Sunday, December 5, 2010

A Christian Evaluation of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and his protegee, John Stuart Mill. Ethical theories deal with the reasons which justify moral rules, and for Bentham and Mill, the moral worth of an action could be determined by how much happiness or pleasure it produced. The roots of utilitarianism can be seen, therefore, in ancient hedonistic philosophy, as developed by Democritus and Epicurus. Democritus identified the supreme goal of life as "contentment'. Epicurus believed that the goal of life was to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear and pain, though he advocated a simple life of abstaining from bodily desires, which gives quite a different flavour to hedonistic views.

Utilitarianism, like hedonism, bases itself around the contrasting experiences of pain and pleasure, and puts these at the centre of human experience. The moral worth of an action should be judged, according to Bentham, by the 'greatest happiness principle'- whatever brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the morally right action to take in any given situation. Bentham wrote that mankind is 'under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure', though Mill made some distinction between higher and lower pleasures: 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.'

There is no doubt that utilitarianism remains one of the most influential ethical theories affecting society today- one could argue that most democracies are based around utilitarian principles. As a major ethical theory, utilitarianism has been criticised and evaluated by many different philosophers and ethical writers, both secular and Christian. One of the major criticisms of the theory lies in the fact that it is teleological- based on the consequences of an action, which are in the future and impossible to predict with certainty. GE Moore argues that it falls into the naturalistic fallacy, because the theory assumes that goodness and pleasure are the same thing. This is not always the case. Finally, Ayn Rand points out the danger of utilitarian followers making ethical decisions based on nothing but 'emotional whims'- hardly a desirable ethical standpoint.

But in order to make a Christian evaluation of this theory, we must firstly take its guiding principles and compare them to God's values as articulated in Scripture. Logical criticisms of a theory have their place, but as Christians we are not simply concerned with whether utilitarianism is logically flawed or not. At its core, utilitarianism expresses that man is chiefly concerned with a desire for pleasure, and that pleasure is the nature of goodness. This is far more reflective of the Bible's definition of sin, than it is of the Bible's definition of man's true purpose and what goodness is.

If we examine Genesis 1, we notice that 'good' is a key word, repeated throughout the poetic pattern of the narrative: 'And God saw that it was good.' What does the word 'good' mean in this context? How does the Bible define it? The central teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 is that God creates the universe with a clear order and purpose. God rules over His creation -after all, He spoke it into being with just words- and places man on the earth to 'Rule over... every living creature' (1:28). The universe is in absolute harmony. Therefore 'good' is associated in the Bible with the person of God Himself -His creation is good because He is good- and with every being in its rightful place, under God. God gives Adam and Eve a rule (not to eat from the tree of knowledge), so from this we see that a truly happy state is not one without rules and without God. Adam and Eve live in paradise because they live under God's rule. The final verse of chapter 2 -'The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame'- emphasises their 'goodness' and happiness. They have nothing to be ashamed of.

The 'goodness' of God's creation quickly comes under threat. In Genesis 3, the serpent tempts Eve to doubt God's words. He tells her she will 'not surely die' from eating the forbidden fruit, and tells her that she will be 'like God, knowing good and evil', if she takes it. Again the word 'good' becomes very prominent. The knowledge of 'good and evil' is desirable for Eve, and she sees that the fruit 'was good for food'. The narrative deliberately uses this key word to emphasise the deception that Eve falls under. The fruit is not 'good'- as soon as they eat it, they experience shame, and quickly work to cover their nakedness. They hide from God, and they are punished for their disobedience. The whole of creation is fractured and fallen because of the fall of man: 'Cursed is the ground because of you' (3:17).

According to these first chapters of Genesis, man's desire for pleasure and to set his own moral rules is at the very heart of sin and our fallen nature. Eve listened to her appetite, not to God's word. Eve and Adam rejected God's rule and decided they wanted to make up their own rules, and know about good and evil for themselves. However, they discovered that only God can define what is good and what is evil. They instinctively knew that their disobedience was evil- why else would they have hidden from the One who created them? In trying to assert that taking the fruit was good, they only discovered that it was sin. They couldn't go against God's definition of good and evil.

