Abstract
The objective of the paper is a closer look of the attitude of utilitarianism founder Jeremy Bentham to the issue of religion. The paper will focus on Bentham's argument with religion and church institutions and will attempt to point out the contrast with Bentham's theory of usefulness. The work will attempt to explain why the principle of asceticism cannot be combined with the principle of utilitarianism and why, on the contrary, religious penalties can be useful. The objective of this paper is to explain Jeremy Bentham's attitude to the issue of religion. This is a subject that is neglected in secondary literature and is not given the kind of attention it deserves. The British philosopher James E. Crimmins, however, deals with this issue in his work. Let us emphasize the example Bentham on Religion: Atheism and the Secular Society (1986) and Bentham's Metaphysics and the Science of Divinity (1986), in which he mainly focuses on Bentham's critique of religion. All the writings on religion together highlight the negative intervention of the state into the Church and the necessity of secularization. This is also emphasized by James E. Crimmins in his articles. But this work attempts to explain the Bentham's basic attitudes toward religion. Bentham understood church institutions as a public service governed by a corrupt order. For Bentham, the Church represented such an enemy that no reform would help, because it would still be the enemy of human happiness due to its doctrines.
Jeremy Bentham was a utilitarian and atheist, whose goal was to point out the harmfulness of "holy books," which he understood as thoughtless and superficial rules telling people how to live. Religion was in direct contradiction to his usefulness theory, since unlike religious leaders, he promoted earthly joy and rejected the ascetic life that supposedly brought a blissful paradise after death. Bentham was able to analyze matters and maintain the issues he was devoted to. But with religion, this objectivity did not succeed. On the one hand, he realized that we all submit ourselves to what we believe and that what we believe is not necessarily true. On the other hand, he was not able to incorporate this principle into his idea of the principle of usefulness, which he considered to be the only right one. Jeremy Bentham demonstrated his innovation and progressiveness in many areas of his research. That was not the case in religion as well. His mocking and negative attitude to religion and the Church was expressed in several of his works. Inhis work Nonsense Upon Stilts in 1795 he emphasized the need for freedom of speech. In 1820 he released Constitutional Code, in which he presented a proposal for the organization of an ideal state. Three years later, he wrote Not Paul, But Jesus, where he emphasized the positive role of historical Christianity. First, we will focus on Bentham's argument with religion. Bentham's objective was to examine church institutions, rituals, and beliefs that went against his theory of usefulness.
Between 1809 and 1823, Bentham conducted an exhaustive study of religion to remove religious beliefs from human thinking. It was even a complex destruction of religion thinking as such. By applying utilitarian principles at every step, Bentham's analysis clearly focused on the supposed harmfulness of the authority of the "holy books," the sanctity of the churches and their priestly officials. In this respect, we compare Bentham's religious thinking with another utilitarian, William Paley. The following section will point to the escalation of a Bentham argument - a talk about ascetism that is completely unacceptable and incomprehensible for Bentham. According to Bentham, the only motive for behavior is the desire for pleasure and aversion to pain, but ascetism, by its very nature, presents a completely opposite theory, and this is in direct contradiction with Bentham's concept of human motivation. Finally, we will devote ourselves to the religious penalties resulting from his argument with religion. Bentham identifies four different sources as penalties: physical, political, moral and religious, as part of human action and its consequences. In Bentham's concept, religious penalties can play a positive and a negative role; for this reason he does not condemn, but further elaborates.