Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was named the 'father' of Utilitarianism due to his rational and scientific approach to ethics. He tried to improve human life and make it more equal, shown through his invention of the panopticon design in prisons. He lived through the Industrial Revolution which was named the 'Period of Enlightenment', allowing people like Bentham to understand our world better due to science.

He too had a hedonic perspective, by understanding that pleasure is complete goodness. Pleasure and pain were the two main actions of mankind.

Bentham's theory can be divided into 3 parts:

1) Motivation - his view on what drove humans and what goodness and badness was about

2) 'The Principle of Utility' states that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong. This was Bentham's fundamental belief.
A problem with this is that saving the majority is the same mentality as genocide: getting rid of the minority to save the majority. Michael Sandel's example explores this (killing 1 person or 5 people, making yourself responsible or not by controlling the cart).
Duddeley and Stevens' case tests this. 

• Case in 19th century England
• 4 men on a shipwreck
• After days of starvation and dehydration, Duddeley and Stevens kill Parker, the 17 year old boy.
• Brooks was against this murder and so wasn't put on trial.

D + S where morally right: 

• What is moral isn't always legal, but of human necessity
• Parker gave consent
• They weren't in their proper state of mind

D + S where morally wrong:

• There is no situation that humans can take life into their own hands --> Love Your Neighbour
• They persuaded Parker to give consent
• Their lives weren't more valuable than Parker's

3) The Hedonic Calculus 

...or felicific (latin for happy) calculus is a scientific way of approaching morality. It is a way of measuring the pleasure and pain in an action, concerning the consequences, so that Act Utilitarians can make moral choices. The calculus measures seven aspects:

• 1) Intensity - If it is intense then you can distinguish it more
• 2) Duration 
• 3) Certainty/uncertainty -The probability that pleasure/pain will occur
• 4) Propinquity - How near/far the in the future the pleasure/pain is
• 5) Fecundity - The probability of the pleasure leading to other pleasures 
• 6) Purity - The probability of the pleasure leading to other pains
• 7) Extent - How many people are affected by the action? Is it the greatest good for the greatest number?

Strengths

• Intuitively Correct - Common sense shows that not all situations are identical and need different approaches
• Cultural Diversity - Takes into account that each culture operates equally and in parallel to eachother without one being considered more superior than the other
• Humanistic - Seeking to maximise human good is the basis, so it is ground in humanity and doesn't seek authority from another source
• Yard Stick - Bentham created the calculus as a method of social reform. It tests the law for its utility for humanity.
• It has the potential to justify any action

Weaknesses

• Involves subjective thinking therefore can't be applicable to every singe person
• Can be compared to Divine Command Ethics as it tells people what to do without questioning
• Ticking Bomb scenario - It is impractical to suggest that we have time to deliberate and use the calculus to every situation, especially when one does not have all the information
• Doesn't acknowledge the difference between humans and animals, making humans seem animalistic
• Doctrine of Negative Responsibility - We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. Sometimes we choose to act and sometimes we choose not to. Either way, the action will have consequences. Hannah Arendt states that the 'banality of evil', e.g. the Germans who didn't act are bigger culprits for the holocaust, explains how we are just as responsible for the foreseeable consequences that we fail to prevent as for those that we bring out directly.

Act Utilitarianism 

'The Singular Nature of Pleasure' states that all different kinds of pleasure are of equal value when they are equal in quantity. Bentham said that the "quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin (child's game) is as good as poetry". Here Bentham focuses on everyone. He tried to reform the inequality between the aristocrats and the working class.

Utilitarianism - Epicurus

Epicurus was a Roman philosopher that lived from 341 - 270 BCE. He wrote The Principle Doctrines of Epicureanism and was the founder of the school of Epicureanism.

The Principle Doctrines of Epicureanism

• Everything that is good is pleasure, and this is the criteria which we should use to judge everything. 
• The central goal of life is pleasure, and this is immediately recognised from birth. 
• The absence of pain is the greatest pleasure, which is what makes Epicureanism different from Hedonism. 
• Mental pleasures are superior to physical pleasures as your mind has the capacity to enjoy the past, present and future. 
• Everyone can access pleasure equally.
• Happiness depends on friendship.
• Peace of mind is more important than social or financial success.
• The first doctrine says "A blessed and indestructible being (God(s))...brings no trouble upon another being", meaning that Gods in this polytheistic philosophy don't get pleasure from being concerned with humans, so determinism is wrong. This was a very controversial statement at the time (around 300 BCE) as it stated that religion doesn't bring pleasure. This brought violent reactions, including Alexander the Oracle burning the doctrines in a public place and throwing them into the sea. 