Utilitarianism has a worrying correlation to this story of Eden. In creating the 'greatest happiness principle', not only does the theory pander to man's inherent selfishness and desire for pleasure, but it gives man an authority which is not rightfully his: to determine the morality of an action. An action is good if God says it is, and if God says it is not good, no amount of logical argument or ethical theorizing by man will change this. This is portrayed clearly throughout Genesis- after Adam and Eve's attempt to set their own rules, Cain murders his brother Abel and discovers he cannot get away with this. Men begin to increase in number and in sexual immorality, pursuing pleasure, and God judges them with the flood. Men decide to build a tower for their own glory, and God scatters them all over the earth. There is a pattern of man's rebellion, and God's judgement upon them, but there is always a note of God's mercy or grace too. God saves Noah and his family, and God chooses Abram to make a covenant with him and his descendants forever.

By Genesis 6, the Bible clearly establishes the fallen nature of man: 'every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil all the time' (6:5). This fallen nature, this total depravity, renders us unable to discern what is good, and equally unable to actually do what is good. Jesus described it as slavery to sin: 'everyone who sins is a slave to sin... if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.' (John 8:34-36) He also taught that 'out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit' (Mk 7:21). Paul continues this teaching in Romans 1, establishing that since the creation of the world, God's power is clearly displayed, and men are without excuse when they exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship created things rather than the Creator (v 25). The picture is clear: men know there is a God, but they don't want to acknowledge Him. They want to live life their own way. But this brings God's judgement upon them. Utilitarianism simply doesn't acknowledge man's inability to keep to his own moral standards, let alone man's accountability to God for his actions on earth.

Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to man. In His grace, God revealed Himself and His will to man over the years- because we would never have known what is 'good' otherwise. The covenant with Moses and the Law at Sinai clearly show a God who makes His will known to the people, but the people are unable to keep His commandments. Even after receiving the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone, Moses comes down the mountain to witness the people worshipping a golden calf. The whole of the Old Testament, and its story of Israel's exile and return, leaves us in no doubt as to the fallenness of mankind and our inability to obey God's laws.

The Bible teaches, then, that we need God to reveal what is good to us, and even then we do not have power within ourselves to obey. This is why Jesus Christ was sent into the world. He was the only man to never sin, to never break God's word, and He died as a sacrifice to make atonement for our sins ('by His wounds we are healed' Isa 53).

The Bible teaches that God has man's best interests at heart. The whole story of God's salvation plan clearly illustrates that He is a God of compassion, slow to anger and rich in love (Ps 103). But it is in eternity, in the new heavens and the new earth, that we will experience a life with no suffering (Rev 21). On earth, we have no right to expect a life free from pain and suffering, because of the model of Christ. Peter calls Christians to embrace suffering for doing good (note that what is good is certainly not equatable with what is pleasurable), because 'To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.' (1 Pet 2:21) The Biblical view of life on earth is not that we should seek pleasure and avoid pain, but that we should imitate Christ. Christ's death on the cross, followed by His resurrection glory, provide a pattern for our own lives: we will suffer, die, and then be raised at the resurrection for an eternity of bliss.

Jesus made it clear to His followers that the world would reject them (John 17). If you seek to follow God's way of life, you will be persecuted (2 Tim 3:12). But the glory of eternity that awaits us make our suffering on earth worth while (1 Pet 1). Whilst on earth, we must seek to obey the clear commands of God in Scripture (a prescriptive approach to making ethical decisions), whilst also seeking personal guidance from God through prayer and the Holy Spirit, particularly for choices which Scripture does not make clear for us (a relational approach). As William Paley wrote: 'Whoever expects to find in the Scriptures a specific direction for every moral doubt that arises, looks for more than he will meet with.' However, the answer is not to form a Christian version of utilitarianism, as Paley did in 'Moral and Political Philosophy' (1785). Although there is some truth in his identifying a motive of 'the expectation of being after this rewarded... or punished', the danger is that this leads to man trying to win God's favour and earn his own salvation by his own works of 'goodness'. We must trust that our righteousness comes from Christ, not ourselves ('He made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God' 2 Cor 5:21). Then in response to God's grace and salvation, we should seek to live our lives for His glory, not our own, to 'make our calling and election sure' (2 Pet 1).

10 comments:

Unknown said...

