|
"How
to Know God Exists" - part three - Answering Utilitarianism
In our last few letters, we have been examining how the idea
of morality proves God's existence. (See our web page http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/
if you have missed a previous issue.) To be fair in any
discussion, one must look at the claims of contrary positions
and see how they hold up under scrutiny.
One of the most prevalent moral systems adopted by many in
higher learning is that of Utilitarianism. It is popular because
it purports to have a rational basis for morality while not
requiring a God to be the originator of such a system. Here we
hope to discuss the claims of Utilitarianism and see if they
accomplish what they assert.
This system of ethics was an answer to conflicting
moral dilemmas, such as lying to save a life. Many people argued
against moral absolutism by claiming that if lying is always
wrong, then it is sinful to lie even when you are lying to
prevent a bigger atrocity, such as hiding Jews during World War
II, for example. This strikes many people as unreasonable that
God would hold one guilty for committing a sin when they were
trying to save lives.
The idea of a moral system based on utility was first
put forth by Jeremy Bentham in 1789. It quickly became
influential but was taken to even greater heights when John
Stuart Mill advanced his version. Though there are some
deviations between Mill's and Bentham's version, both maintain
the basic belief that people should act in such a way as to
promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people.
Before we go too far, I want to unpack these ideas a little
bit. Utilitarians cannot base actions on intrinsic rightness or
wrongness, because that would require someone higher than
humanity to set those standards (see our last newsletter at http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/oct00.htm
for details). Therefore, there must be a self-supporting reason
to do action A instead of action B.
Bentham and Mill say that that no action is good or evil in
itself, but the results of those actions are the only things
that matter. However, the question then arises how do you judge
results of an action for their morality if good and evil don't
really exist? The answer for the utilitarian is happiness is
really what we mean by good. Whatever makes people happy,
whatever brings pleasure is a good thing, and what gives people
pain is what we mean by evil. This is why utilitarianism is also
known as "social hedonism". You should maximize
pleasure for the most people while minimizing pain.
What this means when we put it into practice is that lying in
and of itself isn't wrong. If you lie and it makes people feel
good with no negative effects, you've done nothing wrong. The
actions you choose are only considered good or evil based on the
results they produce.
While utilitarianism solves some of the problems of
conflicting moral situations, it doesn't follow completely.
First off, utilitarianism isn't a true moral framework. I say
this because it confuses facts with values. Doing that which
gives the most people the most pleasure is a statement of
circumstance, not a good prescription of actions.
Let me give an example - imagine a married salesman
visiting a distant town. He meets a woman, also married, and
they instantly feel a powerful attraction to each other. Knowing
that they'll never be found out, they embark on a passionate
affair for the three days they're together. According to
utilitarian ethics, they have not done anything wrong. On the
contrary, it would be morally wrong for them to not sleep
together because one would be denying the other pleasure!
Another situation shows the problem of the opposite
situation. Imagine a young child pinned down in a burning
building. Two firemen see her and know they can free her if they
work together, but they will almost certainly die in doing so.
In such a situation, we would regard the firemen as heroes, but
in a consistent utilitarian outlook their actions would have to
be labeled a bad. More pain was inflicted in the two men dying
than in the saving of the one child.
Besides some of the strange circumstances one may face
in utilitarian philosophy, the bigger problem is with the
compulsion of subscribing to the philosophy at all. If everyone
was a utilitarian, then all actions might be able to be judged
within that framework, but you can't call the system itself
"good" because that implies a separate criterion.
Lastly, utilitarianism cannot work because, like all morally
relative beliefs, it is self-defeating. Suppose everyone in the
world were utilitarians. Now, suppose they all met and agreed
that it was just too difficult always having to worry about what
effects their actions would have on other people. The constant
analysis was making their lives miserable. The consistent thing
to do, according to utilitarian ethics, is to give up
utilitarianism. In order to follow utilitarian beliefs you would
have to abandon utilitarian beliefs! Can you see how
contradictory this is?
I hope you have enjoyed this discussion of some pretty
advanced ideas. Next time, we'll look at another reason to know
God exists called the Cosmological Argument, or the argument
from creation. God bless until then.
|
