Ramblings on Utilitarianism, humanism, and religion

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I’m half-asleep as I write this, so keep that in mind. If I misunderstood one of the ideas I’m talking about, please feel free to correct me.

Also, I am, of course, not claiming to know philosophical fact. This is all just my opinion.

I am of the opinion that John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, outlines the best moral philosophy that mankind has ever come up with, or at the least, that has ever become widely known. That is to say, the most morally correct choice is that which most effectively minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure for the most people. One argument often used against this idea of utilitarianism is that one may not always have the facts, and as a result may make an incorrect, and therefore immoral decision. But keeping in mind that this philosophy is, in my mind at least, the absolute code of ethics, and that no human is omniscient, it is contrary to utilitarianism itself to expect human beings to make perfect decisions while drawing from an imperfect knowledge base.

And now we move on to humanism. I say “humanism” with a lower-case “h” because of the specific connotations of the word Humanism. By humanism, I mean the idea that morality can be determined without the necessity of a god or gods, and the holding of self-improvement to be valuable.

Finally, religion.

If we hold an ethical philosophy that works without the existence of any sort of supernatural beings, deities to worship, etc., does that mean that we are disregarding all religion as worthless, or even unnecessary?

Not really. Because there are people who seem to hold tightly to a certain belief no matter how much evidence they are given that their ideas are wrong, or at least not true in the literal sense that they believe in them.

If some people are more productive, healthy, happy members of society believing there is an omnipotent God that sent his son to die for their sins, so be it. If others are better able to take responsibility by believing they have to do things themselves, because there are no gods to call on for help, then that’s what works for them. The same goes for any other philosophy.

Forcing others to accept our own ways of viewing things often causes a great deal of pain, and at best it creates a small amount of temporary pleasure in ourselves.

2

If the religious individual in question, or religion in question, is assertive in the religious practice and such assertion causes question of potential pain and suffering of other people then we again find ourselves at a utilitarian complex whereby what the least amount of pain is, is not clearly seen.
On a mass scale, those that object religion are equally as pleasant and painful as those that are religious.

So utilitarianism cannot tell us whether or not it is best for us to leave people alone, as bothering them causes pain when those being bothered are potentials for causing pain due to their beliefs, or some hold as true.

Courtesy and general, “F$%k it, there’s no reason for trying to convert someone elses belief structure to my own when belief can always trump reason”, are capable of doing this though.