Why Does The Church Oppose Utilitarianism?

[truthfinder]

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

Well, the church would view this as an invalid marriage then.

[polskieserce]

Would it be fair to say that the Church is ok with certain forms of utilitarianism in which the consequences of each possible course of action are considered very thoroughly?

[Nihil Obstat]

Would it be fair to say that the Church is ok with certain forms of utilitarianism in which the consequences of each possible course of action are considered very thoroughly?

Not really, because utilitarianism still includes the premise that evil actions are justified with certain good outcomes. That is simply not acceptable. It is not a question of considering the consequences thoroughly enough, but rejecting many courses of action that utilitarianism demands.

[Anomaly]

Would it be fair to say that the Church is ok with certain forms of utilitarianism in which the consequences of each possible course of action are considered very thoroughly?

Yes, you would be correct with the caveat that never is an evil act condoned or accepted with a justification for the greater good. Utilitarianism could be used to decide between two moral and positive acts. For example, is it better to give a hungry person money or provide them food?

[polskieserce]

Not really, because utilitarianism still includes the premise that evil actions are justified with certain good outcomes. That is simply not acceptable. It is not a question of considering the consequences thoroughly enough, but rejecting many courses of action that utilitarianism demands.

 

Yes, you would be correct with the caveat that never is an evil act condoned or accepted with a justification for the greater good. Utilitarianism could be used to decide between two moral and positive acts. For example, is it better to give a hungry person money or provide them food?

 

After rereading this thread from beginning to end and thinking about each answer, I think the answer to my question is that utilitarianism is much more individual oriented and it focuses much more on down to Earth realities whereas Catholic teaching is idealistic and focuses on how things should be instead of how they are.

 

In all honestly, I don't agree with all of the Church positions on these types of issues.  I would describe myself as a hardcore pragmatist and utilitarianism is a fundamental part of who I am.  I can understand why extreme forms of utilitarianism, like exterminating disabled people and using their bodies for compost, are horrible.  However, I don't think that things like getting married without a marital contract or having a prenup are inherently evil.  Lol, I know from first hand experience that some utilitarianism could have gone a long way in helping my parents break up more swiftly and with fewer problems.  I just think that moderate utilitarianism is a must for surviving in this world.  The reason I was born in the US and not in Europe is that my parents left Poland while it was still communist.  Communism is a form of unchecked idealism that is extremely impractical.  Can communism work in theory?  Yes, if everyone is trying their hardest and pulling their own weight.  But it falls apart eventually because there aren't enough materialistic incentives for people, different people contribute different amounts, people do not want to work that hard to support disabled people, and it human rights suffer as a result of these pursuits.  Idealism does not have a good track record with the human species.  Maybe on another planet where god created humans with a different psychology, it is possible.  But it won't happen on Earth anytime soon.

[dairygirl4u2c]

not that it doesn't have its drawback, and most notably some unclarity of what is right or wrong... but proportionalism as a form of utilitarianism at least keeps things, well, proportinal. so as to avoid all those extremes. like killing disabled people for compost....

[Dr_Asik]

The problem with utilitarianism is that it's not true. For example, utilitarianism easily justifies torturing an individual to save many others, but torture seems morally repugnant in itself.

A more telling example: say 5 children are playing on rail tracks, a train is coming, you're on a bridge overlooking the tracks and in front of you is a man heavy enough that pushing him down unto the tracks would stop the train and save the children. If you don't do that, the children will die. By pure calculation of the possible outcomes, it is morally necessary to push the man on the tracks, and it would be morally wrong not to do it.

In short: utilitarianism is no good practically because it is not possible to foresee the full range of consequences any individual action may have; and it's no good in theory either because it turns obviously morally wrong actions like killing innocents or torture into morally good and necessary ones.

[Dr_Asik]

For a good discussion of the topic see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

[dairygirl4u2c]

"For example, utilitarianism easily justifies torturing an individual to save many others, but torture seems morally repugnant in itself."

 

torture isn't pretty, but neither is it when cops or soldiers kill people. torture as a practical matter should hardly ever occur, but i would argue that what is morally repugnant is letting millions of people potentially die (ticking time bomb scenarios etc) due to one's warped view of right and wrong. i respect when someone doesn't think torture is ever justified, but it's still a warped world view. 

to take away the practical considerations, just refer to that train wreck hypothetical mentioned in previous debates. 

[Socrates]

The basic utilitarian principle of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" is incredibly subjective (is there any real consensus on what exactly constitutes "happiness"?), and can be used to justify almost anything.

