Monday, May 12, 2008

Utilitarianism and the Christian ethos

More words.

We've talked a little about Utilitarianism and some of the problems that go with it. It's a subject that makes me want to rant a little, foam at the mouth and all that. After all, it's so fuzzy! But then, maybe that's why some people slip into it. Add a dash of relativism and the "good" you're seeking can be anything, especially in a Western mindset that has twisted freedom and personal autonomy into licence and narcissism.

Take the Wiccan commandment, for example: "An (if) it harm none, do as thou wilt." Now, I like commandments (especially commandments written in Elizabethan English!) but "harm" is a very fuzzy concept, and solidly consequentialist in its basis (another sign, by the way, of Wicca's newness on the world stage, all those carefully placed "thous" and "wilts" notwithstanding.) All of this leads to a case by case approach to morality that applies extremely vague ideas like Good and Harm, with a measuring stick of Consequence that we can never fully measure. You would need to be omniscient to fully know the consequences of any act.

Then there is the opposite of the Consequentialist approach, which is really just the principled approach. You begin with a set of principles like "All life is sacred" or "All men are created equal" and then simply apply them (okay, the application can be complicated and demanding.) People dislike doing this because it requires too much thinking, or maybe because operating from principles invites dangerous conversation, like where those principles comes from. Much easier to go with the fuzzy "do less harm than good" even if you can't properly define harm or good, much less quantify them.

Some people asked, after the post on Aristotle, how that really disproved or countered Utilitarianism. The answer is also a Christian answer, that good or ill lies in the nature of the thing itself and not merely in thinking it (though Catholic thought has room for the intent as well, as in accidentally killing for example.) The Christian thic comes from the Christian Faith, namely that there is a God who created the world out of love. He came down among us and died for our sins (more on that later) and has commanded us to live in love for our good and happiness. That seems easy, but look how it plays out and see how you might just be a Utilitarianism: If I kill one to save many, I am still a murderer. Don't ask how many; there is no sudden tipping point where 9 isn't enough but 10 means I can shoot the guy. It's always wrong (unless it's defensive, but let's assume an innocent victim for this discussion.)

That's Catholic. The individual life is sacred. More than that, so is your soul. Last time I talked about the Aristotelian idea that our actions slowly change our essence. Imagine that the essence we're talking about is not simply your psychology but your soul. Imagine for a moment that you have one (hopefully no struggle.) The Christian ideal is focussed on both this world and the next, neither at the cost of the other. Hence the Scripture: "What does it profit a man to gain the world if he lose his soul?" Hence also the Jewish proverb: "He who saves a single life saves the world entire." The single soul, every single soul is as important as anything. Every one.

Now that's pretty radical, you say. And it is. Christianity is only easy and self-satisfied if it isn't attempted but only glossed over. It was Chesterton who said that "the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

The Christian philosophy rejects measuring consequences as a means of founding morality for so many reasons. Consequences can't be measured. Humanity cannot invent any "Good" on its own and agree on it. Consequences, when they can be measured, allow the few to suffer so the many can be happy: that's tyranny. The Christian response to this is revolutionary, counter-cultural, exactly the sort of rebellion that so many young people are looking for. It is only a matter of stepping into it, adopting a different worldview, and exercising your human will. Hopefully some of you do.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Johnson, I agree with you when it comes to the flaws of utilitarianism. I shutter to think of a person that's a utilitarian and also a social darwinist (save this for another blog!)

Defining good or evil is something that we can see is a difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. Let's think for a second about capital punishment. If, as Mr. Johnson stated, we know that human life is sacred, how can anyone justify capital punishment? How can a Christian nation, such as America, tolerate capital punishment? I don't want to turn this into an American bashing session so I'll stop here.

What about those who are are innocent and are condemned to death? I don't want to go on a rant (a la Mr. Johnson) about the ills of capital punishment, but is it possible that an innocent person is wrongly convicted and put to death? Many instances of wrongly convicted people on death row are available, just check Amnesty International.

Anyways, just some random thoughts.

Viva free thought!