The Problem of Evil and Suffering

            “The existence of evil in the world is the “rock of atheism”, this was famously said by Philosopher David Hume in the 18^thCentury. However, many philosophers have put forward their arguments to prove the reality of God despite Evil and Suffering in the world. One of which is the `Existence of God` by Richard Swinburne.  When reading his work, he presents a number of separate arguments but the one that most caught my attention was “How Evils serve Greater Goods”.

Swinburne suggests that sometimes the evil in this world serves a greater good or a greater purpose. He states that “such bad actions, like physical pain, provide opportunities for good actions to be done in response to them”, we could relate this to when a child must go to the dentist to have tooth removed, despite the pain the child will endure, he will benefit from this as it allows another tooth to grow. He also describes the consequences of having a world without pain. He states that we “show courage when threatened by a gunman, as well as when threatened by cancer; and show sympathy to those likely to be killed by gunmen as well as to those likely to die of cancer” However, if we simply imagine what our lives would be like without these emotions then “…merely would none of us have the opportunity to respond with sympathy or courage or reforming zeal…so many of us would have an easy life that we simply would not have much opportunity to show courage or indeed manifest much in the way of goodness at all”. Essentially, Swinburne means that it is vital we are able to express emotions such as courage and sympathy, for in a world without pain we would never be given the opportunity to express this. We can only help people if they are suffering, therefore Swinburne believes that God must allow evil and suffering to occur so that we can use our emotions to know when people need help. However if God was to replace disease by “such an increase of inbuilt depravity” Swinburne states that we would live in “a world in which humans (and animals) lacked much natural affection for parents, children, neighbours, etc. would be a horrible place”

On the other hand, despite this being a good inductive argument for the existence of God although there is suffering and evil in the world, I still feel that there are faults with this argument. When Swinburne suggests that everything serves a greater purpose, I think back to events in history which I am yet to see a greater purpose. The Holocaust, for example, is one of the most infamous example of moral evil to this day. 11 million people died and for what reason? I personally fail to see what goodness came from this immoral act and am sure I am not the only person who has this point of view. However, I do see how good can come out of natural disaster. For instance, the Boxing Day Tsunami in Indonesia which tragically took 230, 000 lives, it gave other people around the world the chance to donate money, provide aid and help those who were suffering. Although, it is still hard to contemplate why God would allow so many people to die and so many more people to suffer because of this event, with only some good actually being derived from it.

 Er.B

 

Does the three-parent baby law make human life disposable ?

 

This week saw Britain become the first country in the world to allow the creation of so-called “three-parent” babies with MPs voting overwhelmingly in favour of the technique of mitochondrial donation. However, this milestone in medical science is one of great controversy.

 

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has condemned the House of Commons decision to vote in favour of legalising three-parent children. Auxiliary Bishop John Sherrington of Westminster stated that the "Three-parent baby law makes human life disposable. " But is he right to suggest this? Will this new law really make human life disposable ?

 

There is no doubt that this new law will help people's lives. About 2,500 women of child-bearing age in Britain are thought to be at risk of passing on mitochondrial disorders to their children. About one in 6,500 babies is born with a severe form of the disease, which affects vital organs such as the brain, heart and muscles. It is as Ms Ellison told MPs in the commons debate “For many families affected, this is the light at the end of the tunnel”

 

However, I can understand the point that Bishop Sherrington makes. There is a worry that this new law could lead to a slippery slope of genetically modified “designer babies”. I think that for some there is the perception that soon couples will be designing their children, like they would design a new room, choosing every aspect of their child's genetic makeup. It is important to remember that even though an embryo may not be a fully developed, 9 month old baby, it is still a human life that should be treated as one. As Bishop Sherrington states "The human embryo is a new human life with potential; it should be respected and protected from the moment of conception and not used as disposable material.”

 

So is Bishop Sherrington right? Will this new law lead us to a slippery slope or will it be the light at the end of the tunnel for so many families ?

 

VKD



Religion from an athiest point of view

I have been a catholic for all my life and when it came to the choice of making my confirmation I did not have to think twice in saying yes. It never occurred to me that my brother, who is a self-confessed atheist, had to make the decision to not make his confirmation. We have been raised in the same house by the same parents and brought up with the same religious beliefs for all our lives, yet we differed in our opinions on faith. This got me thinking and I decided to ask my brother why he decided to not believe in God and this is what I found out.

