Why Does The Church Oppose Utilitarianism?

[polskieserce]

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives.

 

-Wikipedia

 

I would definitely say that I am pretty utilitarian in my decision making (as some of you already know).  What I like about utilitarianism is that it always seeks the most economical and practical course of action.  However, I'm aware that the church doesn't really dig this philosophy.  Why does the church oppose utilitarianism so much?  I can understand why the church would be against it if we are talking about abortion or euthanasia, but as an everyday approach why is it so bad?

[Fidei Defensor]

We believe in redemptive suffering. Life isn't always about avoiding that which may cause suffering. We embrace the cross, we love the cross. We unite our suffering with the crucified Christ.

 

That and it reduces everything to its utility. People are not useful tools — people are children of Love of the Father.

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives.

-Wikipedia

I would definitely say that I am pretty utilitarian in my decision making (as some of you already know). What I like about utilitarianism is that it always seeks the most economical and practical course of action. However, I'm aware that the church doesn't really dig this philosophy. Why does the church oppose utilitarianism so much? I can understand why the church would be against it if we are talking about abortion or euthanasia, but as an everyday approach why is it so bad?

It's because love is our purpose and unity with God is our end. Utilitarianism shifts the focus from God and makes us the end. With it we go from serving the heavenly to serving the earthly; from a love of higher things to a love of lower things. But what is true love? Or for Catholics the question is; who is true love? When we read St. Paul he says love is not self-seeking. Love is not interested in its own wants but in the wants of others. And in the gospels we read where Love says; "For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many." Christ, who is Love itself, shows us that true love requires suffering and is sacrificial in nature; true love empties itself completely since "greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Christ shows us that Love did not come to live, but to die, and not just any death. Love came to die a death on the Cross!

Yet the God of utilitarianism would have come to live and not to die. That God-Man would have taken Peter's sword and would have avoided the Passion altogether by pricking his finger, sine one drop of his blood was sufficient to save countless worlds. He would have avoided taking upon Himself our sins and sicknesses and He wouldn't have emptied Himself completely for us on the Cross. In the end He would have saved but He wouldn't have loved. But what is the point in that?

Without love there is nothing. Edited June 28, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[dairygirl4u2c]

because inherently evil acts can maximize happiness and minimize baddness.

 

utilitaianism proper and taken to its consequence, would allow someone to rob banks, and give to the poor. or rob from the rich. or maybe not as rich but still well to do. or maybe someone who has to someone who doesn't. it's regressive. it creates chaos, but more importantly, it allows for things that are inherently evil in the name of doing good.

 

then again, i am a proportionalist. which is a type of utilitarianism. i can at least claim to not be for simple acts of evil for the sake of somethign that could be viewed as better. it would have to be a lot more proportionally better, or at least 'have your hands tied' next to sitatuion for it to allow what would be an otherwise evil act (i tend to say if it's justifiable it's not evil, and i'm sure the utilitarian can argue the same. but.). the clearest example for proportionalism ist hat train wreck hypothetical. runaway train, hundreds on track, pull the lever and it only kills a few an another track. to me, your hands are tied, you have no choice but to pull the lever. but then it gets into blurry territory. i can't claim it's always clear, just that i would suppose there's truth to it.

for example, ten people versus one? five versus one? two versus one? one of someone you like versus one of someone you don't like?
or what about proactive acts? the train wreck was reactive, to save people. robbing bill gates of a million dollars, creating an enteprise that ends world hunger based off that million dollars that he makes many times over of in a single day? and you could regress from less rich to less rich etc.

Edited June 28, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[John Ryan]

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that is rooted in the economic structure of capitalism. I am not aware of a utilitarianism before the advent of free-market ideology. It has no universal appeal, but only has appeal under a specific form of historical organization. Utilitarianism, especially the more advanced versions advocated by someone like Peter Singer, deify the concept of "preference." The damnation of utilitarianism is that it holds no concept of virtue. There are no fundamental differences between preferences, none more virtuous than the other. Such is the logic of why George Carlin said that someone who spends his day eating potato chips and masturbating to porn is a good person because he does not hurt anybody else. 

 

Michael Sandel reacts against this in his What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Market in which he asks if clubbing baby seals to death should merely be about preference, and if money can buy access to that preference, or if there is something fundamentally wrong with such acts—that they revolt against virtue.

Edited June 28, 2014 by John Ryan

[Luigi]

All of the above, plus...

 

Who decides what "useful" is? Normally, it's the people in power. Which means that utilitarianism becomes a way for power to replicate itself, for the powerful to impose their will on the powerless, all nicely justified through a philosophy. For instance, some European-Americans thought it was "useful" to have slaves do agricultural and domestic work for them in the pre-Civil War American south.  