Utilitarianism - Hedonism

Utilitarianism is a part of normative ethics, which originates from ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, where it examines the process in which people make moral decisions. It comes under the umbrella of deontological ethics. 

• Teleological ethics comes from the Greek word 'telos', meaning purpose. Consequentialists base their judgements on what actions are right or wrong depending on the purpose of the act.
• Even if the act is intrinsically good, this is irrelevant as it is only the consequence of the action that matters. 

The basis of Utilitarianism is Hedonism. Hedonism is the theory that the right, good thing to do in all ethical situations is to do what produces pleasure, and the definition of goodness and the source of everyone else's goodness is pleasure. Nothing else is intrinsically valuable except pleasure.

Egotistical Hedonism explains how we should always act in a way that maximises our pleasure. It focuses on the short term pleasure. It is more commonly used in a descriptive way (making morally neutral statements e.g. slavery exists), rather than in a prescriptive way (making moral standards e.g. slavery ought not to exist). 

       Issues with Prescriptive Egotistical Hedonism

- Altruism (doing something for others brings pleasure)

- Hedonistic fallacy (actively pursuing your pleasure isn't necessarily the best way of producing it)

- 'The Experience Machine' by Robert Nozick.

• A metaphor which tailors to everyone's pleasure, and one gets more pleasure in plugging into it than not
• If one gets more pleasure from doing x than y, then there is no point in doing y.
• If all that matters is to experience pleasure, then we have no reason not to plug into the machine.
• The fact that we do have reason not to plug into the machine shows that pleasure is not everything that matters. Reasons include: engaging in the machine makes pleasure limited and we take pleasure from doing certain things instead of just experiencing them.

Madeleine McCann - was her disappearance meant to be?

Most people in our society would argue that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3rd, 2007 was purely down to bad luck, or more specifically; bad timing. Perhaps she would not have been abducted if  her parents had came back five minutes earlier to check on her. However, there are some who believe that fatalism, determinism or predestination explains her disappearance. These three separate views state:

Fatalism: The fact that the parents were out at the time when Madeleine was abducted has nothing to do with timing or their decision to leave her. Human beings have no power to change the course of events, and unfortunately this was always going to happen. 

• This view introduces the argument of 'Nihilism', whereby the fact that humans have no choice or free will mean that nothing matters.

Determinism: Madeleine's abduction was CAUSED by some sort of unknown previous event. This is otherwise known as a casual nexis. The parents did have a choice whether to leaver their child or not, but this does not change the fact that their daughter would always have been abducted on that night. 

Predestination: God, the ultimate being, knows all our actions, past, present and future. God had planned the abduction to happen and witnessed it all. 

• Someone who believed in an immanent God may argue that his intervention into the McCann's life is a revelation of his omnipotence and omniscience. 

The Portrayal of Women in the Bible

Through the middle ages, women were considered either virtuous and perfect, or evil and sinful. This tradition originates from the patriarchal stories in the Bible, whereby women are barely mentioned in comparison to the focus of the many, great men. Bible, meaning library, has 66 books where there are only four positive accounts of women and only seven negative accounts of women. Some examples are:

The Good Girls
Deborah and Jael - Judges 4
- Deborah is first introduced as a prophet and a leader, giving her high status and respect. 
- In 1 Corinthians 11:5 it calls Deborah a 'prophetess', which some may consider unexpected   for God to raise up a woman as a prophetess, but the New Testament clearly says that God          lets women have prophecy too, and they are to practice it appropriately. 
- Deborah is a judge (a shaphat) so was used greatly by God. This is a blessing, suggesting that she has unique qualities that are recognised by God.
- She is made to look even more admirable by the direct comparison in the same teaching to Jael, who broke a promise to Sisera and killed him and so is a sinful woman. 