When I think of death I automatically think of going to heaven and being reunited with God, however when people do die my brother believes that they will just stay in the ground. I asked my brother does this not make you feel as if you are living a life that means nothing as when you die it is all lost and he said yes. You live your life the way you want to, there will be no judgement or reward everyone will just die. He said that there cannot be a heaven if God does not exist.

I then went on to ask my brother, how do you know God does not exist? He responded with all the evil and suffering in the world. My brother believes that evil and suffering is proof that God does not exist because he does not believe that a God who is supposed to be all loving and caring would allow his creations to go through such terrible times. To this I said to my brother, but evil and suffering is not for the sake of getting hurt, there is a reason for it. From the tough times we experience we will gain strength and knowledge and this will help us in the future. In reply my brother said there are other ways to gain strength and knowledge that do not involve being put through hell to gain them.

From this talk with my brother I have concluded that even though my brother and I had the same upbringing we both took a very different view on religion. My brother looks at the bad things and says how can a loving God allow this?, whereas I would look at it and say I wonder why I needed to gain this strength and knowledge, what will happen to me in the future for me to need it? Religion is not based on the things you are taught it is based on how you interpret the world and your experiences that form your opinion.

H.H

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics is a Christian ethical theory that was developed by Joseph Fletcher. Stating that other moral principles can be overruled in some situations if love is the final consequence of an action. Situation ethics underlines the importance of the individual in making moral decisions. Joseph Fletcher developed the idea of making a moral decision for a particular situation. He wrote the book 'Situation Ethics' in 1996 explaining his theory. He stated that it was better that a person made a decision on what moral course of action they should follow rather than follow a set of unwritten rules they hardly know anything about. He believed that God doesn't want us to follow and conform to rules like a robot.

An important concept of situation ethics is that it contains no universal/ moral rules or rights. This states that situation ethics are not laws and do not have to be continuously followed. The issue of right and wrong means that there is an increase in the situation being relative. What may be seen as the most loving outcome in a situation may not have the same outlook in different religions and cultures. This however is helpful to some extent. The lack of universal guidelines reinforces that the theory is more flexible. This is an important concept because it can apply to a wide range of situations in various parts of the world. Such as how different cultures may have guidelines that they ask others to abide by to respect their culture when entering said country. The loving thing would be to abide by there request but it could also be seen as loving to make others abide by the ways of western cultures also. 

Another important concept of situation ethics is that it is takes into consideration personalism. This states that man comes first in any situation and rules follow after. It details how it is more important to do right by other people than to follow religious rules at the expense of people. This gives a realistic feel to the theory and also provides the chance of each situation to become personal. Theories such as utilitarianism are developed on a broader level and do not depict how each situation is different, includes different aspects and emotions/feelings towards that particular situation. Rules cannot always work in every situation some situations such as the aborting of a foetus that was conceived out of rape. In some countries rules say that abortions are not legalised. The loving thing to do would be to abort the foetus as the birth could cause psychological damage to the mother or worse the child could grow up receiving the same psychological damage. The importance of personalism is shown in this example and how rules being placed second can be more beneficial. 

Situation ethics carefully fits in with the teachings of Jesus. The phrase “love thy neighbour” carefully depicts situation ethics in a biblical way. Jesus constantly went against the following of rules to help another being during his time on earth. To and extent he did the most loving thing to do by doing this which is what situation ethics revolves around. Positivism is a positive choice made during a situation that freely chooses to believe in agape love. Agape love being love that is unconditional and the word agape is Greek for love. Christian teachings and Christian love link into situation ethics to assist in making situational decisions where faith is rooted into for Christians but it also allows room for secular beings to make a decision. Following the teachings of Jesus is an important concept of situation ethics because it shows closely how people of the Christian faith want to try as hard to stay in line with what God has set for them such as the rule “love thy neighbour”. 

Another key feature of Situation ethics are the six working principles. The working principles are; Love only is always good, Love is the only norm, Love and justice are the same, love is justice distributed, Love is not liking and always wills the neighbour’s good, Love is the only means. These principles contribute as an important feature because Love is intrinsically valuable, it has inherent worth. Love is good. Nothing else has intrinsic value but ‘it gains or acquires its value only because it happens to help people (thus being good) or to hurt people (thus being bad)’. A lie is not intrinsically wrong. It is wrong if it harms people, but may sometimes be right. For the situationist, what makes the lie right is its loving purpose it assesses the outcome of the action as the moral worth, which means that anything may be done as long as it brings about the most loving outcome.

