The two predominate figure heads of utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mills (1806-1873). Bentham argued that ethics should seek to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for the most people. Bentham believed the moral sense of an act could be deciphered based upon the answer to a simple question. Did the deed manifest the greatest good? Mills studied Bentham’s approach to utilitarianism and concluded that his concept of pleasure was limited. For Bentham, all pleasure was on a level playing field; whether they be of an intellectual or physical nature. Mills elaborated on Bentham’s fixed perspective of pleasure by establishing a hierarchy by which various forms of pleasure could be ranked. Mill’s refined attitude towards pleasure created a new perspective for utilitarianism, which contended that ethics should seek to maximize intellectual and moral pleasures and minimize suffering. Mill’s classified intellectual and moral pleasure as higher pleasures and physical pleasures as lower pleasures. Higher pleasures can be associated with such activities as reading, the mastery of a craft, or a trip to the theater. Lower pleasures can be associated with the body and physical appetite, eating, drinking, and sex. Although Mill’s had drawn a line in the sand between intellectual and physical pleasures he did not oppose physical pleasures. Mill’s felt that if you had the option to maximize something to achieve good, you should maximize intellectual and moral pleasures and minimize suffering. So, what is wrong with utilitarianism? The concept has the backing of two philosophical juggernauts. It encourages a conservative application of both intellectual and physical pleasures and attempts to minimize suffering. Without unpacking utilitarianism’s principles, this ideology seems to possess attributes which could facilitate a utopian existence for humanity. In truth, utilitarianism does not lack staunch opposition. Christians resist utilitarianism with intense passion. Christians are a sect of the Abrahamic religions, which constitutes the largest religious group in the world. Christians argue that utilitarianism is relative. It is left up to the individual or a group of people who arrive at a consensus to determine the nature of pleasure, what is pleasurable, and what is good. Christians do not value utilitarianism as a set of adaptive behaviors aimed at human survival and flourishing. Generally speaking, ethics can shift gears based upon the presentation of new information. This lack of consistency is one of the primary reasons Christians oppose utilitarianism. Additionally, Christians oppose utilitarianism because there is no common understanding of good. Christianity falls in line with virtue ethicism, another sec of normative ethics. Christianity holds one’s virtue in high regard, thus maximizing the pleasure and minimizing the suffering for the most people is not deemed moral action. Christians assert that in order to maintain virtue, one must attempt to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering without leaving anyone out. Christians refuse to accept the idea that some small group will always be left out. …show more content…
Utilitarianism does lack a rigid belief system. And there is no concrete consensus on the explanation of what exactly is good, and how does one go about achieving it. The Christians pose a strong point when they assert that no one should be left out when attempting to maximize the good and limit suffering. Striving for equality at the risk of failure is better than excepting the disenfranchisement of a group of people. Utilitarian’s may argue long term stability takes priority over the expense of a particular group’s short term happiness. However, there is a major problem with this perspective. As Christian’s have also pointed out there is no concrete definition of good. Therefore, long term stability may be perceived as monetary wealth or cultural fulfilment. The decision to follow either one of these paths will naturally create conflicting concepts between what is good and what is bad. Not to mention the short term suffering of an excluded group could become indefinite suffering as long as the majority remain