On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    man were a solitary individual on the earth , will not suffice for him , surrounded as he is by members of the same species , whose happiness is worth as much as his own , and must not be sacrificed by him in the pursuit of his own . May he not be under an obligation to relinquish attainable pleasures for the sake of others ?

    The answer to this question dives at once into the profoundest phenomena of human nature , without a careful attention to which it is scarcely possible not to feel the language in which it must be conveyed to be repulsive . That man , when placed amid his fellows , must abandon many enjoyments which in a solitary condition he would retain , is unquestionable ; but that he thug suffers

    a deduction from his felicity , is not true ; for his loss is far more than replaced by the exercise of those generous affections which his social position creates . It is not benevolence to be miserable in his efforts for others , to feel it a sacrifice and pain to act in their behalf , and think that it would have been pleasanter to have taken no concern in their interests ; but to accept their pleasures as his

    own best good , and loathe the misnamed ease which might be purchased by their sufferings . Disinterestedness does not consist in the annihilation of happiness , but in the acceptance of sympathetic in the place of individual enjoyment ; and if moralists were to call on a man to relinquish personal pleasures , for which no compensation presented itself in any possible satisfactions of internal benevolence or outward recompense , the call would infallibly be

    made in vain ; no case of obligation can be made out , no instrument exists for acting on the will . The social relations of a human being do not then introduce any alteration in our criterion ; they create many new virtues , but not any which is attended with preponderant pain ; they still leave all actions and qualities , which are accompanied by such a result , out of the pale of obligation , and in the list , of vices

    -But suppose that an agent ' s happiness is incompatible with the will of God , does his duty lie on the side of his own enjoyment , or of the Divine command ? The question supposes the Creator to be in hostility to the happiness of his creatures , and we mi ^ ht leave the answer to those who are afflicted by a belief in nis malevolence . It should , however , be observed , that with such

    notions of Deity , morality and religion become absolutely irreconcilable . If God commands a man to take to himself a quantity of misery , he will ask , ' Why should I obey V nor can any one find a reason for his obedience , except the fear of greater misery if he refuses . Remove this fear , attach a balance of enjoyot

    ment to the violation of a Divine direction , and every ground submission vanishes : morality becomes blasphemous , and says ' Pay no attention to God ; why should you put yourself into hands that will only make you wretched , when a happier part is in your power ? ' The devil , in apprehension of whom sontf Christians live , is neither more nor less than a god of this malig-

    Untitled Article

    614 Bentham * * Deontology .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1834, page 614, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2637/page/10/