whilst they break the law, entertain thoughts of future reconciliation, and making their peace
for such breaches. And as to the punishments due from the laws of the commonwealth, they
frequently flatter themselves with the hopes of impunity. But no man escapes the punishment of
their censure and dislike, who offends against the fashion and opinion of the company he keeps,
and would recommend himself to. Nor is there one of ten thousand, who is stiff and insensible
enough, to bear up under the constant dislike and condemnation of his own club. He must be of a
strange and unusual constitution, who can content himself to live in constant disgrace and disrepute
with his own particular society. Solitude many men have sought, and been reconciled to: but nobody
that has the least thought or sense of a man about him, can live in society under the constant dislike
and ill opinion of his familiars, and those he converses with. This is a burden too heavy for human
sufferance: and he must be made up of irreconcilable contradictions, who can take pleasure in
company, and yet be insensible of contempt and disgrace from his companions.
13. These three laws the rules of moral good and evil. These three then, first, the law of God;
secondly, the law of politic societies; thirdly, the law of fashion, or private censure, are those to
which men variously compare their actions: and it is by their conformity to one of these laws that
they take their measures, when they would judge of their moral rectitude, and denominate their
actions good or bad.
14. Morality is the relation of voluntary actions to these rules. Whether the rule to which, as to a
touchstone, we bring our voluntary actions, to examine them by, and try their goodness, and
accordingly to name them, which is, as it were, the mark of the value we set upon them: whether, I
say, we take that rule from the fashion of the country, or the will of a law-maker, the mind is easily
able to observe the relation any action hath to it, and to judge whether the action agrees or
disagrees with the rule; and so hath a notion of moral goodness or evil, which is either conformity or
not conformity of any action to that rule: and therefore is often called moral rectitude. This rule being
nothing but a collection of several simple ideas, the conformity thereto is but so ordering the action,
that the simple ideas belonging to it may correspond to those which the law requires. And thus we
see how moral beings and notions are founded on, and terminated in, these simple ideas we have
received from sensation or reflection. For example: let us consider the complex idea we signify by
the word murder: and when we have taken it asunder, and examined all the particulars, we shall find
them to amount to a collection of simple ideas derived from reflection or sensation, viz., First, from
reflection on the operations of our own minds, we have the ideas of willing, considering, purposing
beforehand, malice, or wishing ill to another; and also of life, or perception, and self-motion.
Secondly, from sensation we have the collection of those simple sensible ideas which are to be
found in a man, and of some action, whereby we put an end to perception and motion in the man; al
which simple ideas are comprehended in the word murder. This collection of simple ideas, being
found by me to agree or disagree with the esteem of the country I have been bred in, and to be held
by most men there worthy praise or blame, I call the action virtuous or vicious: if I have the will of a
supreme invisible Lawgiver for my rule, then, as I supposed the action commanded or forbidden by
God, I call it good or evil, sin or duty: and if I compare it to the civil law, the rule made by the
legislative power of the country, I call it lawful or unlawful, a crime or no crime. So that
whencesoever we take the rule of moral actions; or by what standard soever we frame in our minds
the ideas of virtues or vices, they consist only, and are made up of collections of simple ideas, which
we originally received from sense or reflection: and their rectitude or obliquity consists in the
agreement or disagreement with those patterns prescribed by some law.
15. Moral actions may be regarded either absolutely, or as ideas of relation. To conceive rightly of
moral actions, we must take notice of them under this two-fold consideration. First, as they are in
themselves, each made up of such a collection of simple ideas. Thus drunkenness, or lying, signify
such or such a collection of simple ideas, which I call mixed modes: and in this sense they are as
much positive absolute ideas, as the drinking of a horse, or speaking of a parrot. Secondly, our
actions are considered as good, bad, or indifferent; and in this respect they are relative, it being their
conformity to, or disagreement with some rule that makes them to be regular or irregular, good or
bad; and so, as far as they are compared with a rule, and thereupon denominated, they come under
relation. Thus the challenging and fighting with a man, as it is a certain positive mode, or particular
sort of action, by particular ideas, distinguished from all others, is called duelling: which, when
considered in relation to the law of God, will deserve the name of sin; to the law of fashion, in some
countries, valour and virtue; and to the municipal laws of some governments, a capital crime. In this
case, when the positive mode has one name, and another name as it stands in relation to the law,
the distinction may as easily be observed as it is in substances, where one name, v.g. man, is used
to signify the thing; another, v.g. father, to signify the relation.
