I've been thinking about consequentialism. As I'm somewhat of a relativist, it's probably not surprising that I'm also an "end justifies the means" kind of girl. But I always have been...
My friend and I were talking recently about why each of us left the LDS church. I left ultimately because I didn't like the "ends" of mormonism - the fruits of the gospel and culture. My friend left because he didn't agree with the "means" of mormonism - the actions taken to establish that gospel and culture.
Honestly both of us dislike the means and the ends (understatement!)... and both of us came to the same conclusion (that we wanted to dissasociate ourselves)...but one aspect was particularly motivational when it came to accepting or rejecting the church. I accepted, and later rejected the church for consequential reasons (it fosters happiness...oh wait no, it destroys happiness!). He accepted, and later rejected the church for deontological reasons (it is pure and correct...oh wait no it is machiavellian and corrupt!).
I think that distinction is fascinating! How do each of us prioritize means and ends, and how do those priorities color our relationships with mormonism (or worldview of choice)?