Classical theists reject utilitarianism by claiming individual rights cannot be sacrificed for aggregate welfare, yet invoke similar aggregate justifications for divine permission of suffering.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Aggregate justifications(as the type of reasoning classical theists use to explain God's allowance of suffering): Arguments that explain or defend something by pointing to benefits for the group or society overall, rather than focusing on individual cases.
Aggregate welfare(what consequentialist ethics prioritizes (competing with agent-relative restrictions)): The total well-being or happiness of everyone combined, added up together as one sum.
Divine permission of suffering(as the apparent inconsistency in classical theist arguments): The theological question of why God, if all-powerful and good, allows pain and evil to exist in the world.
Utilitarianism(One of Sidgwick's three methods of ethics): The view that an individual self-evidently ought to aim at the maximum balance of happiness for all sentient beings present and future, whatever the cost to herself; also called Universalistic Hedonism

Based on where you are in your exploration