16. The denominations of actions often mislead us. But because very frequently the positive idea of
the action, and its moral relation, are comprehended together under one name, and the game word
made use of to express both the mode or action, and its moral rectitude or obliquity: therefore the
relation itself is less taken notice of; and there is often no distinction made between the positive idea
of the action, and the reference it has to a rule. By which confusion of these two distinct
considerations under one term, those who yield too easily to the impressions of sounds, and are
forward to take names for things, are often misled in their judgment of actions. Thus, the taking from
another what is his, without his knowledge or al owance, is properly called stealing: but that name,
being commonly understood to signify also the moral pravity of the action, and to denote its
contrariety to the law, men are apt to condemn whatever they hear called stealing, as an ill action,
disagreeing with the rule of right. And yet the private taking away his sword from a madman, to
prevent his doing mischief, though it be properly denominated stealing, as the name of such a
mixed mode; yet when compared to the law of God, and considered in its relation to that supreme
rule, it is no sin or transgression, though the name stealing ordinarily carries such an intimation with
it.
17. Relations innumerable, and only the most considerable here mentioned. And thus much for the
relation of human actions to a law, which, therefore, I call moral relations.
It would make a volume to go over all sorts of relations: it is not, therefore, to be expected that I
should here mention them all. It suffices to our present purpose to show by these, what the ideas
are we have of this comprehensive consideration called relation. Which is so various, and the
occasions of it so many, (as many as there can be of comparing things one to another,) that it is not
very easy to reduce it to rules, or under just heads. Those I have mentioned, I think, are some of the
most considerable; and such as may serve to let us see from whence we get our ideas of relations,
and wherein they are founded. But before I quit this argument, from what has been said give me
leave to observe:
18. All relations terminate in simple ideas. First, That it is evident, that all relation terminates in, and
is ultimately founded on, those simple ideas we have got from sensation or reflection: so that all we
have in our thoughts ourselves, (if we think of anything, or have any meaning), or would signify to
others, when we use words standing for relations, is nothing but some simple ideas, or collections of
simple ideas, compared one with another. This is so manifest in that sort called proportional, that
nothing can be more. For when a man says "honey is sweeter than wax," it is plain that his thoughts
in this relation terminate in this simple idea, sweetness; which is equally true of all the rest: though,
where they are compounded, or decompounded, the simple ideas they are made up of, are,
perhaps, seldom taken notice of: v.g. when the word father is mentioned: first, there is meant that
particular species, or collective idea, signified by the word man; secondly, those sensible simple
ideas, signified by the word generation; and, thirdly, the effects of it, and all the simple ideas
signified by the word child. So the word friend, being taken for a man who loves and is ready to do
good to another, has all these following ideas to the making of it up: first, all the simple ideas,
comprehended in the word man, or intelligent being; secondly, the idea of love; thirdly, the idea of
readiness or disposition; fourthly, the idea of action, which is any kind of thought or motion; fifthly,
the idea of good, which signifies anything that may advance his happiness, and terminates at last, if
examined, in particular simple ideas, of which the word good in general signifies any one: but, if
removed from all simple ideas quite, it signifies nothing at all. And thus also all moral words
terminate at last, though perhaps more remotely, in a collection of simple ideas: the immediate
signification of relative words, being very often other supposed known relations; which, if traced one
to another, still end in simple ideas.
19. We have ordinarily as clear a notion of the relation, as of the simple ideas in things on which it is
founded. Secondly, That in relations, we have for the most part, if not always, as clear a notion of
the relation as we have of those simple ideas wherein it is founded: agreement or disagreement,
whereon relation depends, being things whereof we have commonly as clear ideas as of any other
whatsoever; it being but the distingui