Your argument is surely punctured by the Westminister catechism:

"What is the chief end of man?"
"To glorify God, and enjoy him forever."

Of course, John Piper would have us replace the 'and' with a 'by', and add in an extra "ing"

This then makes Christ's sacrifice an utterly wonderful utilitarian action?

Philip Davies said...

Dear Sophie,

The response as promised and I apologise in advance for the inevitable length of reply that you are to receive...

First of all, I would like to start as you ended - we should "seek to live our lives for His glory". This, I proffer, is the starting point for a Christian ethical theory. As the penny catechism says, God made us to know, to love, and to serve Him in this life and to be happy with Him in the next. The question of an ethical theory, then, is how does one know, love and serve God?
Utilitarianism as put forward by Bentham is to say that, in a given situation, one ought to do the thing that will promote the most pleasure. This, although perhaps too simplistic, is intuitively problematic, as our minds may wander to libertines and such like. Hence we have adaptations of what it means to be a utilitarian.
Interestingly, I do not believe J. S. Mill to be a utilitarian at all – he is described as such, but I believe this to be a misnomer – J. Mill, his father, on the other hand, was certainly. J. S. Mill adds not only higher and lower pleasures to the mix, but also another critical factor, which is a moral evaluation of ‘harm’ – Mill’s harm principle, which although centred around what the power of the state should be, says that ultimately all actions that cause harm can be prevented by law. Now, Mill is not a fan of governmental intervention if at all possible, and so we can be sure that ‘harm’ should be considered an evil by him. Harm, however, is not the antithesis to pleasure – I can break your window and, Mill recognises, that is wrong not only if I hurt you in the process, or even more simply, I can steal a penny from you, and that, more than likely, if you are rich enough, will cause you no detriment in pleasure. It is still wrong. So, it is overly simplistic and indeed actually factually wrong to class Mill as a utilitarian without significant qualification! It is quite understandable that he should be so labelled given that he wrote Utilitarianism, but I think this is just a misappropriation of the term, if we are considering a more Bentham orientated theory in the first place.

Philip Davies said...

[Mill would argue I am sure, that the harm principle was actually only a complicated form of the utilitarian position. This is defensible and understandable, however, he is¬ left open to the attack that he is just not being a strict utilitarian, who should not be worried about harm when considering an action, even if it will bring about the same results, because it is pleasure that is to be maximised.]
Now, you bring the criticism of Rand that what this comes down to is that ethical decisions (which we must remember are just questions saying “What should I do?”) are decided by ‘emotional whims’. This, I believe, is a criticism that is made obsolete by a look at the distinction made in choosing whether to be an act- or a rule-utilitarian.
An act-utilitarian says that, for an agent to act well in any particular situation, they must consider all the consequences of any possible action, and then do the one that promotes the most pleasure. A rule-utilitarianism says that what should be done by a sensible agent is to consider which rules will, in general, or most of the time, or in all expected occasions (or even perhaps expectable occasions?). I hope that makes the distinction. Certainly most people would instinctively choose the first, I think, but then come to the second, for imagine having to determine all the possible outcomes and weighing them against each other? That is impractical. A rule-utilitarian can appeal to past experience, for example, or just general considerations, like, “If I kill X, then I am preventing him being hit by a bus, so I would be doing him a kindness if I minimised the pain, perhaps.” This is patently absurd to think, so why should we want a system that makes us consider it in the first place? Many think that rule- will always crumble to act-utilitarianism, and whether it will or not, even considering this problem seems to prevent Rand’s criticism coming to much fruition.

Philip Davies said...

