nce to God. These two ethical systems seem to be similar in this aspect of caring what happens to all people. Both Utilitarianism and the Judeo-Christian ethic take the focus off the individual and place it on others. The Utilitarian is aiming to bring about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. The Judeo-Christian ethic is God-centered with the commandment to truly love Him. This love places a person in his divine will. People operating in this system are also called to love others as themselves. Being in God’s divine will is the end by which love is the means. A person’s commitment is to God and his divine will. On the other hand, in Utilitarianism a person’s commitment is to pleasure. Another point of variance lies in the meaning of love and happiness. For Mills, happiness is the desired end regardless of the means. Thus there seems to be an absence of standards by which the means to obtain happiness are judged. If ten people would derive happiness by beating and robbing a man whose life affects no one, Utilitarianism seems to deem this ethical. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian perspective clearly sets standards on actions. The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself dispels such actions of beating and robbing others. Love as a commandment doesn’t always necessarily mean happiness for the greatest number of people. In the Judeo-Christian ethic discipline is often a part of loving someone. In Mill’s ethics discipline is what may happen to the minority to provide happiness for the majority. In the Judeo-Christian ethic discipline may involve the majority such as in the case of God’s disciplinary actions on Israel. In the process of forming a decision the Utilitarian must consciously weigh outcomes for the greatest happiness. This system places ultimate morality on the individual making the decision. This is in stark contrast to the moral authority found in the...
