The consistency of Bentham’s Utilitarianism with religious ethics

The goal of Christianity is arguably to get into heaven, which is infinite happiness. Arguably the goal of utilitarianism and religious ethics is thus the same, it’s just that Bentham doesn’t believe that there is a heaven so for him it is only the happiness and pain in this life which has moral significance whereas for Christians happiness and pain in this life is insignificant compared to the eternity experiences in the afterlife.

Bentham explicitly creates an ethical theory without reference to God or the Bible. His view that happiness is valuable does not derive from faith or the Bible. Furthermore, Theologians like Aquinas think the goal of good actions should be glorifying God, not getting yourself into heaven. So arguably the goals are not that similar.

Jesus seemed to act in a way which showed concern for suffering and happiness rather than ridged adherence to the rules of the old testament. This suggests Jesus had a consequentialist approach – rules could be bent or broken depending on the consequences for happiness. When asked whether the Sabbath had to be kept, Jesus replied ‘the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

Religious ethics seems deontological in that the Bible explicitly condemns actions rather than consequences. E.g. the ten commandments “Thou shalt not murder”. So perhaps Jesus felt there was some leeway with the rule about the Sabbath, but that doesn’t justify interpreting his as a consequentialist. In fact Jesus made the rules on killing more strict, by saying you couldn’t even have hatred in your heart for someone.

Christianity seems to value intention, such as doing things out of love, whereas Utilitarianism holds that only consequences are morally relevant.

Utilitarianism can indirectly value intentions for the good or bad consequences that good/bad intentions can have.

Valuing intentions indirectly is not the same as regarding them as having direct value in themselves, however.

The consistency of Kantian deontology with religious ethics

Two of the three postulates are religious; God and immortality. Furthermore, the goal of morality for Kant is the summum bonum, which is similar to the goal of Christian ethics and the idea of judgement and an afterlife in which those who did good actions receive a reward.

Kant arrives at this formulation through reason, not faith. Therefore even though it is similar to Jesus’ command in practice, the foundation for belief in it is very different. Kant believed that we should figure out ethics using reason, not by having faith in the revelation of the Bible.

Nonetheless that is not too dissimilar to Aquinas’ view that the natural law could be figured out by human reason.

However Aquinas also believes in the Divine and eternal law which require Faith. Kant’s rejection of faith as a foundation for ethics is arguably non-Christian.

Kant’s second formulation involving treating people as ends is arguably similar to loving your neighbour as yourself.

Kant’s first formulation of universalizability doesn’t seem similar to religious ethics and could be used by atheists.

Furthermore, Kant believes on acting without emotion. Arguably this is inconsistent with acting based on agape/love?