You also consider Moore’s position, which I believe is where the Christian perspective becomes interesting. Moore’s (quite right) claim is that we cannot presume goodness and pleasure to be the same thing – a pleasurable meal is not automatically good, so Moore is in some ways just right. The Christian perspective, however, makes this distinction between good and pleasure far more blurry. I return to where I started – our aim in this life is to reach an end, indeed the best end that we can hope for (Psalm 15 – “The lot marked out for me is of the best”). We are aiming to a ‘telos’ both in ourselves (sanctification) and with God (in heaven). We will differ on views of when this happens, since we believe sanctification to be an on-going thing, and I think you believe it happens at faith. This, for the purpose of this discussion, is very important, but I hope not crucial.
We must, however, now consider the nature of sin. I know that you believe in the total depravity of man, and I most certainly do not, and I don’t think it is scriptural – firstly the passage in Genesis 6 you quote misses the most critical fact that Noah is an except clause (“But Noah found grace with the Lord”). By grace, that we receive at baptism (Very clearly in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 guarantees the reception of grace at baptism), we are washed of all our sin, and indeed the stain of original sin. Now, all sin has two effects, one to the person, and one to God. In sinning we offend God, for which we deserve eternal damnation: but Psalm 129, “but with you is found kindness and abundant forgiveness” – and only in Christ is that forgiveness found. In sinning we harm ourselves – I should not lie because it is bad for me, not only that it offends God!
I heard a wonderful sermon on Sunday that so correctly said that the idea of sin as being a breaking of the Lord’s command is a very modern invention. It is quite different – it is offending God. Cain broke no explicit command of God in killing his brother, save the one in our hearts (which is God given, but requires no recourse to Scripture to so tell us. The Catholic view of the 10 Commandments is that they are a “privileged” expression of natural law. Natural law – that which leads us to our supreme telos which is only realised with God. Indeed, we can only realise our telos by God’s help.

Philip Davies said...

You also consider Moore’s position, which I believe is where the Christian perspective becomes interesting. Moore’s (quite right) claim is that we cannot presume goodness and pleasure to be the same thing – a pleasurable meal is not automatically good, so Moore is in some ways just right. The Christian perspective, however, makes this distinction between good and pleasure far more blurry. I return to where I started – our aim in this life is to reach an end, indeed the best end that we can hope for (Psalm 15 – “The lot marked out for me is of the best”). We are aiming to a ‘telos’ both in ourselves (sanctification) and with God (in heaven). We will differ on views of when this happens, since we believe sanctification to be an on-going thing, and I think you believe it happens at faith. This, for the purpose of this discussion, is very important, but I hope not crucial.
We must, however, now consider the nature of sin. I know that you believe in the total depravity of man, and I most certainly do not, and I don’t think it is scriptural – firstly the passage in Genesis 6 you quote misses the most critical fact that Noah is an except clause (“But Noah found grace with the Lord”). By grace, that we receive at baptism (Very clearly in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 guarantees the reception of grace at baptism), we are washed of all our sin, and indeed the stain of original sin. Now, all sin has two effects, one to the person, and one to God. In sinning we offend God, for which we deserve eternal damnation: but Psalm 129, “but with you is found kindness and abundant forgiveness” – and only in Christ is that forgiveness found. In sinning we harm ourselves – I should not lie because it is bad for me, not only that it offends God!
I heard a wonderful sermon on Sunday that so correctly said that the idea of sin as being a breaking of the Lord’s command is a very modern invention. It is quite different – it is offending God. Cain broke no explicit command of God in killing his brother, save the one in our hearts (which is God given, but requires no recourse to Scripture to so tell us. The Catholic view of the 10 Commandments is that they are a “privileged” expression of natural law. Natural law – that which leads us to our supreme telos which is only realised with God. Indeed, we can only realise our telos by God’s help.

Philip Davies said...

You also consider Moore’s position, which I believe is where the Christian perspective becomes interesting. Moore’s (quite right) claim is that we cannot presume goodness and pleasure to be the same thing – a pleasurable meal is not automatically good, so Moore is in some ways just right. The Christian perspective, however, makes this distinction between good and pleasure far more blurry. I return to where I started – our aim in this life is to reach an end, indeed the best end that we can hope for (Psalm 15 – “The lot marked out for me is of the best”). We are aiming to a ‘telos’ both in ourselves (sanctification) and with God (in heaven). We will differ on views of when this happens, since we believe sanctification to be an on-going thing, and I think you believe it happens at faith. This, for the purpose of this discussion, is very important, but I hope not crucial.
We must, however, now consider the nature of sin. I know that you believe in the total depravity of man, and I most certainly do not, and I don’t think it is scriptural – firstly the passage in Genesis 6 you quote misses the most critical fact that Noah is an except clause (“But Noah found grace with the Lord”). By grace, that we receive at baptism (Very clearly in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 guarantees the reception of grace at baptism), we are washed of all our sin, and indeed the stain of original sin. Now, all sin has two effects, one to the person, and one to God. In sinning we offend God, for which we deserve eternal damnation: but Psalm 129, “but with you is found kindness and abundant forgiveness” – and only in Christ is that forgiveness found. In sinning we harm ourselves – I should not lie because it is bad for me, not only that it offends God!

