Utilitarianism: a Couple of Wrinkles.

[2ndRateMind]

Wrinkle 1) You are to imagine you are a doctor. You have four patients. Patient 1) needs a heart and lung transplant. 2) needs new kidneys. 3) needs a new liver. 4) needs a pancreas. A perfectly fit individual arrives for his annual flu jab. Tissues all match. According to 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' principle, your duty is clear. You should use him as the source for the required organs, since the happiness of the four outweighs the happiness of one. So the first idea is to amend the happiness principle so it reads as follows: One should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number provided no human rights are violated.

Wrinkle 2) Though we are happiness seeking animals, happiness is a fleeting state. And why should we not just get stoned and stay stoned? So wrinkle 2 replaces happiness with a concept of well being, that being longer lasting and more comprehensive.

So our happiness principle now reads:

One should seek the greatest well-being of the greatest number, provided no human rights are violated.

Any comments? Does this formulation work for you?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Behold]

One should seek the greatest well-being of the greatest number, provided no human rights are violated.

You should seek the one who gave Himself for the world, so that the entire world can be forgiven of all sin.
He is the greatest provider of the greatest Love ever given, and He is given by God, because "God so loved the world that He Gave".. Jesus to you, to me, to this world, so that we can be forgiven and accepted by God into His eternal heavenly family.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, I'm talking ethics. You're talking religion. They are not synonymous conceptions. Which is fine, and it means one can pursue neither, either, or both.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Behold]

Well, I'm talking ethics. You're talking religion. They are not synonymous conceptions. Which is fine, but it means one can pursue neither, either, or both.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Christianity is not a religion, and its not a set of ethics.

If you want that, see the Buddha, or Muhammed, or Islam or Scientology, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.

If you want to have peace with God, then you go to the Son.
See the Cross for an update to the only way there.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Christianity is most certainly a religion. With it's own ideology and containing it's own set of ethics. I happen to think it the most accurate religion so far devised, but that is my personal conviction, and I'm quite content to leave it that way.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Behold]

Christianity is most certainly a religion. With it's own ideology and containing it's own set of ethics. I happen to think it the most accurate religion so far devised, but that is my personal conviction, and I'm quite content to leave it that way.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Wanted to follow up..

Religion : this is man made. Its basically man trying to be like God, or its man trying to become God, or its Man trying to get rid of God by idea/philosophy/science.
In all cases, its really the same situation..... its Man who has created some type of self effort or man created belief system, (to try to become)....=based on following it.

CHRISTianity, is God coming to earth as a human......virgin born, to reestablish spiritual relationship with Mankind, based only on The Cross of Christ

Notice that those are not related.
CHRISTianity, is not a religion.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm.

Religion: 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.'
Christianity: 'the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.'

I should think you would have tough time finding supporting evidence that Christianity is not a religion, based on the ordinary usage of these words.

Best wishes, 2RM