Although containing many key and important feature there are many criticism which undermine the theory. 

One way in which the concepts are undermined is that because there are no moral or universal laws it is hard to define love. Each individual would have their own definition of what love is and what the most loving thing to do would be. The use of a universal law allows a way for everyone to be able to communicate and decide how to act during a situation that is more suitable for the majority of society. Also situation ethics is an unprincipled relativist system; it allows room for any action to occur because of how subjective the theory is people would naturally disagree about it.

Situation ethics is also a consequentialist theory. The difficulty that occurs when trying to predict the future can cause some trouble. Nobody can exactly tell the future and the outcome could change for any situation because we cannot define what may happen. It is also unreliable to base a decision on love because everyone’s view can be different. This critiques how situation ethics involves Personalism.

In situation ethics you treat every situation differently, taking no account of previous experience. Some have said that this means that you cannot hold a consistent moral approach and you are in danger of missing the bigger picture. William Barclay says that we need the guidance of law and an understanding of past experiences. Barclay also said that Fletcher was rather optimistic about human nature. Saying that if we all made our own moral decisions we would essentially be selfish. This undermines situation ethics because instead of religiously following the rules of love some people may start to follow rules.

Also the Christian concept in situation ethics may not appeal to everybody. People such as atheists would maybe disagree with how the teachings of Jesus entwine with situation ethics. Their faith or lack of may have them believe in something different and could be why it may not appeal to everybody. This critiques how the theory can apply to everyone.

Although there are many important concepts of situation ethics such as, how it incorporates the teachings of Jesus and how universal laws are also not incorporated into the theory. All these important concepts contribute to making situation ethics a theory that can be used in the 21st century because of its more updated concepts unlike theories such as utilitarianism.However, the theory has many critiques which could allow the theory to not apply to a variety of people. Situation ethics can be seen as a rule and rules/ laws can always be broken. There is nothing to say that people should break the theory. Also the theory allows people to put themselves before and this can cause people to be selfish and go against the theory.

SO

Where was God on 9/11?

On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

Many people may say that God caused the pain and suffering brought about on this day, because how could an all-loving and all-powerful God cause this much hurt to so many people? Ending the lives of many and destroying happiness for all their families and the entire world. This was one of the major events to have happened in our lifetime and people believe that if God did exist, this kind of suffering would never happen.

On the other hand, if we look deeper we can see evidence of God helping the people he could in this situation. For example, there were four flights on this tragic day which altogether could accommodate 1,000 people, yet there were only 226 people on board. This suggests he was discouraging people from getting on the planes they were due to catch, and therefore showing his loving nature by saving the lives of others. Also, the people on board the plane somehow had the ability to stay calm through the whole tragedy, and we know this because not one of the people who were called by a loved one on the planes said they sensed any kind of distress or panic. The peace the passengers felt must have come from somewhere and only someone like God could have given them this kind of strength to stay calm in their final minutes. Also, on one of the planes the passengers overpowered the hijackers, so God must have helped them through this and given them the courage to be so brave.

Other events which happened on this day suggests God was doing all he could to prevent people being hurt. Things which wouldn’t normally happen e.g. 30,000 people who normally worked in the twin towers were not at their desks that morning happened, here are a few reasons why: the head of one company survived 9/11 because he took his son to playschool,  another man is alive because it was his turn to bring donuts, another lady was late because her alarm clock didn't go off on time, one spilled food on her clothes and had to take time to change, and the most baffling one is a man who walked to work, as normal and on time however was wearing new shoes and developed a blister and therefore stopped to get a plaster; which is why he is alive today. Too many incidents happened on this day for it to have just been a coincidence because when all the evidence comes together, it makes sense to say that God was with them helping them survive. More things like unexpected traffic which made people late for work and meetings scheduled elsewhere makes us believe God was there helping us all along.

The twin towers both stood up for half an hour which gave people on the lower floors time to escape from the burning building, and when the towers finally fell, they fell inwards which saved many people also. When this did happen, he was with all the people trying to help the victims. The firefighters, the police officers and the passers-by who got involved to try and help anyone they could; God gave them the strength to do this. So, on 9/11 God was everywhere, helping those who were affected by the 19 people who decided to turn away from him and doing everything he could to save lives.

 Now if you’re ever stuck in traffic, miss the bus or even get up late; the things that normally would annoy you, think to yourself ‘this is where God wants me to be at this very moment’. Next time something small makes you late or annoys you, remember God is there watching over you and everything is happening for a reason.