Philip Davies said...

I heard a wonderful sermon on Sunday that so correctly said that the idea of sin as being a breaking of the Lord’s command is a very modern invention. It is quite different – it is offending God. Cain broke no explicit command of God in killing his brother, save the one in our hearts (which is God given, but requires no recourse to Scripture to so tell us. The Catholic view of the 10 Commandments is that they are a “privileged” expression of natural law. Natural law – that which leads us to our supreme telos which is only realised with God. Indeed, we can only realise our telos by God’s help.
Now, can utilitarianism lead us to our telos? Simply, the pursuit of pleasure, in and of itself, cannot lead us to God, unless God himself helps us. With God’s help, can the pursuit of pleasure lead us to God? That is much harder to say, but I don’t think that you addressed this. This is where we have to remember the Christian interpretation of Moore – our good and our pleasure, although at the moment are quite different things, in the end, please God, are to be the same. That is, in heaven there is a synthesis of pleasure and goodness, and if we are led by the pursuit of that pleasure, what is the harm? Indeed, a constant deference to future pleasure is what we all should be thinking when tempted by sin, and with the intercession of others and the help of God, this can, thank God, be achieved and temptation be thwarted.

Philip Davies said...

This is not what Bentham was advocating, I know, but equally, this is where, I believe it should lead us if we are to try to be sympathetic rather than polemic in our approach to philosophical works.
St Thomas Aquinas, I believe, says that there are three forms of life: the happy life, the good life, and the meaningful life. We are all called to at least one of these, and ultimately all three, but I do not need to achieve as much as St Paul to be accepted into heaven, but equally a surgeon, or a Samaritan, may do much good in their vocations, or indeed St Therèse found sheer happiness in Christ. These are things that we should be looking out for in our lives, and following them, and a utilitarian approach, given the help of God, is most certainly not, I argue, an intrinsic and plain evil.
I hope all is well!

Phil

Unknown said...

Thanks guys for commenting!

Simon- I really like John Piper's books and the way he pushes Jonathan Edwards' theology of pursuing happiness in God back into the spotlight. I certainly believe that true pleasure is found when we know God and our eternity is going to be gloriously full of happiness. I do get concerned, however, that the terminology and words we use to describe 'pleasure' as Christians in God are easily misinterpreted. I think teaching that we find pleasure in God is fine as long as there is a biblical emphasis on the fact that in this life we are called to suffer and have joy in our sufferings because of our hope of eternity.

Phil- really interesting points, as always. Noah certainly is a man God showed incredible grace towards, saving him and his family from the Flood. What's interesting is that even in people like Noah, the Bible doesn't hold back from showing us their failings too. I don't think Scripture allows us to see any believer as 'perfect' and therefore we're all seen as being susceptible to falling into temptation and making wrong moral choices, despite God's revelation to us of His ways.

Philip Davies said...

Dear Sophie,

I would of course say the Blessed Virgin was at least the prime candidate for that post - the New Eve, in both Patristic and Miltonian formulations, I believe... The Immaculate Conception is not actually contradicted in the Bible (normally one looks at Romans 3 for the 'argument for the prosecution', but this only says that none shall be declared righteous by the law, and no, this is true, certainly, but the doctrine is this:


"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

which, I cannot see it contradicts Scripture...

I think our big problem is the Theology of Grace - I can see in my life that I resist grace by sin. I sin through omission, and through action, by rejecting that grace, which does not leave me to my inheritance, as the psalmist puts it, which is God. This does not mean, necessarily that I am damned - far from it, please God! But it does mean that my sanctification can be hindered by my weaknesses, although the converse is not true - by my strengths, I am not saved. This is a crucial flaw, I think, when Catholic doctrine is condemned. By my actions I can cooperate with Grace, but I can only do that because through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God has imparted to us His Grace. I have never understood where the doctrine of Irresistible Grace comes from - perhaps you could enlighten me? I certainly don't think it corresponds to how I have experienced my relationship with God.

All the best,
Phil