友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
unto this last-第11部分
快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完,想下次继续接着阅读,可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能!
valuable; and the only conclusions of his which I have to dispute
are those which follow from his premises。
Thus; the idea which lies at the root of the passage we have
just been examining; namely; that labour applied to produce
luxuries will not support so many persons as labour applied to
produce useful articles; is entirely true; but the instance given
fails and in four directions of failure at once…because Mr
Mill has not defined the real meaning of usefulness。 The
definition which he has given…〃 capacity to satisfy a desire; or
serve a purpose〃 (III。 i。 2) applies equally to the iron and
silver。 while the true definition which he has not given; but
which nevertheless underlies the false verbal definition in his
mind; and comes out once or twice by accident (as in the words
〃any support to life or strength〃 in I。 iii。 5) applies to
some articles of iron; but not to others; and to some articles of
silver; but not to others。 It applies to ploughs; but not to
bayonets; and to forks; but not to filigree。(18*)
The eliciting of the true definitions will give us the reply
to our first question; 〃What is value?〃 respecting which;
however; we must first hear the popular statements。
〃The word 'value;' when used without adjunct; always means;
in political economy; value in exchange〃 (Mill; III。 i。 2)。 So
that; if two ships cannot exchange their rudders; their rudders
are; in politico…economic language; of no value to either。
But 〃the subject of political economy is wealth。〃
(Preliminary remarks; page 1)
And wealth 〃consists of all useful and agreeable objects
which possess exchangeable value。〃 (Preliminary remarks; page
10。)
It appears; then; according to Mr Mill; that usefulness and
agreeableness underlie the exchange value; and must be
ascertained to exist in the thing; before we can esteem it an
object of wealth。
Now; the economical usefulness of a thing depends not merely
on its own nature; but on the number of people who can and will
use it。 A horse is useless; and therefore unsaleable; if no one
can ride; a sword; if no one can strike; and meat; if no one
can eat。 Thus every material utility depends on its relative
human capacity。
Similarly: The agreeableness of a thing depends not merely on
its own likeableness; but on the number of people who can be got
to like it。 The relative agreeableness; and therefore
saleableness; of 〃a pot of the smallest ale;〃 and of 〃Adonis
painted by a running brook;〃 depends virtually on the opinion of
Demos; in the shape of Christopher Sly。 That is to say; the
agreeableness of a thing depends on its relatively human
disposition。(19*) Therefore; political economy; being a science
of wealth; must be a science respecting human capacities and
dispositions。 But moral considerations have nothing to do with
political economy (III。 i。 2)。 Therefore; moral considerations
have nothing to do with human capacities and dispositions。
I do not wholly like the look of this conclusion from Mr
Mill's statements: let us try Mr Ricardo's。
〃Utility is not the measure of exchangeable value; though it
is absolutely essential to it。〃 (Chap。 I。 sect。 i) essential
in what degree; Mr Ricardo? There may be greater and less degrees
of utility。 Meat; for instance; may be so good as to be fit for
any one to eat; or so bad as to be fit for no one to eat。 What is
the exact degree of goodness which is 〃essential〃 to its
exchangeable value; but not 〃the measure〃 of it? How good must
the meat be; in order to possess any exchangeable value; and how
bad must it be (I wish this were a settled question in London
markets) in order to possess none?
There appears to be some hitch; I think; in the working even
of Mr。 Ricardo's principles; but let him take his own example。
〃Suppose that in the early stages of society the bows and arrows
of the hunter were of equal value with the implements of the
fisherman。 Under such circumstances the value of the deer; the
produce of the hunter's day's labour; would be exactly equal to
the value of the fish; the product of the fisherman's day's
labour; The comparative value of the fish and game would be
entirely regulated by the quantity of labour realized in each。〃
(Ricardo; chap。 iii。 On Value)。
Indeed! Therefore; if the fisherman catches one sprat。 and
the huntsman one deer; one sprat will be equal in value to one
deer but if the fisherman catches no sprat; and the huntsman two
deer; no sprat will be equal in value to two deer?