KD

Is evil and suffering really a challenge to our faith?

Is evil and suffering really a challenge to our faith?

Every single person on this earth, at some point in their lives will have experienced some form evil and suffering. Whether it is the loss of a loved one, or not achieving a mark you revised hard for on a test. Of course, everybody’s situations are different, leaving some people to possibly think, ‘why me and not him/her?’ or ‘what did I do to deserve this?’ however as Theists we know that we are not alone when we are faced with evil and suffering and can always turn to God which can act as a reassurance to us.

However, evil and suffering has been known to be one of the biggest challenges to belief in God and is described as ‘the rock of Atheism’ as it seems to contradict the characteristics we associate with God. When we ask ourselves the question ‘Is there a greater challenge to belief in God than evil?’ we can seem to struggle to find something else that challenges God’s existence this much. Many would say that if God was omnipotent, he should have had the power to create a world in which evil and suffering does not take place. If God was omnibenevolent, shouldn’t he love us too much to put us through the harshness evil can bring to our everyday lives? If God is omniscient, shouldn’t he know evil and suffering was about to take place and therefore stop it? These questions are serious challenges to belief in God as we refer to God as a loving father therefore he shouldn’t put us through suffering.

JL Mackie even produced an ‘inconsistent triad’ which states that we can have two of the following; God’s omnipotence, God’s omnibenevolence or evil and suffering. Considering that we know evil and suffering exists, this would cancel out one of God’s characteristics and if God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, is he really a God worth worshipping?

Even historic events such as 9/11 seem to work against the existence of God ‘In less than two hours Aquinas’ proofs of God were blasted, seared, choked with arid smoke and snuffed out forever along with more than 3000 lives now reduced to power in the rubble of ground zero’ Ross Mackechnie (a 9/11 survivor) as people could not cope with the idea that a loving God would let this happen and take the lives of so many.

However, I believe that instead of looking at evil and suffering as a challenge to theism, why do we not see it as something that enhances and strengthens our faith?

Using the Free Will Defence, which is taken from the fact both Iraneus’ and Augustine’s theodicies contained the concept that evil came from humans misusing their free will; we can strengthen our belief in God when faced with evil and suffering. Many people think of God as a responsible parent; one who wouldn’t let you stay out until 3am or wouldn’t let you do wreck less things without some form of punishment or lessons learned. I strongly believe that God helps us to learn from our mistakes: We would never touch a hot iron again if when we did the first time we got badly burnt? Or we would never drink heavily again if the first time we did this we got ourselves into a bad state? So it is in fact possible that God allows us to suffer so we can learn lessons and take something positive away from a bad situation. It all comes down to the idea that God does not give us a sheltered life, as we have to grow as people and to do this we must make mistakes.

‘If large scale horrors were not allowed, basically we would have a ‘toy world’ where things matter, but not much. It would be like an over protective parent’ Swinburne.

In response to Swinburne’s idea of a ‘toy world’ which I have to agree with, I believe that our accomplishments in life would not be so great if we didn’t have to suffer a bit for them. Take GCSE and A Level results for example, I know that when I received my GCSE Grades, I was a lot more thankful and happy for myself because I know I worked hard for many months to achieve them. God wants us to grow and develop as humans, not as people who are simply programmed to love him and have no free will, therefore we all experience suffering to actually bring us closer to God. If God created a world in which we were forced to love and obey him, would we really be free? God doesn’t want this sort of life for us; he wants us to grow and appreciate things more when they are not just given to us. Take climbing a mountain for example; would we enjoy the view as much if we didn’t struggle to get there? Would we still find the view breath taking if we flew to the top by helicopter? By allowing us to suffer God can actually give us a greater sense of accomplishment when we do tasks that require hard work and perseverance. God teaches us to work hard for things that we want giving humans a lot more substance that what we would have if things in life were just given to us with no hard work.

However, the Free Will Defence is not an excuse for evil; it simply states why it is there. Evil is not inflicted upon us for no reason. God gave us Free Will so we could choose to either follow him or turn away from him and can make decisions for ourselves with the idea that the wrong decisions teach us lessons; allowing us to grow as people. One can take evil and suffering and use that as a reason to not believe in God, however I think that evil and suffering can actually bring us closer to God and strengthen our relationship with him.

KF.

Can SItuation Ethics be seen as a good theory to follow?