 

John Ryan is correct that it emerged under capitalism, but it has been applied - not necessarily as an official state policy, but applied nonetheless - in national socialism and communism as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it is interesting to get into 'virtue' and 'good v evil'. ostensibly, the utilitaian will say they are virtuous, they want to maximize the most good fo the most people. but i think the actual philsophy must leave normative ethics, because as applied it usually says 'evil acts be damned'.

 

i mean, otherwise, we could have the catholic church teach utilitariansim. seek that maximum good if possible, while implying that it has to abide by not violating intrinccally evil acts.

 

so basically in order for utilitarianism to mean anything, or at least anything unique, it must have an inherent or express 'evil acts be damned' mindset to it.

[polskieserce]

Well aside from things like killing a disabled person who is unable to contribute to the capitalist economy, where is all this evil that normal, everyday utilitarianism promotes?  Let's look at a few examples:

 

-A person who wants to get married but without the legal contract (to prevent external legal forces from seizing his/her monetary wealth)

-A couple who divorces because they have screaming matches every day, counseling didn't work, and the turmoil is hurting the kids

-A man spends 50k on solar panels for his home instead of buying a luxury car (solar panels benefit everyone in the house)

-A woman selects engineering as a college major instead of english because it pays better

-A state uses tax money to improve public roads

-A business owner puts his personal assets into a foreign company so they can't be seized if someone ever files a lawsuit

-Motorists who tint their car windows

 

These are a few examples I came up with of practical things that people do in life to reduce hardship.

Edited June 28, 2014 by polskieserce

[Credo in Deum]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/utilitarianism-what-is-good-works

[polskieserce]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/utilitarianism-what-is-good-works

 

I read over both parts over the article.  Basically, the main concerns the author lists in the article are over-indulgence and pursuit of utopia.  With respect to over-indulgence, I would argue that over-indulgence isn't truly utilitarian since it does lead to long term problems.  A more utilitarian approach in my eyes would be to seek the path that does good and is a solid long term approach.  As far as pursuit of utopia via utilitarianism, you can make that argument for any ideology/philosophy.  Any branch of thinking can be taken to nightmare levels.  That's why moderation is of great importance.

[Nihil Obstat]

A basic consequence of utilitarianism is that sometimes evil actions are morally obligatory in pursuit of some other good. Without that, utilitarianism is simply "just try to make lots of people happy."

[arfink]

I think perhaps you misunderstand. You're not advocating for utilitarianism in the strict sense if you are putting in all those caveats. If you acknowledge a higher good than the material (IE, a spiritual good) and that the material good must be subservient to it then you're not a utilitarian anymore.

 

However, I would also like to add something that nobody else mentioned here, which is that, even if you acknowledge spiritual goods, you cannot commit wrong acts in order to achieve the good. This is often colloquially spoken of as "the ends justifying the means." And of course, this is permissible under utilitarianism. But to God, it's not enough to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people, as if we could stop at that. Nothing short of absolute perfection in holiness is expected of us, and that means that we cannot choose to do things which are intrinsically evil in order to seek good, no matter who, or how many people, it benefits. This view also often necessitates the acceptance of suffering, very often on a personal level, but sometimes for large numbers of people.

[truthfinder]

Most of your examples, excluding the one about putting company in foreign holdings (it gets tricky with the render to Ceasar, and also making sure your product/advice/whatever you're selling isn't harmful to people), are actually probably okay.  The one about marriage is difficult - the Church does allow for civil divorce in order to protect assets, and there might be a provision for a secret wedding in this instance. But it would come down to specific factors - are they being penalized for their marriage in an inordinate way (ie. you have a Christian wedding therefore we'll seize your house, etc), or are they just want to keep all their money for themselves.  This would have to be decided by an authority. 

 

Divorce and separation are allowed in cases where there is the likely threat of violence or abuse.  The others are just personal prudential questions. As long as what is due to God has been given, then the rest can be dealt with.  

 

One interpretation of utilitarian is about the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people.  Pleasure is rather elusive (kind of like chasing the high), and generally indefinable.  Further, this interpretation tends towards instant pleasure and gratification. I guess 'true' utilitarianism would understand that God is our greatest pleasure/good, and thus everything should be focused on Him. But, because it is a distortion of this image (like the many great errors and heresies), it misrepresents our relationship to God, with ourselves, and with others. 

[John Ryan]

John Ryan is correct that it emerged under capitalism, but it has been applied - not necessarily as an official state policy, but applied nonetheless - in national socialism and communism as well.

 

State Socialism existed under the shadow of capitalism. It is, ironically perhaps, its product. 

 

it is interesting to get into 'virtue' and 'good v evil'. ostensibly, the utilitaian will say they are virtuous, they want to maximize the most good fo the most people. but i think the actual philsophy must leave normative ethics, because as applied it usually says 'evil acts be damned'.

