《道德原则研究·第五章·效用为何令人愉快》第13节
A statesman or patriot, who serves our own country in our own time, has always a more passionate regard paid to him, than one whose beneficial influence operated on distant ages or remote nations; where the good, resulting from his generous humanity, being less connected with us, seems more obscure, and affects us with a less lively sympathy. We may own the merit to be equally great, though our sentiments are not raised to an equal height, in both cases. The judgement here corrects the inequalities of our internal emotions and perceptions; in like manner, as it preserves us from error, in the several variations of images, presented to our external senses. The same object, at a double distance, really throws on the eye a picture of but half the bulk; yet we imagine that it appears of the same size in both situations; because we know that on our approach to it, its image would expand on the eye, and that the difference consists not in the object itself, but in our position with regard to it. And, indeed, without such a correction of appearances, both in internal and external sentiment, men could never think or talk steadily on any subject; while their fluctuating situations produce a continual variation on objects, and throw them into such different and contrary lights and positions. [休谟自注] For a little reason, the tendencies of actions and characters, not their real accidental consequences, are alone regarded in our more determinations or general judgements; though in our real feeling or sentiment, we cannot help paying greater regard to one whose station, joined to virtue, renders him really useful to society, then to one, who exerts the social virtues only in good intentions and benevolent affections. Separating the character from the furtone, by an easy and necessary effort of thought, we pronounce these persons alike, and give them the appearance: But is not able entirely to prevail our sentiment. Why is this peach-tree said to be better than that other; but because it produces more or better fruit? And would not the same praise be given it, though snails or vermin had destroyed the peaches, before they came to full maturity? In morals too, is not The tree known By The fruit? And cannot we easily distinguish between nature and accident, in the one case as well as in the other?
注释摘要
这段论证承接了本章一直在推进的那条线索：既然效用令人愉快这个事实已经确立，那么马上就会出现一个难题——我们难道不是只关心那些与自己切近的效用吗？如果一个人对两千年前的雅典或某个遥远国度的公共利益也生出赞许之情，自利论者就会说，那不过是想象力的把戏，骨子里还是私人利益的遥远投射。休谟在前面已经用事实反驳了这种还原论，现在他要正面处理一个更精细的现象：即使我们…