Situation ethics was devised by Joseph Fletcher and is right or wrong actions depending on the situation. In situation ethics there are no universal moral rules or rights because the outcome of the action depends on the situation. It states that sometimes other moral principles can be set aside in certain situations if the idea of love is best served. Paul Tillich (a famous philosopher) said “Love is the ultimate law” this analogy is based on agape love meaning unconditional and the scholar Fletcher believed that by forming an ethical system based on ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ as this was taught by Jesus in the bible . Situational ethics is a teleological theory because it is concerned with outcome or consequences of the action being carried out. Sometimes in situation ethics the end can justify the mean but this depends on whether the situation is intrinsically bad. Fletcher believed that moral decisions made should be based on the quote ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ and that the theory / analogy does not only apply to religious people as every consequence can be good or bad. This type of ethics also requires the individual to genuinely care and want to do good and therefore simple rationality isn’t the human way to go. It also takes into account the overriding superiority of the actual human entity rather than the rules acting as the governing authority. The following are the working principles of situation ethics.

A strength of situation ethics is that is a teleological argument and this  means that the action can change according to the situation the person has been put in rather that being the same every time because teleological refers to the idea of relative morality. Fletcher also argues that the consequences are the most important element of the action because it can affect people/ the person. The action itself can be seen as unimportant as long as it brings the most loving outcome.

Situation Ethics put’s people before rules and this follows the working principle, Personalism. As Jesus said, ‘Sabbath was made for man not man for Sabbath’ meaning that the Sabbath day should be a time for man rather than just to follow strict rules. This is important as it prevents people being forced into following rules. Also the fact that people come first is something that most people would agree with and find preferential. This gives an override option for situations where rules do not seem appropriate. An example of this can be rape; a girl has been forced into sexual activity against her will. Fletcher would argue that abortion can be seen as the most loving thing for the girl. The family and the girl may feel it is the right thing to do even though they believe abortion is wrong. However, this can cause issues.

Situation ethics is relevant to both secular and religious beliefs. Fletcher based the theory on Jesus’ teachings, although the ethic requires no grounded belief in God.  The theory follows the fundamental principle of ‘love thy neighbour’ and many of the parables which demonstrate agape, preached by Jesus, such as the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’. It can also be said that Jesus taught the same flexible morality, ‘man was made for Sabbath, not Sabbath for man’.

Another strength of Situation Ethics, particularly in the ever-changing 21^st century, is that it is current and up to date because it is flexible and shows concern with producing the most loving outcome. Advancements have been made in medical science and are still being made for example, procedures such as stem cell research and genetic engineering may offer dilemmas for religious believers; they may agree that the foetuses have sanctity of life, and shouldn’t be used even if it helps people. However, Situation Ethics would say that it is acceptable, as long as it produces a loving outcome, helping and saving people. Where elements of Natural Law and other strict laws in religion may not directly address current issues, leaving decision making difficult, Situation Ethics stays relevant as it can always be applied to an individual case, always based on the outcome of agape love.

Situation ethics can be seen as independent, and this means  that you can make your own choices and do not have to restrict yourself to rules laid down by religious institutions which may be outdated and unsuited to today’s society and this type of decisions occur in everyday life.  This is good as it means that people do not have to feel pressured to make certain decisions which they may not want to and do not feel pressured to follow Biblical teachings, and they can decide what is best according to the idea of agape love (love for humanity) and this means ensuring the best outcome according to the situation. Situation ethics also avoids conflict of duty ass one experiences in absolutist systems. Where moral rules collide, situation ethics gives a way of resolving the conflict and this is Love.

A weakness of situation ethics is that you cannot always predict the long term consequences of actions. Therefore an action may have good intentions but it may still result in a bad outcome and, this can stop people from doing good as they fear the outcome. For example, Nina Rosenstand (a famous philosopher) gives the example of the neighbour who decided to turn on the heating in his friend’s house so it would be warm when he returned from holiday, accidentally set the house on fire. The neighbour’s intentions could be seen as good and therefore driven by love, but it failed to produce a loving outcome. This shows a slaw in situation ethics as the consequences of the actions can be difficult to predict. Also situation ethics can be seen as unsuitable for everyone because atheists and those of other faiths might not want to follow the example of Jesus.