 

I think that one of the biggest troubles with utilitarianism is that nobody knows what they want. I tend to agree with Sigmund Freud and believe that human beings are a mess of unconscious desires, many of which are damaging to the person. Utilitarianism removes any concept of the objective good by reducing everything to preference. So, if a person wants to be a prostitute, because of an unhealthy disassociation between sex and intimacy, there is no real argument utilitarianism can make against that. It is the individual's choice. There is no higher virtue that love is greater than mere sex. It is based on the Hobbesian notion that morality is merely subjective pleasure and pain. 

 

I suppose that if you follow G.E. Moore's ideal utilitarianism, but it seems that it moves too far away from the original idea of utilitarianism. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by John Ryan

[polskieserce]

I think perhaps you misunderstand. You're not advocating for utilitarianism in the strict sense if you are putting in all those caveats. If you acknowledge a higher good than the material (IE, a spiritual good) and that the material good must be subservient to it then you're not a utilitarian anymore.

 

However, I would also like to add something that nobody else mentioned here, which is that, even if you acknowledge spiritual goods, you cannot commit wrong acts in order to achieve the good. This is often colloquially spoken of as "the ends justifying the means." And of course, this is permissible under utilitarianism. But to God, it's not enough to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people, as if we could stop at that. Nothing short of absolute perfection in holiness is expected of us, and that means that we cannot choose to do things which are intrinsically evil in order to seek good, no matter who, or how many people, it benefits. This view also often necessitates the acceptance of suffering, very often on a personal level, but sometimes for large numbers of people.

 

Well the basic definition of utilitarianism is the most good for the most number of people.  Materialism isn't the only form of good that exists, so acknowledging emotional development does not necessarily go against utilitarianism.  Lets use the euthenasia example that involves killing disabled people who can't contribute to the capitalist system.  From a preliminary monetary analysis, we would be better off without them.  However, when you think about the consequences in a deeper way, you will realize that it will cause more harm in the long run.  Imagine how much panic and paranoia it would cause among the general population if there were euthanasia panels?  Imagine how many people would forgo having children altogether than have them born into a world like that?  Imagine how much terrorism there would be against the government behind the policy?  If you really think about it intensely, euthanasia would do exponentially more harm than good to society.

 

I agree with you that God wants absolute perfection from us.  But we will never come close to that in this world because man is far too limited in that regard.  If we did, we would be living in stateless, classless communes where all resources are shared equally.  Clearly, that will never be possible with this species.

 

Most of your examples, excluding the one about putting company in foreign holdings (it gets tricky with the render to Ceasar, and also making sure your product/advice/whatever you're selling isn't harmful to people), are actually probably okay.  The one about marriage is difficult - the Church does allow for civil divorce in order to protect assets, and there might be a provision for a secret wedding in this instance. But it would come down to specific factors - are they being penalized for their marriage in an inordinate way (ie. you have a Christian wedding therefore we'll seize your house, etc), or are they just want to keep all their money for themselves.  This would have to be decided by an authority. 

 

Divorce and separation are allowed in cases where there is the likely threat of violence or abuse.  The others are just personal prudential questions. As long as what is due to God has been given, then the rest can be dealt with.  

 

One interpretation of utilitarian is about the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people.  Pleasure is rather elusive (kind of like chasing the high), and generally indefinable.  Further, this interpretation tends towards instant pleasure and gratification. I guess 'true' utilitarianism would understand that God is our greatest pleasure/good, and thus everything should be focused on Him. But, because it is a distortion of this image (like the many great errors and heresies), it misrepresents our relationship to God, with ourselves, and with others. 

 

In the example regarding a wedding without a legal contract, I was leaning towards the idea of avoiding the contract so that it's not as much of a hassle to end things if they don't work out (aka not having to spend thousands on a divorce attorney).

 

I think that one of the biggest troubles with utilitarianism is that nobody knows what they want. I tend to agree with Sigmund Freud and believe that human beings are a mess of unconscious desires, many of which are damaging to the person. Utilitarianism removes any concept of the objective good by reducing everything to preference. So, if a person wants to be a prostitute, because of an unhealthy disassociation between sex and intimacy, there is no real argument utilitarianism can make against that. It is the individual's choice. There is no higher virtue that love is greater than mere sex. It is based on the Hobbesian notion that morality is merely subjective pleasure and pain. 

 

I suppose that if you follow G.E. Moore's ideal utilitarianism, but it seems that it moves too far away from the original idea of utilitarianism. 

 

I agree with you 100% that a lot of people are clueless about what they want.  That's one of the reason why a lot of Western governments are circuses.  It's a tug of war with no centralized, functional policies.

 

But I think the simplest thing to do with utilitarianism is to focus on the basic things that most people do want (steady job, predictable economy, clean environment, safety, economic opportunities, simple and straightforward rules).