Just a short correction to a former post.
Consequtialism is focused on consequences, not "ends". Utility is focused on "ends".
Consequentialism is a form of responsibility for outcomes, while utility is the focus of what is desired as ends.
What is desired sometimes can be dependent on hedonism while other times it is evaluated on virtue.
I think consequentialism cannot be "fair" in the real world, because how do we determine who is responsible for what, or when a society has agreed upon certain actions, or choices? Is leadership then, to be held solely accountable to such choices, that have consequences on others?
As to utility, hedonism should not be an ultimate end in life, but virtue is hard to define or form for another, unless the society values personal choice as to value. Otherwise, utlity ends up being a way to force a particular "form" of virtue upon another. This is a form of co-erciveness in the name of "character training"!
Virtue has to be understood within the context of the individual's values and choice and not an outside "form". Virtue is about innate gifting and development, not controlling another's "outcome". The "outcome" will result whenever there is a focus on the person and their particular personal choice of "ends".
Showing posts with label fairness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fairness. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A Critique of "Evil" in a Sermon
It is Easter. Many find this the time to celebrate "hope", but the pastor's sermon was on "the cross", dying, and fruitfulness. Several times he referred to "except a grain of wheat fall in the ground and die, it remains alone"....I imagine his intent was to encourage those who face "evil" that this was a way to produce fruti in one's life.
A grain falling in the ground to die is an agricultrual way to say that our lives are meant to be "given away", which is a fact of anyone's life. It is just "what is the "end" to be for one's life. That is a personal choice. But, he had ominous tones of life being taken, as Jesus' life was. Remember last Sunday's sermon was on "Stolen Identity". He encouraged us to see evil in 'spiritualized terms" of "satan" or the "devil", while suggesting that we were responsible for our sin and must not define it any other way. Nor should we rationalize what we do wrong. This was confusing to me.
I sat there thinking to myself that blaming "satan" was not "taking responsibility(as if any rational person really believes in a "real" person named Satan. I thought the Church had criticized the view of holding two equal powers as heresy, anyway.) I thought that possibly this was a way to dispel responsibility for actions that are no more than horrendously offensive. He attempted to describe war escalation. "Satan" was the way of "scape-goating" evil, and producing "solidarity" with one's "enemy, the one responsible for the "sin". It was a confusing message to me. And it sounded as if he was trying to convince himself that this all was true.
I find that whenever we set out to pre-determine another's action, response, or choice, then we are headed for disaster. And pre-determination is highly problematic morally. I was just reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls today. He argues that there must be a equal liberty for justice to prevail. This is what our Constitution is based upon. We value the individual's right of self-determination. "We hold these truths, to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights...." Justice and fairness is ruling by "consent of the governed". I guess these rules don't apply when it comes to 'religion"....
A grain falling in the ground to die is an agricultrual way to say that our lives are meant to be "given away", which is a fact of anyone's life. It is just "what is the "end" to be for one's life. That is a personal choice. But, he had ominous tones of life being taken, as Jesus' life was. Remember last Sunday's sermon was on "Stolen Identity". He encouraged us to see evil in 'spiritualized terms" of "satan" or the "devil", while suggesting that we were responsible for our sin and must not define it any other way. Nor should we rationalize what we do wrong. This was confusing to me.
I sat there thinking to myself that blaming "satan" was not "taking responsibility(as if any rational person really believes in a "real" person named Satan. I thought the Church had criticized the view of holding two equal powers as heresy, anyway.) I thought that possibly this was a way to dispel responsibility for actions that are no more than horrendously offensive. He attempted to describe war escalation. "Satan" was the way of "scape-goating" evil, and producing "solidarity" with one's "enemy, the one responsible for the "sin". It was a confusing message to me. And it sounded as if he was trying to convince himself that this all was true.
I find that whenever we set out to pre-determine another's action, response, or choice, then we are headed for disaster. And pre-determination is highly problematic morally. I was just reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls today. He argues that there must be a equal liberty for justice to prevail. This is what our Constitution is based upon. We value the individual's right of self-determination. "We hold these truths, to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights...." Justice and fairness is ruling by "consent of the governed". I guess these rules don't apply when it comes to 'religion"....
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Politics, Fairness, and Representation
Politics is the domain of campaigning for power. Politics disregards the other side's interest as they are out to win. The Campaign and the partisanship is what we have come to expect in any political campaign. But, what are the results in our democratic form of government?
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