A major weakness to Situation Ethics was the Church and its criticisms. The Church believed that strict rules like the Ten Commandments had been in place for so long that there was no need now to change them, as they contained wisdom which had been in place for thousands of years. These rules are necessary to keep order in the world, as many would argue that without rules we would descend into moral chaos. Some people in the religious sector criticised situation Ethics as they believe human beings couldn’t act without our emotions guiding our actions. Furthermore, they say that Situation Ethics isolates the Church because it allows people to make decisions independently, rather than turning to the Church for help.

Situation ethics is concerned with acting for the greatest amount of love and we could say that it will always be acting for good. However, it fails to take into account each person’s individual subjective nature. For example, one person may consider acting to save the life of a loved one to be the most loving thing, whereas another may think that euthanasia could be acting for the greatest love. This could also have the effect of justifying ‘crimes’ which one person may consider to be loving, but another might consider to be wrong  and this can be seen in one of the fundamental principles; Love is the only rule. The problem with this is that it allows the individual to do anything in the name of love – there are no rules to say that someone has done the wrong thing. each person can make a different decision in the same  circumstances to someone else and this shows that there is a big flaw in the ethical ideology of Situation ethics, showing it is not a practical ethic for today’s society.

Situation ethics is a good theory because it can be seen as universal, as it is a non-christian view. However, situation ethics allows people to abuse the idea of love. An alternative to situation ethics is Bernard Hoose’s proportionalism. He believed that situation ethics failed by not having any rules apart from acting out of love. Hoose’s combined situation ethics with natural law. This means it is not deontological in nature but it gives guidance to what to do in certain situations therefore, it does not leave each person as a moral decision maker that is considered to be isolated.

 

EO.

Just because its Christmas

Just because it’s Christmas

The Catholic Church has designated the four weeks preceding Christmas as Advent, a time to “prepare the way of the Lord” for His coming as our King and Saviour.

It seems fitting that Advent is the beginning of the liturgical calendar, for it is a season of spiritual preparation marked by an eager longing for the birth of Our Saviour Jesus Christ. There are age-old Advent practices, some of which are mentioned in this FAITH FACT, which will help children and families live closer to Christ. The practices are time-tested and prove. A family’s strong and living faith will become their heritage and a mode to reinforce the religious practices cantered in the liturgy.

“When there are empty mangers to fill with straw for small sacrifices, when the Mary candle is a daily reminder on the dinner table, when Advent hymns are sung in the candlelight of a graceful Advent wreath, children are not anxious to celebrate Christmas before time. That would offend their sense of honour. Older children who make Nativity sets, cut Old Testament symbols to decorate a Jesse tree, or prepare costumes for a Christmas play will find Advent all too short a time to prepare for the coming of Christ the King.” These are hopeful thoughts as we prepare to incorporate some of these liturgical activities into our home life during Advent to enable us to truly celebrate Christmas. It is a shame that many do not fast during Advent, because without a fast there can really be no feast at Christmas. Traditionally, all great feasts have been preceded by a time of fasting, which makes the feast itself more joyful. Sadly, Advent today has supplanted by "the Christmas shopping season," so that by Christmas Day, many people no longer enjoy the feast.. Fasting and other forms of penance, such as prayer and alms giving, help to purify our hearts and prepare us for the celebration of Christmas. The Church especially encourages participation at weekday Masses during Advent, because in the Eucharist we find the source and goal of our Advent preparation: Christ Himself, whose sacrifice reconciles us with God.

So it seems many Catholics change there lifestyle for 24 days in December, they pray more often seeking help and guidance as they put their needs second for the purpose of helping others, in order to strengthen their faith and as an act of kindness and goodwill, so surely these small acts performed make a huge difference on the world, this is why December is seen as a time of harmony and love. 

But, if our faith is strong enough to guide us through these 24 days of goodwill, then why don't we continue for the following 341 days? would is make the world a better place? in my opinion yes.

The simplest things can make the biggest difference, every Christmas at my school, in our religious classes we fill shoe boxes with gifts for a charity called Samaritan purse, this is a gift of love and gives hope to the developing world. The smallest item can put the biggest smile on a child's face. This is an example of helping others and making a difference, imagine if we could do this every month? image how many lives we could change?

God gave us Jesus as a gift, so that we could grow closer to God, and we should carry on the celebration and live out the teachings of the bible in every day that we live, as a thank you to god for giving us the greatest gift.

Faith and goodwill should be part of every day life, not just for Christmas.

A.S

Does the end always justify the means?

