er
so weak; let them be insufficient to move even a hand or finger of our
body, they must still direct the determinations of our mind, and where
everything else is equal, produce a cool preference of what is useful
and serviceable to mankind, above what is pernicious and dangerous. A
MORAL DISTINCTION, therefore, immediately arises; a general sentiment of
blame and approbation; a tendency, however faint, to the objects of the
one, and a proportionable aversion to those of the other. Nor will those
reasoners, who so earnestly maintain the predominant selfishness of
human kind, be any wise scandalized at hearing of the weak sentiments of
virtue implanted in our nature. On the contrary, they are found as ready
to maintain the one tenet as the other; and their spirit of satire (for
such it appears, rather than of corruption) naturally gives rise to
both opinions; which have, indeed, a great and almost an indissoluble
connexion together.

Avarice, ambition, vanity, and all passions vulgarly, though improperly,
comprised under the denomination of SELF-LOVE, are here excluded from
our theory concerning the origin of morals, not because they are too
weak, but because they have not a proper direction for that purpose.
The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which
recommends the same object to general approbation, and makes every man,
or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it. It
also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend
to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons
the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they
agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established. These
two requisite circumstances belong alone to the sentiment of humanity
here insisted on. The other passions produce in every breast, many
strong sentiments of desire and aversion, affection and hatred; but
these neither are felt so much in common, nor are so comprehensive, as
to be the foundation of any general system and established theory of
blame or approbation.

When a man denominates another his ENEMY, his RIVAL, his ANTAGONIST, his
ADVERSARY, he is understood to speak the language of self-love, and to
express sentiments, peculiar to himself, and arising from his particular
circumstances and situation. But when he bestows on any man the epithets
of VICIOUS or ODIOUS or DEPRAVED, he then speaks another language, and
expre