Introduction
Human beings encounter diverse challenges and obstacles that could affect their goals and force them to change their philosophies of life. Metaethics has emerged as a powerful field that presents evidence-based concepts for examining moral issues and addressing them from an informed perspective. Depending on the existing situation and the intended goals, people will embrace diverse ideas to transform it and relate positively with others. Utilitarianism is a unique ethical concept that encourages moralists to focus on actions and decisions that could maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. This paper will present a detailed analysis of utilitarianism theory and contrast it with a Christian ethic to explain why the latter is stronger in addressing the issue of suicide from an ethical perspective. This applied ethics problem affects many citizens in different parts of the world. The intended conclusion to defend in this discussion is that a Christian ethic is a better model that human beings should take seriously to overcome the ethical questions and challenges they have to go through.
Comparative Analysis
Human beings rely on ethical guidelines and values to make evidence-based decisions that could guide them to overcome most of the challenges the encounter in life. Christian ethics and utilitarianism still remain some of the two common models that different people apply in various situations. Although these frameworks are classified under metaethics, the outstanding fact is that they still have unique similarities and differences that analysts need to take into consideration. First, utilitarianism could be studied as a teleological approach whereby the primarily focus is on the targeted action and the possible outcome. It goes further to consider ideas and undertakings as desirable if they have the potential to present the “greatest good” to more individuals or participants. However, Christian ethics is founded on deontological ideas since it avoids the use of preconditions to guide people into the right direction.
Second, utilitarianism encourages individuals to focus on their desire to pursue pleasure and consider superior actions to overcome pain. This model could be studied using Hedonic calculus whereby the ultimate aim is to remove possible sources of suffering. When this outcome is possible, more stakeholders would be in a position to determine whether the intended action is bad or good. On the other hand, Christian ethics guides people to model or formulate philosophies of life that are in accordance with the teachings and life experiences of Christ. They should go further to consult different passages from the Bible and learn what ought to be acceptable or not.
Third, utilitarianism emerges as a metaethical principle that encourages people to act in such a way that they are free to consider or focus on the targeted ends. This allowance becomes challenging since some individuals or communities could be encouraged to pursue what is wrong while viewing it as the most plausible or desirable initiative to undertake. For example, a society or community that practices cannibalism would vote and view the practice as acceptable since it meets the demands of the greatest majority. However, a Christian ethics would oppose such a move since the ultimate aim of human life is to fulfill God’s work or mission on this planet. These differences explain why some individuals would be keen to consider one model over the other to achieve their aims.
Despite the above dissimilarities, it is evident that the two models have some commonalities that make them applicable in different settings. For instance, they both involve the idea or practice of engaging in mental judgment to justify specific actions as acceptable or not. Under the Christian ethics, believers will have to follow their conscience effectively and seek moral guidance. They will receive the Holy Spirit, be saved by God’s grace, and start to view actions from the right perspective. This form of guidance and the desire to follow God’s commandments will ensure that more Christians remain ethical and do what is right to overcome challenges that might emerge. Similarly, the Hedonic Calculus associated with utilitarianism appears to follow a similar principle whereby individuals could justify a specific action and determine whether it is ethical or not.
More scholars and analysts still believe that these two moral theories guide majority of the people to make informed decisions about specific issues and actions. For instance, McQuilkin and Copan indicate that they all belong to the field of metaethics and encourage people to rely on their past experiences, observations, and learning to promote what is moral in nature. Generally, the models encourage individuals to focus on the best strategies to solve most of the existing challenges in their communities and do what is right and acceptable to most of the people in the society. In most of the cases, the application of the two theories tends to converge to guide and encourage more individuals to pursue their aims diligently.
After considering the above differences and similarities, the reader realizes that the Christian ethics appears to be more convincing and stronger. Several arguments could be outlined to explain why this ought to be the situation. The first consideration is that a Christian ethics relies mainly on conscience and God’s teachings to do what is right and that which will not violate or undermine the wellbeing of others. Utilitarianism would rely on the hedonic principle or calculus to consider an act depending on its ability to deliver maximum happiness for all. This approach means that some of people or regions could identify a specific misbehavior as desirable or appropriate if majority of them support it.
The second aspect that analysts could take seriously is that a Christian ethics does not consider the goals of the majority. Instead, it relies on preconditions that are intended to promote what is good for all. The Bible and other religious books also become powerful sources of information and ideas for those who want to act in an ethical manner. When more people take these descriptions into consideration, chances of pursuing what is moral in their respective communities will increase significantly. Additionally, the theory goes further to encourage Christians to read spiritual books and other materials that could strengthen their moral foundations. Consequently, they will become better people who can change the world and support God’s purpose on earth.