Utilitarianism is a theory that states an action which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is morally right. Jeremy Bentham, who devised this theory, said that this principle will help you come to the decision of whether an action is good or bad. Bentham saw pleasure as the ultimate goal for ethics. His aim was to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. John Mills developed this theory focusing on maximising the general happiness. Taking Bentham’s and Mill’s statements of utilitarianism into consideration, it asserts that any action can be justified as long as it brings about more pleasure than pain. This tells us that sometimes the end does justify the means. The ‘end’ being the outcome of our actions and the ‘means’ being the actions taken in order to reach this result. This phrase refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based only on the outcome, not on the action itself. 

If we followed this idiom, we would be acting on the idea that if you need a specific outcome, the way we get there is not important. Can the benefits of something, as the final result, outweigh the harm caused during the process? This is what causes disputes on whether or not we can justify the means by the end. Utilitarianism suggests that an action is morally right if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This suggests that the means (actions) are not important if the outcome produces the greatest good for the greatest number. We could say that this supports the idea that the ends do justify the means. However, in the process of reaching an aimed goal, there might be many damages produced, causing pain. Pain goes against the theory of utilitarianism as the idea is to minimise pain whilst maximising pleasure. Even if the outcome produces maximum happiness for many people, what happens to the people hurt in the process? There will always be a minority that are not satisfied as their needs are not met; which is a major flaw in the system of utilitarianism. 

There are many examples of this e.g. abortion. If a woman has fallen pregnant unintentionally for various reasons such as rape, it is not expected of her to keep the baby. It could be a very mentally challenging act if she was to give birth to, and raise the child. In this case, the blameless conclusion would be to abort this baby. However, the actions that cause the loss of the baby are seen as morally wrong. Therefore, just because the conclusion of a decision may be good, the actions that enabled this conclusion may not be so good.


AC

Is utilitarianism relevant in the 21st century?

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, meaning that it looks at the consequences of an action to decide whether that action is right or wrong. It generally relies on the principle of utility, which is a measure of how useful an action is. Utilitarianism is a relativist system as it does not provide fixed moral rules however, is flexible in a given situation.

Jeremy Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism in 1789 and he stated that the principle of utility will help a person to decide whether an action is good or bad. He believed in quantitative utilitarianism which is “the greatest good for the greatest number”. In other words, an action is right if it brings about the greatest good for the majority of people.  Bentham was a psychological hedonist; he was concerned with the role of pleasure and pain in decision making. He used the hedonic calculus to measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty and extent. Bentham also said that every situation is judged individually and every action is judged on its own merits (act utilitarianism).

John Stuart Mill developed Bentham’s theory and thought that searching for basic pleasure was an animal instinct, and that humans are capable of more than this. He believed in higher and lower pleasures; the higher pleasures, pleasures of the mind, being things such as education and the lower pleasures, pleasures of the body, being things such as food (qualitative utilitarianism). Mill had respect for rules that are formed to benefit society (rule utilitarianism).

The principle of hedonism (happiness) is very important and both Bentham and Mill argue that intrinsic good (the only thing that is good in itself) is happiness or pleasure. This supports the fact that utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century because it is echoed in the current educational climate, where “happiness” has been taught subject in many schools. Schools are encouraging their students to fulfil their higher pleasures (pleasures of the mind) in hobbies they offer to them such as different kinds of sport and art. Bentham is careful to balance out pleasure with pain when referring to the quantity of happiness that we achieve through our actions. His utilitarianism promotes selfless acts which discourage selfish acts such as lying or stealing, therefore it is showing that by choosing to act more morally with selfless acts we will be creating a better and happier environment for everyone. What brings humans happiness should be decided by looking at the consequences of our actions because it keeps everyone in touch with the day to day matters which is why utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century.

The principle of hedonism is a timeless principle as it reminds us that we should strive to achieve happiness whilst avoiding pain. We should work towards the greater good and overlook our individual differences. Bentham said, “The greatest good for the greatest number”. This could be put into action in governments of the 21^st century as it will always help to satisfy the needs of the majority which is the best thing a government can hope for in its country.  Although this may seem unfair as the minority is being “forgotten” it is, however, fairer long-term. If governments strive to make everyone happy all the time, it will become more likely that no one will end up happy. Utilitarianism brings about more happiness which is relevant in today’s society. Therefore, Utilitarianism is the only practical ethical system for governing large groups of people and it provides us with the most simple, yet powerful, ethical guideline which is to strive for happiness but only at the same time as minimising pain.