Esther - Esther 8
- The story teaches that Esther saved the Jews from Haman, by pleading to King Xerxes to put a stop to Hamans' plan to kill all the Jews.
- Once Esther reveals to the King that she is in fact a Jew herself, it shows how courageous she is. This is enhanced when she has the type of authority over the King by convincing him to save her people. 
- Esther is a saviour to her people. 'Saviour' in Judaism is a title for God, putting Esther on a similar level to Jesus (God in the flesh) who, some may believe, could have some God in her. 

The Bad Girls
Eve - Genesis 1-3
- Shortly after the Bible begins, the famous rebellion of Eve in the Garden of Eden is told.
- The serpent tricked Eve into thinking she could eat the fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so she "took of its fruit and ate". The consequence of this disobedience to God was pain in childbirth for women and men ruling over their wives. 

Jezebel - 1 Kings 16:31
- Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, served and worshipped Baal.
- This goes against the monotheistic religion of Judaism to only worship one God.

Salome - Matthew 14:1-11
- John the Baptist had been resurrected, and Herod did not like him, but didn't kill him because he was liked by the people for being a prophet.
- Salome ordered Herod to "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.", which he had to do.

What is being human? (Take 2)

There are a variety of different approaches and interpretations to the meaning of being 'human'. These tend to come from hundreds, possibly even thousands, of different sources, which may be readings of holy scripture, theologians' theories, analysis of texts, etc.

One argument, what Thomas Aquinas would say, is that proving the existence of God is the ability to reason. To expand on this, reasoning does not just mean being able to think for oneself, but to act instinctively and also anticipating or picturing different possible futures and consequences. Him founding the cosmological argument shows that humans use their reason to make sense of the world. Plato's chariot is a simple analogy which explains his theory on how human beings function. A charioteer, representing the 'reason', a white horse representing the 'virtue' or 'spirit', and a psychotic horse representing the 'appetite' or 'desire'. The charioteer is the most dominant figure and controls both horses in order to function. This means that without reason, a human cannot function, and therefor cannot be.

A religious argument to support reason defining a human being, is in Buddhism, one of the most practical religions. The Middle Way shows a balance between the spirit/virtue and appetite/desire. This can be seen through the teaching of the Buddha reaching enlightenment, where the Buddha had too much appetite when he lived a life of luxury in the palace and too much spirit when he practically starved himself whilst practicing being a monk. Finding the Middle Way, and therefore being enlightened, was the result of grasping his reason in himself. Furthermore, in Genesis 1:26 it is told to us to "let them (humans) have dominion". This can be interpreted that humans are only fully human when they have power. Feminists may argue this to be sexist against women, as biologically men are more physically powerful (taking power to be the meaning of dominion), and so dehumanises women for not having equal physical capabilities. 

An example of not using reason is explained by Hannah Arendt, a German philosopher who lived throughout World War 2. She argues that if the German citizens would have protested against the Nazis' abuse properly, since the citizens well outnumbered the Nazis, the Holocaust would not have happened. If they had enough moral reason, the citizens were as bad as the Nazis themselves - this is called complicity. They all had a 'lack or moral imagination'. Christians would argue that the citizens weren't being human as they weren't following the command of God, the Golden Rule, "Love thy neighbour" and so weren't following the command in the 10 commandments "Do not lie", as they were lying to themselves for believing they were following the Christian religion properly. 

In contrast to these reason arguments, some argue that saying being human as only the mental ability, which discriminates against those with mental disabilities and people such as young babies or very elderly people who can't reason properly. This belief reduced humanity and dehumanises people. A gruesome yet appropriate example of this being put into reality is when the Nazis killed children with mental illnesses, because they couldn't reason and so were considered unworthy of life.

Humans can be defined through comparing them to species that aren't human; a direct contrast. A reading of the poem "On Being Human" by C.S.Lewis, is that angels can't and don't experience the natural world through the five senses, whereas we do. This means that they alter their judgment and see the earth in the way God does. However, humans have the luxury of experiencing details, and only when we are dead, or to Christians resurrected to God on judgment day, can we see all the beauty. 

Kantian ethics, derived from the philosopher Kant, teaches that being human means having deontological duty (doing duties because that would be morally correct). This principle depends on a priori - which may immediately convince some that Kant is wrong, as they believe that a posteriori (knowledge from experience) is more reliable - which Kant believed to be the most reliable guide to decision making. According to Kant, God made the world this way so that moral people would be rewarded in post-motern existence. Despite this, the Second Vatican Council say that "from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One". This means that all humans are made in a state of holiness, but have an inclination towards evil ("evil one" meaning the serpent that appears in Genesis 2-3).