Nay but Mr Ricardo's supporters may say he means; on an
average; …if the average product of a day's work of fisher and
hunter be one fish and one deer; the one fish will always be
equal in value to the one deer。
Might I inquire the species of fish? Whale? or
white…bait?(20*)
It would be waste of time to purpose these fallacies farther;
we will seek for a true definition。
Much store has been set for centuries upon the use of our
English classical education。 It were to be wished that our
well…educated merchants recalled to mind always this much of
their latin schooling; that the nominative of valorem (a word
already sufficiently familiar to them) is valor; a word which;
therefore; ought to be familiar to them。 Valor; from valere; to
be well or strong; strong; life (if a man); or valiant;
strong; for life (if a thing); or valuable。 To be 〃valuable;〃
therefore; is to 〃avail towards life。〃 A truly valuable or
availing thing is that which leads to life with its whole
strength。 In proportion as it does not lead to life; or as its
strength is broken; it is less valuable; in proportion as it
leads away from life; it is unvaluable or malignant。
The value of a thing; therefore; is independent of opinion;
and of quantity。 Think what you will of it; gain how much you may
of it; the value of the thing itself is neither greater nor less。
For ever it avails; or avails not; no estimate can raise; no
disdain repress; the power which it holds from the Maker of
things and of men。
The real science of political economy; which has yet to be
distinguished from the bastard science; as medicine from
witchcraft; and astronomy from astrology; is that which teaches
nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life:
and which teaches them to scorn and destroy the things that lead
to destruction。 And if; in a state of infancy; they supposed
indifferent things; such as excrescences of shell…fish; and
pieces of blue and red stone; to be valuable; and spent large
measures of the labour which ought to be employed for the
extension and ennobling of life; in diving or digging for them;
and cutting them into various shapes;or if; in the same state of
infancy; they imagine precious and beneficent things; such as
air; light; and cleanliness; to be valueless;…or if; finally;
they imagine the conditions of their own existence; by which
alone they can truly possess or use anything; such; for instance;
as peace; trust; and love; to be prudently exchangeable; when the
markets offer; for gold; iron; or excresrences of shells the
great and only science of Political Economy teaches them; in all
these cases; what is vanity; and what substance; and how the
service of Death; the lord of Waste; and of eternal emptiness;
differs from the service of Wisdom; the lady of Saving; and of
eternal fulness; she who has said; 〃I will cause those that love
me to inherit SUBSTANCE; and I will FILL their treasures。〃
The 〃Lady of Saving;〃 in a profounder sense than that of the
savings bank; though that is a good one: Madonna della Salute;
Lady of Health; which; though commonly spoken of as if
separate from wealth; is indeed a part of wealth。 This word;
〃wealth;〃 it will be remembered; is the next we have to define。
〃To be wealthy〃 says Mr Mill; 〃is to have a large stock of
useful articles。〃 I accept this definition。 Only let us perfectly
understand it。 My opponents often lament my not giving them
enough logic: I fear I must at present use a little more than
they will like: but this business of Political Economy is no
light one; and we must allow no loose terms in it。
We have; therefore; to ascertain in the above definition;
first; what is the meaning of 〃having;〃 or the nature of
Possession。 Then what is the meaning of 〃useful;〃 or the nature
of Utility。
And first of possession。 At the crossing of the transepts of
Milan Cathedral has lain; for three hundred years; the embalmed
body of St。 Carlo Borromeo。 It holds a golden crosier; and has a
cross of emeralds on its breast。 Admitting the crosier and
emeralds to be useful articles; is the body to be considered as
〃having〃 them? Do they; in the politico…economical sense of
property; belong to it? If not; and if we may; therefore;
conclude generally that a dead body cannot possess property; what
degree and period of animation in the body will render possession
possible?
As thus: lately in a wreck of a Californian ship; one of the
passengers fastened a belt about him with two hundred pounds of
gold in it; with which he was found afterwards at the bottom。
Now; as he was sinking had he the gold? or had the gold
him?(21*)
And if; instead of sinking him in the sea by its weight; the
gold had struck him on the
快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!