However, utilitarianism can also be seen as not being relevant to the 21^st century because by promoting happiness over other goods, it reduces morality to being simple. Morality is complex, challenging and torn between conflicting duties and interests that often bring about equal amounts of pleasure and pain. This means that there must be some other way of differentiating between what is considered right and wrong.

Some people may argue that happiness isn’t powerful enough to make people act in the 21^st century. People continue to carry out actions that cause more overall pain than happiness such as forcing sex on a person or the abuse and neglect of children. There needs to be punishments in place to discourage these kinds of actions. Therefore, many would say that Utilitarianism supports evil by placing the emphasis on the outcomes of an action rather than the action itself. Also, there must be more to life than achieving happiness and avoiding pain which therefore must mean that hedonism seems to go against our common sense.

Overall, I think that utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century because it is the only practical ethical system for governing large groups of people and it provides us with the most simple, yet powerful, ethical guideline which is to strive for happiness but only at the same time as minimising pain. 

H.D

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy comes from the Greek words ‘philos’, which means love, and ‘sophia’, meaning wisdom, therefore the word literally means ‘love of wisdom’, implying that through philosophy a person can acquire wisdom. As a matter of fact, commonly the general public believe philosophers, those who study philosophy, study fundamental problem such as existence of the universe and life, and moral values which is correct to a certain extent however philosophy itself does not contain information unlike science and various other studies, it is not a body of knowledge therefore by studying philosophy you are not inevitably entitled to knowledge. In fact it is often described as an activity where one asks philosophical questions such as ‘how was the world created?’ and ‘how ought we to live?’ and answers them by critically analysing previous conclusions made by others to these questions to determine an answer.

 

If we were to think philosophy as an activity, we could say that philosophy is a way of thinking to guide a person to think critically and open-mindedly so that they can answer philosophical questions well, and to think critically and open-mindedly means that a person must examine all evidence, including their own experiences, without being prejudiced or ignorant to other people’s conclusions to reach an unbiased and logical conclusion. Therefore through philosophy a person thinks independently and outside what they have been brought up to believe in, which means philosophy involves examining world-views, eliminating ignorance, deepening understanding and seeking reasoning to build convincing arguments where the truth is separated from the false which then allows a person to obtain wisdom. Philosophy also involves eliminating confusion, as those who study philosophy try to make sense through critical reflection so that they can develop clear definitions that is consistent and non-contradictory with reasons to justify their conclusion.

 

Philosophy can be separated into several subtopics: metaphysics which is the theory of reality, epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, ethics which is the theory of moral values, politics which is the theory of legal rights and government and aesthetics which is the theory of the nature of art therefore in each branch of philosophy different issues are addressed for example if one was to study metaphysics they would examine everything about reality. In philosophy, philosophers have different, contradicting views but the common aim is to gain the truth and unlike science where an scientific experiment can be carried out to determine the correct answer, in philosophy even the method for discovering the truth is an argument therefore philosophy is a study where one explores values, broadens experiences and learns to control their emotions and beliefs they have been taught to reach a conclusion as close as to the truth as possible.

 

In the past, questions that are raised by philosophy were answered by religion in reference to a higher authority (e.g. God). Philosophy of religion is concerned with questions regarding religion, which includes the nature and existence of God therefore philosophy of religion is very different from theology because theology automatically assumes that God exists. Philosophy of religion is mostly concerned with western ideas of God, therefore this includes the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Therefore issues raised concerning God in philosophy of religion refers to a being that is:   

• Masculine
• The only God (The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic)
• Immaterial therefore the being is made of spirit not matter 
• Omnipresent
• Omniscient
• Omnipotent
• Omnibenevolent
• Self-creating

A God that exhibits these characteristics is described the God of classical theism.

 

Philosophy of religion answers questions using valid, logical arguments and critically examining evidence therefore one could conclude that philosophy answers religious questions with the method of philosophy.

S.J.M.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School A-Level Religious Studies blog. We are embarking on an ambitious project to take it in turns to blog at least weekly on some aspect of our EdExcel A-Level course which covers both philosophy and ethics. 

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living" and careful reflection upon our lives and the world around us is an important part of our study of both philosophy and ethics. We hope this blog will help us in our understanding as we work towards both AS and A2 qualifications in this subject. Feel free to join in the discussion!

The RE Department

Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School, Upminster

Please keep all comments posted polite, respectful and constructive. Anything that is not appropriate will be removed.