★ Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
INTROD. Pr. of Utility cannot be opposed by [BR][ ][ ] Religion.
Apologetica contra RELIG: FALSE DIVISION.
This may come after the next paragraph But "perhaps" (it has been said for it all amounts to no more than a who knows but perhaps) he may
only require a temporary sacrifice of a small portion of present happiness in return
for a greater portion of which he means to give in future — And how then
do you know that he means to give us that future happiness? hereafter because he is benevolent
Agreed — but how do you know that he is benevolent? unless it be because he wills our great per
happiness here. You prove his future Benevolence very properly, by his prese
but when you come back from his future Benevolence argue against his present f
do not you see that you proceed in a vitious circle, and pull down from
under you the structure you had just been rearing? Eith It has been been argud with great Justice against the Catholics by the Protestant Divines as a palpable flagrant Paralogism of theirs that they after proving the infallibity of their Church by the Authority of the Scriptures they come back to prove the authority of the Scriptures by the infallibity of the Church [or vice versa] But what should we say if they combated it argued against that Authority? which would be exactly the case parallel to that before us.
Either Benevolence as applied to God means the same thing as applied to Man, or it means nothing
for what other meaning ever had it before, or can it have had since? indeed its meaning in the latter case never has been pretended to differ from the former
any otherwise than in degree; and in that case it i:e: as being it is still greater. & more [We can conceive
of Man's Benevolence as wishing the good greatest happiness of every thing susceptible of it; and how
can conceive of God's as greater, I do not very well see, but let that pass] Now which
Man of the most ordinary Benevolence, would let any other man sustain a want of any least
degree of Happiness which he could give him, if to give it him he needed but to wish ills
How much less then would any man voluntary and of purpose take any away?
1. Propensity to Happiness innate & to is the language of God to Man — would not give it with one hand & take it away with another one hand
2. Story of 1st Book
3. Obedience to Man's law will avail nothing with God
4. To get clear of absurdity of future punishment — in a note as for instance
I would not be understood here as making any application of this reasoning against the tract of a State of future punishment in a future life [for such as contribute design to the unhappiness of Mankind in the present] But it will not be expected in a work of this sort that I should quit my design the subject go out of the way of my design] to enter into a formal defence of it: especially after the many excellent written works professedly on that subject by able and ingenious Divines — in the mean time I may briefly observe that &c "Here endevor to find out some distinction.
This reasoning if there be any truth in it will be equally forcible conclude with equal force 1st against the prohibiting any
species of Actions which may be found to produce a clear portion of Happiness in the Society
under the notion of their being displeasing to God the Deity, under any human penalty: 2dly against
extending swelling the penalty in any case whatever to an intensity beyond what is absolutely necessary to
produce the effect intended.
|
Identifier: | JB/070/027/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
027 |
introd. pr. of utility cannot be opposed by religion |
||
|
001 |
apologetica contra relig: false division |
||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[gr with crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
23142 |
|||