Question

The young lift-man in a City office who threw a passenger out of his lift the other

morning and was fined for the offence was undoubtedly in the wrong. It was a

question of “Please.” The complainant entering the lift, said, “Top.” The lift-man

demanded “Top-please,” and this concession being refused he not only declined to

comply with the instruction, but hurled the passenger out of the lift. This, of course

was carrying a comment on manner too far. Discourtesy is not a legal offence, and it

does not excuse assault and battery. If a burglar breaks into my house and I knock him

down, the law will acquit me, and if I am physically assaulted, it will permit me to

retaliate with reasonable violence. It does this because the burglar and my assailant

have broken quite definite commands of the law. But no legal system could attempt to

legislate against bad manners or could sanction the use of violence against something

which it does not itself recognize as a legally punishable offence. And our sympathy

with the liftman, we must admit that the law is reasonable. It would never do if we

were at liberty to box people’s ears because we did not like their behaviour, or the

tone of their voices, or the scowl on their faces. Our fists would never be idle, and the

gutters of the city would run with blood all day. I may be as uncivil as I may please

and the law will protect me against violent retaliation. I may be haughty or boorish

and there is no penalty to pay except the penalty of being written down an illmannered fellow. The law does not compel me to say “Please” or to attune my voice

to other people’s sensibilities any more than it says that I shall not wax my moustache

or dye my hair or wear ringlets down my back. It does not recognize the laceration of

our feelings as a case for compensation. There is no allowance for moral and

intellectual damages in these matters.





​

Answer 1

Karna kya h iss Question mein ??

Answer 2

Answer:

The young lift-man in a City office who threw a passenger out of his lift the other

morning and was fined for the offence was undoubtedly in the wrong. It was a

question of “Please.” The complainant entering the lift, said, “Top.” The lift-man

demanded “Top-please,” and this concession being refused he not only declined to

comply with the instruction, but hurled the passenger out of the lift. This, of course

was carrying a comment on manner too far. Discourtesy is not a legal offence, and it

does not excuse assault and battery. If a burglar breaks into my house and I knock him

down, the law will acquit me, and if I am physically assaulted, it will permit me to

retaliate with reasonable violence. It does this because the burglar and my assailant

have broken quite definite commands of the law. But no legal system could attempt to

legislate against bad manners or could sanction the use of violence against something

which it does not itself recognize as a legally punishable offence. And our sympathy

with the liftman, we must admit that the law is reasonable. It would never do if we

were at liberty to box people’s ears because we did not like their behaviour, or the

tone of their voices, or the scowl on their faces. Our fists would never be idle, and the

gutters of the city would run with blood all day. I may be as uncivil as I may please

and the law will protect me against violent retaliation. I may be haughty or boorish

and there is no penalty to pay except the penalty of being written down an illmannered fellow. The law does not compel me to say “Please” or to attune my voice

to other people’s sensibilities any more than it says that I shall not wax my moustache

or dye my hair or wear ringlets down my back. It does not recognize the laceration of

our feelings as a case for compensation. There is no allowance for moral and

intellectual damages in these matters.

❤MissAstonish❤