Application
Suicide has remained a major problem that continues to affect humanity. It is “one of the leading causes of death in our society and is often associated with psychiatric problems”. Analysts and scholars have been studying it from different perspectives, including philosophy, ethics, psychology, and Christianity. In some of the developed economies and societies, many people have considered the issue of personal autonomy to explain why the malpractice could become acceptable. Some individuals have gone further to rely on communal ideologies and values to guide decision-making processes. Despite such viewpoints, Liégeois and De Schrijver still acknowledge that suicide is a malpractice that results in the destruction of human life and communal damage. Some groups and scholars acknowledge that people should be allowed to make decisions regarding their bodies and lives without coercion. These issues explain why the question of ethics remains troubling and makes it hard for more individuals to solve it effectively. The increasing number of suicide cases reported in different parts of the world should encourage human beings to consider new ways to understand and attack it using moral arguments.
Despite the divergent views and opinions associated suicide, the Christian ethics emerges as a powerful concept or model that can encourage and make it possible for people to make deliberations that are valid and capable of addressing it. For instance, the Christian worldview begins by describing how God created man in His image. When a person thinks of committing suicide or allowing the process, he or she would be reminded of this reality and how it is against God’s wishes. The worldview also encourages people to protect what God has created since it is part of the wider universe. Every object or creature on the universe would exist to glorify Him. This knowledge explains why decisions and actions that seek to damage or terminate life would be erroneous and unacceptable.
The practice of seeking God’s guidance or intervention is promoted under Christian ethics to take people closer to their ethical goals. Due to the nature of this model, individuals are taught about the complex journey of life and how it is associated with numerous challenges and pains. However, believers need to stick to their knowledge and faith to overcome this tragedy. The Christian ethics model encourages people to seek support and guidance from their religious leaders to promote a better and desirable life. They will benefit from God’s guidance and healing to overcome some forms of suffering that could trigger suicide. Some of these pains could be physical, spiritual, mental, or emotional in nature. When Christians consider this aspect, they will find it easier to appreciate and view suicide as an immoral practice that could be addressed through God’s guidance.
The teachings of the Bible and the presented commandments explain how and why human beings are required to protect life by all means. The Christian ethics model condemns all actions that could result in death, such as suicide and abortion. People need to consider these ideas to avoid making decisions that would be against such guidelines. With the power of this theory, individuals will realize that life belongs to God and they need to use all means at their disposal to protect it. Such achievements will prepare them to become part of His kingdom and overcome the obstacles and challenges associated with human life.
Despite the nature of these arguments, some people would be opposed to the presented argument and view utilitarianism as the best model or theory for analyzing the morality of suicide. They can indicate that this meta-ethics theory is strong and capable of encouraging people to rely on reasoning to overcome the issues and actions that do not result in happiness. One of the outstanding observations is that utilitarianism would succeed in treating suicide as immoral since it results in death and does not meet the demands or happiness for the greatest number of stakeholders. This attribute makes it a powerful or reliable model for addressing a wide range of ethical issues many people have to experience in their daily encounters.
These aspects could make Christian ethics less convincing and inadequate to analyze the validity and ethicality of suicide. However, this model is worth supporting since it relies of religious reasoning and does not focus on the level of happiness. The application of Christian ethics encourages people to rely on the existing worldview to understand prime reality and consider new ways to support and be part of God’s creation on earth. Such ideas would guide and encourage more people to overcome the challenges associated with suicide. These arguments are, therefore, essential and capable of guiding individuals and Christians to solve most of the ethical dilemmas they encounter in their lives.
Conclusion
The above discussion has revealed that utilitarianism and Christian ethics are powerful frameworks that could guide people to make informed decisions to address their moral questions and issues. While the two have unique similarities and differences, the analysis has identified the latter as more pragmatic and reliable to address a wide range of ethical challenges, including suicide. In conclusion, a Christian ethic should become the most preferable model that human beings need to take seriously to overcome the ethical questions and challenges they have to go through and place suicide within its proper context as an immoral decision.
Bibliography
Je, Lin. “The Patient Suicide Attempt – An Ethical Dilemma Case Study.” International Journal of Nursing Sciences 2, no. 4 (2015): 408-413.
Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing, 2017.
Liégeois, Axel, and Stefan De Schrijver. “Christian Ethical Boundaries of Suicide Prevention.” Religions 9, no. 1 (2017): 30-38.
McQuilkin, Robertson, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom. 3rd ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.