Discussion People are ambivalent about whether it is acceptable to interfere with a non-moral status quo for no benefit. Utilitarianism also called consequentialism is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 and John Stuart Mill 1806-1873. Mother Teresa walked down this road for 30 years to get where she ended up. This, although perhaps too simplistic, is intuitively problematic, as our minds may wander to libertines and such like. It leads to the alleviation of the sufferings of others, but through the operation of sympathy and compassion, of asceticism and the sense of sin to the increase of suffering among Christians. We will differ on views of when this happens, since we believe sanctification to be an on-going thing, and I think you believe it happens at faith. So it's a bit of back and forth - Utilitarianism is usually a strongly anti-Christian position, but one that could only have been invented under the influence of Christianity.
This is a crucial flaw, I think, when Catholic doctrine is condemned. Utilitarianism balances individual and group rights. He sees that the trolley is going to go to the right track with five people, and is trying to decide whether to throw the switch so the trolley instead goes to the left track with one person. The utilitarianism theory also has had a major impacts on approaches to economic, political, and social policy. It is quite understandable that he should be so labelled given that he wrote Utilitarianism, but I think this is just a misappropriation of the term, if we are considering a more Bentham orientated theory in the first place. The moral worth of an action should be judged, according to Bentham, by the 'greatest happiness principle'- whatever brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the morally right action to take in any given situation.
The data consist of 400 dichotomous responses 50 responses for each of 8 questions , and the percent of participants choosing each response which can be directly translated back into raw numbers are reported. Epicurus believed that the goal of life was to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear and pain, though he advocated a simple life of abstaining from bodily desires, which gives quite a different flavour to hedonistic views. This, I believe, is a criticism that is made obsolete by a look at the distinction made in choosing whether to be an act- or a rule-utilitarian. You can argue that everything in the west was influenced by christian culture, but that is obviously a vague claim. However, it's also made quite clear, in the course of the whole Bible, in many Christian doctrines, and by the examples of many saints, that this is not the ideal; it's a stepping stone to real love. Men decide to build a tower for their own glory, and God scatters them all over the earth.
This, for the purpose of this discussion, is very important, but I hope not crucial. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. God saves Noah and his family, and God chooses Abram to make a covenant with him and his descendants forever. To see this point perfectly, it must be observed that the bad consequences of actions are twofold, particular and general. If you allow this excuse in the present instance, you must allow it to all who act in the same manner, and from the same motive. The utilitarianism of the Japanese war party in its employment of Shintoism is one thing; the pragmatism of the American military government in dealing with that Shintoism is another thing; but they are both utilitarian and pragmatic. The definition of Love argues against it Overall, the major theme of Johanine literature is the idea that people should be able to recognize Christians by their love.
Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good e. Many Christians might think deontology or Divine Command theory is the right way to go, and the Old Testament offers some support here. Repentance is called for not because we shall suffer or because civilization will perish if we do not repent, but because others are now perishing for us and because we are attacking the very son of God, or God himself, in our endeavor to escape suffering and to maintain our civilization at any cost. Christian faith is so much faith and so little sight that its adherents are always seeking for some demonstration which will prove to themselves and others that it is true, though the demonstration is bound to be somewhat beside the point—like most miracles—proving not truth but utility, and exhibiting a power which may be that of God, but may also be that of faith itself, or of spiritual forces somewhat less than divine. I myself find a virtue ethics approach to be the most appealing and Scriptural. In the current paper, we have discussed two alternatives, one based on fairness and one based on coordinating third-party condemnation.
Morality is a means to some other end; it is in no way an end in itself. In sinning we harm ourselves — I should not lie because it is bad for me, not only that it offends God! A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. On earth, we have no right to expect a life free from pain and suffering, because of the model of Christ. This article appeared in the Journal Christianity and Crisis, July 8, 1946. Thus, a rule-of-thumb that typically produces good consequences e.
But before him, there were religious utilitarians, who tried to mix christianity with neo-epicureanism, to get a happiness based value theory, and framing into context that people's ultimate goal is eternal happiness with God. As many say, failure is the best teacher. The 'goodness' of God's creation quickly comes under threat. Now, all sin has two effects, one to the person, and one to God. Eve and Adam rejected God's rule and decided they wanted to make up their own rules, and know about good and evil for themselves. There is little basis in history for the promise that this religion sincerely followed will bring fullness of life to its adherents in the sense that theological utilitarianism intends.
Explain the main differences between the utilitarianism of Bentham and that of Mill. Phil- really interesting points, as always. As a major ethical theory, utilitarianism has been criticised and evaluated by many different philosophers and ethical writers, both secular and Christian. The more surprising judgment is actually the Switch Case, in which people say it is acceptable to cause a death! Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. His version of was that aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action. Yet since that time secular utilitarianism has been overwhelmingly to the forefront. Thus, I have realized that the tools of utilitarianism and the teachings of Christianity can live harmoniously.