 

One of the most famous (or infamous) utilitarian philosophers today is Dr. Peter Singer, who (among other things) argues that infanticide and killing of severely disabled or chronically ill persons is morally acceptable if certain criteria are met.

 

While not all utilitarians may have such "extreme" views, Singer's thought illustrates the dangers inherit in utilitarianism, and gives an idea of why the Church opposes such a philosophy.

 

It's foolish to say that this "ends justifies the means" philosophy is good so long as one avoids using it to justify "really bad" things like killing people.  Our world is so messed up because of countless people doing countless "small" evils, which they can justify are really all for the best and don't *really* hurt anybody.  Small evils can add up to great evils, and make us less able to resist greater evils.  As Christians, we are called to strive to always do what is morally right, rather than always looking for the lesser evil.

[polskieserce]

It's foolish to say that this "ends justifies the means" philosophy is good so long as one avoids using it to justify "really bad" things like killing people.  Our world is so messed up because of countless people doing countless "small" evils, which they can justify are really all for the best and don't *really* hurt anybody.  Small evils can add up to great evils, and make us less able to resist greater evils.  As Christians, we are called to strive to always do what is morally right, rather than always looking for the lesser evil.

 

Well then why isn't the Church supporting a fully socialized economic system?  The entire capitalist system is a form of utilitarianism, since it places different monetary values on different people (depending on the usefulness of their skill-sets).  The capitalist system allows for astonishing levels of materialism, which exploits the environment of valuable resources and takes away from the poor who might need those resources to be used in a different way.  If the Church believes in absolute perfection, then why doesn't it support a communist system that is pro-religion?

[Norseman82]

:popcorn:

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can't deny i do have some reservations about utilitarianism, proportionalism more specifically.

 

the first one is that people have a tendency of doing lots of small wrongs thinking things are better that way. it causes an overall problem when it all adds up though. doesn't mean extreme proportionalism examples aren't right to do a utilitarianistic thing, but.

 

then there other ones are some religious examples. pilate let Jesus be crucified because he didn't know there to be true, 'what is truth'. and, all the early christian martyrs, like st peter, were put to death because they wouldn't deny Jesus.

 

if i was st peter, what would i have done, i have to ask myself? i could see getting put to death like peter did eventually, but i could also see denying jesus as peter did at first. is it better to lie and live, or to admit it and die? or if i was pilate, and had the political forces of revolutions and the slam down of the roman empire on his back if Jesus wasn't put to death... would i have did the same thing? 

 

knowing what i know of Jesus i would not. and i'm not sure pilate was in a place to know better. but, with that said, a proportionalist could also say it is better than one man die than for all those forces to come to face.

Edited July 11, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Well then why isn't the Church supporting a fully socialized economic system?  The entire capitalist system is a form of utilitarianism, since it places different monetary values on different people (depending on the usefulness of their skill-sets).  The capitalist system allows for astonishing levels of materialism, which exploits the environment of valuable resources and takes away from the poor who might need those resources to be used in a different way.  If the Church believes in absolute perfection, then why doesn't it support a communist system that is pro-religion?

 

. . . Sign . . . There's recently been several threads on this topic, which you apparently haven;t read. and I don't have time or the patience to rehash them all the arguments here.  

 

Here's one I was able to quickly dig up:  http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/134018-pope-demands-legitimate-redistribution-of-wealth/

 

 

"Capitalist" is a Marxist term, which you have not really defined here..  A free market economy is in itself morally neutral.  It simply means that economic transactions consist of free consensual transactions between persons, rather than being dictated or controlled by central government planning.  Like any other freedom, persons can abuse it, and such abuses have been clearly condemned by the Church, though the reality is that much more damage can (and is) done by attempts by the state to control and regulate the market.  A free market does not dictate that anybody commit immoral acts.

 

Socialism, or communism, by its nature, involves violation of property rights (which the Church upholds), and violence by the state.  In essence, it's organized theft.

 

The idea that a Communist state is somehow a moral ideal is your own (or, rather, that of Communists).  It is nowhere taught by the Church, so the Church's opposition to socialism/communism involves no contradiction.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i would say a free market economy is presumptively morally neutral, but not necessarily.

 

and a truly socialist economy of course is morally illegitimate.

 

but there can and often should be 'legitimte redistribution' as the current pope says, and subjegation of private prioperty right to the greater good, as past popes have said should sometime be allowed. but all this is only when the free market in practice is going too far.