Ethical Application of Religion, barring legality.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Now, barring legality, to what extent (ethically) could religion play a part of public facilities and institutions? For example, say the school day. Also, if one were to look at it from the perspective of an Act-Utilitarian-- -(prefernce or hedonistic, it does not matter), and the majority of the community wanted the funded institution to have a religious or prayer service before or after the start of the day for those interested, would it be ethical to do that even though SOME people who didn't want it would have to pay for it? If the goal is to maximize preferences/happiness, so long as you don't objectively hurt anyone or cause suffering, where would this lead and to what acceptability level?


Now, I know the government cannot get involved with religion unless there is an expressely secular concern first, but ethically, if a community wanted to pay for it via local taxes, and the majority "prefered" it and that maximised Utility, would that be an accepted ethical conclusion? This has been confusing me in that I personally wouldn't be in favour of forcing peole to pay, but then again, some ethical theories' conclusions are not always common-sense palatable. Utility is probably one of the most popular "rule breakers" according to Utilitas Journal, and Mill did say, Ethically, Religion can have some utility.



Hypothetically, if it really were to maximize preference or Utility, would you be in favour of it if it did no objective harms or long-term precendent setting damages that would be considered under a Rule perspective?

Note: the proposal doesn't suppose you have to force anyone to join, because that can easily be seen as a poor move from a Rule-based or motivational utility perspective.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: Sorry. I should add some secondary information, just in case not everyone is familiar with the particulars:

1. Preference utilitarianism

Preference utilitarianism is a particular type of utilitarianism which defines the good to be maximized as the fulfillment of persons' preferences. Like any utilitarian theory, preference utilitarianism claims that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences; when defined in terms of preference satisfaction, the best consequences can include things other than pure hedonism, like reputation or rationality.

2. Negative utilitarianism

Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Negative utilitarianism requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of harm for the greatest number. Proponents argue that this is a more effective ethical formula, since, they contend, there are many more ways to do harm than to do good, and the greatest harms are more consequential than the greatest goods.

3. Act utilitarianism vs. rule utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism states that we must first consider the consequences of our actions, and from that, make an appropriate choice that would then generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people involved. Rule utilitarianism, instead, goes further stating that we must consider the consequences of a rule instead (i.e. will it cause a slippery slope or other logical fallacy or ill deed), then follow the rule which would best yield the most happiness for the most amount of people involved.

[Darth Wong]

Predicting theoretical outcomes in social situations is dicey at best, which is why people often prefer to look at historical precedent. And the historical precedents for allowing church interference in state affairs are not encouraging.

As for the various types of utilitarianism (and various ethical codes in general), I don't see it as having to choose between them, but rather, using them all simultaneously, and counting up the "no" votes.

For example, if something is OK by act utilitarianism but deemed terrible by rule utilitarianism, then it's bad. If it's deemed terrible by both systems, then it's even more bad. If it's deemed OK by both systems, then it would appear to be OK. Same goes for positive vs negative utilitarianism; if one out of four systems says it's bad, then it's bad but not as bad as it would be if all four systems unanimously condemned it.

I don't think it's ever been possible to construct a single system which covers every scenario, nor should it be necessary to. Life is complex, and I don't really see anything wrong with having more than one ethical "litmus test" for the morality of an idea.