of punishment by law, and revenge has thus been forbidden in the interests of society by law, as well as by the moral code in the interests of morality, there is always, governed by this general purpose, an attempt to apportion the kind as well as the degree of penalty to the kind of the crime as well as to the degree of its mischief to society. (Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. xvii. and elsewhere.) Book I. PART IV. § 32. Justice and actions. § 32. 1. But, leaving these general considerations, it is time to turn to the analysis of the feelings of Injustice in justice and right as they appear in the emotions, and to show in the first place how the sense or emotion of justice arises in the individual, and in the second how it is corrected, and made more accurate and more truly just, by examination and comparison with the opposite views of others, for which the same object, or representative framework is the common ground of argument. It will be best perhaps to distinguish two branches of Justice; the first where acts and transactions are considered as such, that is, in movement or dynamically, the second where objects are considered statically, as things which can be possessed or shared, whether they are tangible or intangible; that is to say, the justice or the right inherent in certain actions, and the justice or the right to the enjoyment of certain property; and let us begin with the justice of actions. And here it must be remarked that, for metaphysical analysis, the perception and examination of justice requires the previous perception and examination of injustice; because justice is the normal condition, the regular sequence, which attracts no notice until it has been disturbed. The parallel case is wonder; but wonder Book I. CH. II. PART IV. § 32. Justice and actions. is the parallel not of justice but of injustice, the abrupt break in the chain of the familiar, as injustice is in the chain of the regular; when wonder is equalised Injustice in by additional knowledge, and the gulf between the old and the new bridged, then arises the admiration which is the parallel of justice; in other words, justice is not perceived to be what it is, for it is a second intention, or a characteristic of other objects, until it is contrasted with its opposite. Let us begin with an instance from the sympathetic emotions, an instance of goodwill or simple alliance between two persons. A seller contracts to sell goods for a certain price; in his mind there is now a framework or image consisting of his buyer, feeling similar goodwill to him evidenced by his contract to buy at such a price; he sends the goods, and then finds that his buyer refuses to send the money. The image which he had in his mind is now changed into one the emotion of which is some form of dislike or hate; the change of the image with its new emotion from the old shape of it with its old emotion, this incongruity between them, is the element or part in the total image which is the corresponding object or framework of that portion of the emotion which is sense of wrong or injustice; for I suppose it will be granted that there will be sense of wrong in the present case. The shock of deceived expectation (see Bentham, Principles of the Civil Code, Part i. Chapters viii. and xvii.) in finding the view of his buyer in collision with his own, in a matter where he has accurate knowledge of the detail of the facts, and knows besides that his buyer has the same knowledge with himself,-this is what makes him feel the action to be unjust as well as detrimental, which adds injury to the harm inflicted on him. Let us BOOK I. PART IV. $ 32. Justice and actions. take another instance: a parent treats his child with affectionate care and love; his love to his child is the emotion pervading an image of the child grow- Injustice in ing up and comprehending and returning his affection; the child falsifies this image and turns out loveless and worthless; the sting of the parent's grief will be in the unmerited wrong, the injustice, of this conduct, and the injustice will consist in the contrast of his old and new emotion in the old and in the new image; for in matters of affection it is thanklessness, ingratitude, that is the injustice, and not any resulting desertion or neglect. lastly an antipathetic emotion, anger; we have an image of a harm purposely done to us by another, anger rises in us and pervades the whole image as we think of it; suppose, however, that we think over the matter more accurately, and discover that it was not done with the will, but against the will, of the person we thought guilty of it; our framework changes, our anger changes its object or ceases, and we recognise that our anger has been unjust. Take 2. These cases may suffice to show in what feature of the phenomenon it is that the injustice resides, or what feature of it is the framework of the emotion of injustice. But the question now occurs, who or what is to blame for this revulsion of feeling, who or what is the cause of it, or, in other words, which is the unjust person. In the two first instances, it was the Subject who suffered the injustice; in the last it was the Subject who committed it by being angry. This question can only arise in metaphysic, not in practice, because here we treat of both sides. or persons as parts of the represented world of the BOOK I. CH. II. PART IV. § 32. Justice and Injustice in actions. Subject; and in this case the decision rests on the distinction between the order of cognition and the order of existence. When the changes which precede and cause the change of image and emotion, which is injustice, belong solely to the order of cognition, as when further reflection or additional knowledge of a former state of fact changes the image and its emotion, making us for instance give up our anger, then the injustice, lying with the cause of change, lies with the person who has further reflection or knowledge; when, on the contrary, this cause of change lies in the sequence of facts as well as in the Subject's knowledge of them, in the history of the image itself, then the injustice lies with the person who is represented by that image, as in the two former instances. The discrimination of the person to blame for the injustice is part of the general discrimination which the Subject institutes between his own and other minds. Hence there is no justice or injustice arising in emotions of shame or of pride, because there is no difference between the order of cognition and the order of existence; whatever exists is known when it exists, and its being known is its existence. For the same reason there is no justice or injustice in emotions of comparison of being; because what the person whom we emulate is it is the Subject's own representation that determines, and no room is left for further discovery of fact, or for changes of fact not at first discovered. The emotions however of comparison of having are the field of justice and injustice in possession or property of every kind, that is, for the second of the two branches of justice above distinguished. 3. It will more clearly appear that the above is Воок І. CH. II. PART IV. $ 32. Justice and actions. the true account of injustice in actions, when we consider the answer which is always made to the accusation of injustice of this kind. It is always in substance this: "You might have known I should Injustice in do so and so," or "You could not have expected me to do so and so;" thus shifting the blame of the change from the order of existence to the order of cognition. And in cases like that of unjust anger, our self-justification is always endeavoured in this way: "How could I know he did not will the injury ?" "How was I to know that?" and so on. The Subject means to say, though the injury has not been inflicted by the person I was angry with, yet I am not unjust, for my knowledge was caused by impersonal conditions, which may be hard but cannot be unjust, being impersonal. And this referring the change to impersonal causes is a mode of escape common to the self-justifying Subject, in foro conscientiæ, and to the pleading defendant in a court of law. Again, when two persons discuss a grievance, either between themselves or by reference to a third person, the objective framework of the emotion of injustice, the facts of the case, are common ground to both; the defendant, or person accused of injustice, endeavours to show either that the true cause of the injury was an impersonal one, or not belonging to his person, or else that the accuser had no grounds to expect him to act otherwise than he did act, for that, if he dealt with him with his eyes open, he could not complain of what he foresaw. This reasoning applies to all cases where both the persons are free to have dealings or not. But where one of them is compelled to deal with a person whom he knows to be thoroughly untrustworthy, and suffers an in |