4 ms·
That's a pretty utilitarian outlook: "if we value Z, and approach X gets Z more efficiently than approach Y, then we should take approach X". A lot of ethical s
by justinpombrio 8y ago
That's a pretty utilitarian outlook: "if we value Z, and approach X gets Z more efficiently than approach Y, then we should take approach X". A lot of ethical systems (e.g. virtue ethics) don't obey this rule. I wouldn't see any reason to expect the Mormons to obey it.
- sverige 8y agoThey won't. Much of the reason for their two-year missionary requirement is to solidify the "us vs. them" mentality at that critical age when young adults often abandon the faith they were raised with. The main strategy for growth of the Mormon church is still raising children as Mormon, retention of young adults, marriage within the church, procreation at higher than replacement rate.
- claudiawerner 8y agoAlso seems like a matter of instrumental rationality: >First, means to an end can be costly, or otherwise objectionable. Suppose that I ought to take a job in Alaska. One (sufficient) means is to fly there; another (sufficient) means is to take free passage on a merchant ship. But flying costs more than I would earn there. Presumably, I ought not fly. It may be said that I have some reason to fly, but that it is outweighed. This is an argument against Ought Sufficiency.