Faith in E. M. Forster’s What I Believe Essay -- Forster

Faith in E. M. Forster’s What I Believe E. M. Forster’s â€Å"What I Believe† is interesting in that it reflects a moderated idealism. Throughout the essay, Forster will make a proclamation, such as rationality is good, and subsequently retreat half a step, in this case insisting on the continued necessity of faith. It is an interesting technique and demonstrates much of the complexity of his positions, and arguably those of Bloomsbury insofar as they are a whole. Particularly interesting are his fascination with faith, which forms the bedrock of the argument, and with personal relationships. Forster draws a distinction between â€Å"belief† and â€Å"Belief† in that while he does ascribe to the former, he distrusts the latter. â€Å"They [Christians] have Faith, with a large F. My faith has a very small one, and I only intrude it because these are strenuous and serious days, and one likes to say what one thinks while speech is comparatively free.†1 Forster’s faith, therefore, is not the Faith, or Belief, ascribed to in religion, rather he seems to have faith in things like free spe...

Explain the main features of the theory of Utilitarianism Essay

The theory of Utilitarianism takes its name from the Latin word Utilis, meaning ‘useful’. It was first developed by Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher and legal theorist of the 18th century. Bentham sought to produce a modern and rational approach to morality which would suit the changing society of the industrial age. This was also the era of the French and American Revolutions, and of the Enlightenment, so orthodox morality was challenged on many fronts. Utilitarianism may be regarded as a relativist, consequentialist and teleological system of ethics, prescribing no fixed moral rules and judging an action by its consequences or end result (Greek: telos). Bentham argued that one should maximise happiness for the majority (‘the greatest good for the greatest number’: Francis Hutcheson), a view which is known as the ‘Utility Principle’. Happiness was thus equated with moral goodness. This idea further identifies Bentham as a ‘psychological hedonist’, since he regarded humans as being primarily motivated by pleasure and the avoidance of pain. A contented society would be a good society. To bring reason and evidence to the field of ethics, Bentham then put forward what he regarded as a scientific or empirical process for making moral decisions, known as the ‘hedonic calculus’. This consisted of seven key criteria one must consider when making a moral choice: Intensity Duration Certainty Propinquity or remoteness (how close at hand pleasure falls) Fecundity (how likely pleasure is to be followed by more pleasure) Purity Extent (how many people it affects). Later in the 19th century, Bentham’s God son John Stuart Mill modified his theory. Mill was a leading politician and philosopher of his day, advocating radical and liberal causes such as the equality of women. He regarded Utilitarianism as an important but flawed approach to ethics. While Bentham had regarded all pleasures as ‘commensurate’ (they are all equal or equivalent), Mill distinguished between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures. Higher pleasures would be those which engaged the mind (e. g. music or poetry), but lower pleasures would be those which engaged merely the body (e. g.eating, sex). Mill developed the idea of ‘competent judges’: those who had experienced the full range of pleasures could discriminate between what is higher and lower. A good society would be refined and constructive in its pleasures, and so Mill avoided the charge that Utilitarianism is a system of base gratification. Another key distinction between Bentham and Mill lies in the difference between Act and Rule theories of Utilitarianism. Bentham proposed an Act Utilitarian approach, meaning that he treated each individual action separately, without any rules to guide the individual. Mill meanwhile proposed that one should make rules based upon the consequences which tend to follow from certain actions (e. g. stealing tends to cause pain, so we should have a rule against stealing). So, despite advocating the same underlying idea (the promotion of happiness), we can see that Mill and Bentham arrived at two very different approaches to morality, with Mill avoiding some of the more radical and controversial ideas put forward by Bentham. Evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses of the theory The strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism vary between different versions of the theory. The advantages of Act Utilitarianism are not the same as those of Rule; Mill’s outlook was very different from that of Bentham. Overall, however, the strengths of both forms are outweighed by their weaknesses. They are not convincing as ethical systems, and some other approach to ethics is required. An advantage of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is that it considers the consequences and happiness which result from actions; this seems a sensible approach to ethics which would find much support today. The theory is also flexible and easy to apply; it does not prescribe many hard rules and provides a simple method for decision making. The theory also enables tough decision making through its relativism (i. e. it would allow us to sacrifice individuals if it is of great benefit to society). The problem with Bentham’s theory however is that it is truly relativistic, so any conceivable action could be allowed (killing for the sake of pleasure, or ideology). It also enables the suffering of the innocent under a majority, despite obvious injustice. It further allows cruel or sadistic pleasure, since Bentham regarded all pleasure as commensurate (equal), a point noted by the philosopher Bernard Williams. Mill’s theory offers many advantages which get around the problems of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism. By distinguishing between the quality of pleasures, Mill rules out the possibility of sadism or evil pleasure (e. g. prison guards enjoying torturing an innocent victim). Also, by offering Rule Utilitarianism, Mill is stating that certain actions are explicitly prohibited because they tend to promote pain. So, he would not allow torture, no matter how much it was enjoyed. However, Mill’s theory lacks the flexibility of Bentham’s, which means that sensible rule breaking is no longer possible (an objection pointed out by R. M. Hare). One could not tell white lies, even to protect others. There is a further weakness in Mill’s idea of different qualities of pleasure: how can we judge what makes pleasure higher or lower? Surely this is a subjective matter, as taste varies from person to person. It might also be argued that the concept of a competent judge is vague, since it is not clear whether we can really identify such people in today’s society. Overall, the theories put forward by Bentham and Mill fail to provide a convincing or useful approach to ethics. On the one hand, Bentham’s views are strikingly relativistic, allowing any pleasure (even sadism). On the other hand, Mill’s Rule system lacks the flexibility to make sensible choices in difficult situations. It may be that some other and more modern version of the theory can overcome these problems, such as Welfare Utilitarianism (as supported by Peter Singer) or Two Rule Utilitarianism (as suggested by R. M. Hare). We could strike a balance between favouring firm moral principles and paying attention to significant consequences or the all-round wellbeing of society. Such a compromise offers a more promising approach to ethics than the classical forms of Utilitarianism.

Dónde solicitar perdón o permiso de inmigración I-601