In opposition to Kant's argument, Aristotle argues that determinism is the key to being human. He says that being human is not having an inbuilt responsibility, but is reacting to what we are 'determined' to do. One may assume, especially in modern days, that we are made being able to make free choices as part of our free will. However there are factors that are out of our control that influence all our decisions in everyday life. Thus, moral decision making (which can be 'reason') is illusionary. 

Some people may argue that you are human by being embodied, to whom we ascribe physical and mental characteristics. In 1 Corinthians it states that our body is the "temple of the Holy Spirit". The actual temple has the 'Holy of Holies' which has God in it. Having a body, by the Chalcedonian definition, is being 100% man and 100% God; Jesus. If God was incarnated, and had body matter, we have body matter so it is sanctified and must be "good". 

I believe that being human is a triangulation of having a morality and a conscience, whether is comes in an innate way or comes from society or comes from God. I would also argue that being human requires physical characteristics of a human too, for example many other species have morality and ability to think for themselves, but this doesn't mean they are human.

Comparing the Creed and Psalm 139

The Creed is a statement of belief, rather than a prayer (some may immediately associate a religious text as being a prayer to God). God comes in three main forms in the Creed, as mentioned throughout the passage, as 'Father', 'Son' and the 'Holy Spirit'. 

What believers put to question is: how can three different labels with three different connotations and meanings mean the same thing; God? Why would he not just have one name, rather than dividing himself or in fact separating his roles? These three words are all synonyms for the Lord, God, but carry different responsibilities. 'Father' refers to all the qualities one would immediately give to God - omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipotence etc. Perhaps it is the 'father' that creates life and controls the universe, since He is so powerful. 'Son' gives the impression that this figure is dependant on something or relies on someone else (e.g. his father). It is the 'son', Jesus (God incarnated) that submits himself to the physical world in order to defeat death and save humanity. This is his role. The 'Holy Spirit' is something a little less obvious. It comes from the joining of the 'father' and the 'son'. Its role is to support humans once death is defeated (throughout their life they are living at the moment). 

 In contrast to the nature of the Creed, there is no one definition or statement to clarify what God's connection to humanity is. The Creed leaves this question open ended through its vague message, allowing believers to formulate their own opinion on whether God is a personal figure, who directly communicates with humanity, or if he is a transcendent spirit, who fathers the universe without any physical or emotional connection. Again, it depends on how a believer perceives God; in his 'father', 'son' or 'holy spirit' form. For example, when God is incarnated as Jesus, some might see that as being a more personal God, since he lived a human live on planet earth. However, if he is only ever the 'Holy Spirit', to a believer He could just be completely disconnected and impersonal. 

In Psalm 139, the speaker focuses more on God's qualities and attributes rather than the variety of his labels and their meanings. Some may say this psalm shows God to be in his 'father' figure, since his omniscience is admired greatly throughout. 

The first stanza promotes God's omniscience through the worship-like language, for example in verse 6 "such knowledge is too wonderful for me". God is on an utterly different level of intelligence to humanity, which arguably displays his distance from the life he created. On the other hand, Walter Brueggemann argues that the repeated pronouns "you" and "me" indicate a personal relationship between God and humans. The second stanza shows God as being omnipresent, for example in verse 12 "even the darkness is not dark to you", meaning that God can and does see everything. Another interpretation of this verse is that God is omnibenevolent, as he doesn't perceive negative things as 'darkness' as humans would, for example bereavement, trouble etc, as he sees the reasoning behind everything. The third stanza focuses on God's omnipotence, exclaiming how he made humanity from the "depths of the earth"and how God pre-determined all the days of all the lives in the Book of Revelation (verse 16). The fourth stanza teaches that God will lead you in the future and in the afterlife (verse 24). 

God's relationship with humanity in psalm 139 can be seen on a whole spectrum. Immediately, one may apply this passage to the personal connection the think they have with God through the references that are applicable to all, for example "you knit me together in my mother's womb" (verse 13). This happens to every single person, since they are all nurtured in their mother's womb before birth. However, another translation reading the word (in hebrew) with a heh instead of an aleph, means something completely different. It shows that the whole psalm it dedicated to being a distinct, personal message from God to King David.