Abstract
In this paper, I argue for two theses. First, if Christianity is true, then morality should depend on the metaphysics of the afterlife. Second, if Christianity is true, then contemporary moral theory is mistaken. The argument for the first thesis rests on two premises. If rightness depends on an act’s effects on an individual, then—at least in part—it depends on the long-term effects on him. If rightness depends—at least in part—on the long-term effects on an individual, then it depends on the metaphysics of the afterlife. The argument for the second thesis rests on how heaven or hell swamp other considerations. By changing assumptions about the nature of heaven or hell, who goes there, and standard mathematics, we end up with different ethical theories. Some of these assumptions conflict with contemporary moral theory regarding killing, letting die, and saving.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
No data are used this paper. As a result, there is no data to make availale and no data to put into the data repository.
Notes
For classic discussion of the trolley cases, see Thomson, Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem (1986) and Thomson, The Trolley Problem (1985). It is unclear if Thomson supports threshold deontology rather than deontology.
How to understand averagist theories of the good is complex and controversial. See Hurka, Average Utilitarianisms (1982) and Hurka, More Average Utilitarianisms (1982). I have chosen what I think is the most plausible averagist theory.
For this taxonomy, see Parfit (1984).
For Christian support of the existence of heaven, see 2 Cor. 12:2–4 and Rev 22:5 (Book of Revelation). For the Catholic Church, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1026. For purgatory, see Catechism 1030.
ee, for example, Catholic Catechism 1035. I further assume that heaven or hell result from free choices. See, for example, Catholic Catechism 600.
See Beauchamp and Childress (2012).
See Williamson (2004).
See Hilborn (2000).
See Lewis (1946).
See Feinberg, Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life (1978).
For discussion of this assumption, see Nelson (1991).
For an interest-based justification of rights, see Kramer (1998). For an autonomy-based justification of rights, see Steiner (2000). There is an issue as to whether rights are justified by other things being equal or all things considered interest or autonomy. For an argument that both produces strongly counterintuitive results, see [].
There is an issue as to whether this is true phenomenologically as well as quantitatively. I set this issue aside as it does not affect my argument.
For the notion that the fecundity of the agent’s decision affects autonomy, see Feinberg (2003).
There is a problem here if, as I believe, increased or decreased risks do not have value. Rather only actual outcomes have value. Still, outcomes that are not actual, but can be, have counterfactual value. Let us set aside this issue here.
See Vallentyne, Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility (1993). For an attempt to avoid this issue, see Mulgan (2002).
See Vallentyne and Kagan, Infinite Value and Finitely Additive Value Theory (1997) and Lauwers and Vallentyne (2004).
On some theories, one does not merit heaven. Rather he prevents himself from being ineligible for it. If this is correct, please substitute this theory where I use ‘merit’ above.
Strict Kantians or natural law theorists might have such an intuition but argue that it does not cohere with more justified intuitions or arguments.
See Parfit (1984).
See ibid.
For Charlesworth’s view, see (Charlesworth, Bioethics in a Liberal Society 1993) and (Charlesworth, Don't Blame the ‘Bio’ — Blame the ‘Ethics’: Varieties of (bio) ethics and the challenge of pluralism 2005). For discussion of his view, see (Wong, et al., 2019).
I am very grateful to the extremely helpful comments and criticisms of this paper by Neil Feit, John Martin Fischer, David Hershenov, Philip Reed, and Travis Timmerman.
References
Buckareff, A., & Plug, A. (2005). Escaping Hell: Divine Motivation and the Problem of Hell. Religious Studies, 41, 39–54.
Cain, J. (1995). Infinite Utility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71, 401–404.
Charlesworth, M. (1993). Bioethics in a Liberal Society. Cambridge University Press.
Charlesworth, M. (2005). Don’t Blame the ‘Bio’ — Blame the ‘Ethics’: Varieties of (bio) ethics and the challenge of pluralism. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2, 10–17.
Feinberg, J. (1978). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7(2), 93–123.
Feinberg, J. (2003). Harm to Self: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Feldman, F. (2012). Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Hilborn, D. (Ed.). (2000). The Nature of Hell: A Report by the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals ACUTE. Paternoster.
Hurka, T. (1982a). Average Utilitarianisms. Analysis, 42, 65–69.
Hurka, T. (1982b). More Average Utilitarianisms. Analysis, 42, 115–119.
Kagan, S. (2012). The Geometry of Desert. Oxford University Press.
Kershnar, S. (2010). Hell and Punishment. In J. Buenting (Ed.), The Problem of Hell: A Philosophical Anthology (pp. 115–132). Ashgate.
Kvanvig, J. (2011). Destiny and Deliberation. Oxford University Press.
Lauwers, L., & Vallentyne, P. (2004). Infinite Utilitarianism: More Is Always Better. Economics and Philosophy, 20, 307–330.
Lewis, C. S. (1946). The Great Divorce. The MacMillan Company.
Mulgan, T. (2002). Transcending the Infinite Utility Debate. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80(2), 164–177.
Nelson, M. (1991). Utilitarian Eschatology. American Philosophical Quarterly, 28, 339–347.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Talbott, T. (1999). The Inescapable Love of God. Universal Publishers.
Thomson, J. J. (1985). The Trolley Problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.
Vallentyne, P. (1993). Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71, 212–217.
Vallentyne, P. (1995). Infinite Utility: Anonymity and Person-Centerness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73, 413–420.
Vallentyne, P., & Kagan, S. (1997). Infinite Value and Finitely Additive Value Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 94, 5–26.
VanArragon, R. (2010). Is it Possible to Freely Reject God Forever? In J. Buenting (Ed.), The Problem of Hell: A Philosophical Anthology (pp. 29–43). Ashgate.
Walls, J. (1992). Hell: The Logic of Damnation. University of Notre Dame Press.
Williams, B. (1993). The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality. In J. M. Fischer (Ed.), The Metaphysics of Death (pp. 73–93). Stanford University Press.
Wong, P., Bloor, S., Hutchings, P., Bilimoria, P., & Religions, C. (2019). Rights and Bioethics: For Max Charlesworth. Springer.
Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
DeGrazia, David, Thomas Mappes, and Jeffrey Brand-Ballard. Biomedical Ethics. 7. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2010.
Fischer, John Martin. Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Hurka Virtue, Value, and Vice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Kershnar. Total Collapse: The Case Against Morality and Responsibility. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018.
Kershnar, Stephen. "An Impossibility Proof for the Good." Unpublished Manuscript, 2022.
Kramer, Matthew. "Rights Without Trimmings." In A Debate Over Rights, by Matthew Kramer et al., 7–111. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kvanvig 1993 The Problem of Hell. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Van Liederkerke, Luc. "Should Utilitarians Bother about an Infinite Future?" Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (1995): 405–407.
Steiner, Hillel. "Working Rights." In A Debate Over Rights, by Mathew Kramer, N.E. Simmonds and Hillel Steiner, 233–302. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem." In Rights, Restitution, and Risk, edited by William Parent, 78–93. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.
Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes. 2. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing Company, 2004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kershnar, S. The Strange Implications for Bioethics of Taking Christianity Seriously. SOPHIA (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-022-00945-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-022-00945-w