Utilitarianism in ethics

[jwright82]

Utilitarianism in ethics is the purpose of this thread, I am demonstrating how the principles of ethics I laid out in the thread “The Moral Failure of Reason” apply to actual ethical theories. Now there are really 2 things that any moral theory must accomplish:

1. It must provide a method distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong, or explain why there is no method
2. It must be able to justify, or give reasons for, why something is right or wrong, or explain why no justification is possible

There are many different forms of this theory, my dictionary of philosophy lists 10 different theories, but they boil down to the statement “an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility” (Dictionary of philosophy). Another definition in common usage is that whatever is good is the greatest good for the greatest number. Since utility means what is useful, or what works, this is the method we use to determine what is right and what is wrong. But this method Ravi Zachirias “in some cultures they love their neighbor in others they eat their neighbor, do you have any personal prefance?”

Now this quote from Ravi was from his talk at the Ligioner conference a few years back, and was not directly dealing with this ethical theory but I think it nicely applies. In this theory there is no objective basis for telling any culture, or individual, that what they are doing is wrong, for this would require an objective moral standard outside mere mortal concerns of happiness to judge each and every action of human beings (which this theory denies).

Also it doesn’t give objective reasons as to why I should seek the greatest good for the greatest number, why not seek the greatest good for myself. Even to say that it is more practical to live this way is not objective but merely a suggestion, which holds no ethical value, which makes it arbitrary. It also must reduce to reason as an ultimate authority to decide what is right and wrong, we use reason to analyze different actions and determine the most rational( in this sense what reasonably satisfies the principle of utility) way for a society to be. This is autonomy, and as I have pointed out elsewhere reason cannot on its own determine why something is right or wrong (the two phrases “it is right to kill someone” and “it is not right to kill someone” both make perfect rational sense”).

If I didn’t explain myself well enough on any point please ask me to elaborate. If you notice any mistakes I made point those out too, any criticisms are welcomed as well.

Mauther, Thomas. Dictionary of Philosophy. Penguin Books: New York, New York. 2000.

 

[MW]

I think it is important to begin with the philosophical basis of utilitarianism, which is hedonism. Once that is identified it will be clear that the "greatest good" is being sought in man himself, i.e., man instinctively and compulsively seeks his own happiness as his highest end. But if utilitarianism is true, why is man not happy with himself? Why doesn't selfishness produce the "greatest good," and why can't it be left to itself to attain the "greatest good?" The very fact that man needs a system of ethics to govern him is sufficient proof that hedonism is false, and that utilitarianism does not possess a valid philosophical claim.

The same applies to so-called "Christian hedonism."

 

[Philip]

(playing Devil's advocate here)

1. That course which would bring the greatest benefit for the greatest number should be pursued.

2. Definitions of this will vary slightly from culture to culture.

3. "Good" is indefinable (naturalistic fallacy averted) and therefore accounting for our criterion will be counterproductive.

 

[au5t1n]

The same applies to so-called "Christian hedonism."

Would you please elaborate on this statement? My understanding is that "Christian hedonism" is a misnomer and actually refers to making God our chief desire rather than worldly things. I found these from a quick search on Piper's website:

"By Christian Hedonism, we do not mean that our happiness is the highest good."

"We believe that everyone who longs for satisfaction should no longer seek it from money or power or lust, but should come glut their soul-hunger on the grace of God."

(Both from http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource.../1797_We_Want_You_to_Be_a_Christian_Hedonist/)

Am I missing something?

It seems to me we just have a terminology issue. Perhaps "Christian Hedonism" is not a wise title for the point Dr. Piper wishes to make - that in the Bible, our actions are to be motivated by a desire to seek the rewards of abandoning our natural desires, denying self, and following Christ - rewards such as an eternity in God's presence, with him as our chief delight and our portion forever, instead of self-pleasure as our chief desire.

 

[Philip]

It seems to me we just have a terminology issue. Perhaps "Christian Hedonism" is not a wise title for the point Dr. Piper wishes to make

The term is meant to shock just a bit.

Utilitarianism does not necessarily presuppose hedonism or any other personal philosophy.

 

[jwright82]

1. That course which would bring the greatest benefit for the greatest number should be pursued.

This is for the devi's advocate, when this statement uses the word "should" that presuposes an ethical imperative (it is no different than the word ought). When the Utilitarianist makes this kind of statement they are raising the question of why anyone "should" seek the greatest benifit for the greatest number?

3. "Good" is indefinable (naturalistic fallacy averted) and therefore accounting for our criterion will be counterproductive.

Well you are right in averting the N.F., although I would argue that this fallacy actually doesn't apply to christian ethics( like he thought) but I will argue that elsewhere. Remember Utilitarianism does define "good", that would be the first point you made. Which still raises the question as to why anyone "should" behave this way?

 

[Philip]

This is for the devi's advocate, when this statement uses the word "should" that presuposes an ethical imperative (it is no different than the word ought).

(Devil's advocate hat)

I dispute that "should" and "ought" are equivalent. "Should" entails desirability, whereas "ought" entails a moral imperative. The perceived good is what is being sought here and thus will vary slightly from culture to culture and person to person. If I condemn an action, it is because I perceive it (or its effects) to be undesirable.

I'm not arguing, BTW, from any particular brand of utilitarianism--I'm modifying it somewhat to make it more defensible.

 

[ValiantforTruth]

Utilitarianism does not necessarily presuppose hedonism or any other personal philosophy.

I have to disagree on that one. All ethics and all philosophy are personal, because the universe, as God's creation, is an inescapably personal place.

You could devise a utilitarian ethic for alpha-centaurians, and say "That action which promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of alpha-centaurians . . . ". That would presume that alpha-centaurians are the summum bonum of ethical statements and action. Since utilitarianism always assumes that human good should be maximized (all animal life too, if you're Peter Singer) it places the source of normativity in humans, not in God. This is personal.

 

[jwithnell]

Utilitarianism does not necessarily presuppose hedonism or any other personal philosophy.

By the end of the 19th century, utilitarianism was primarily expressed in two ways:
Qualitative hedonist utilitarianism and Quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism

If my memory serves me correctly, "hedone" was a unit of measure for pleasure among some of the ancient Greeks. It evolved into a philosophy that tried to balance negative hedone experiences with pleasurable ones -- not quite the "hey let's party" that hedonism has taken on today. The idea was embraced by the utilitarians and extended to a defined society, rather than to an individual as in the Greek philosophy.

A society may have to make some choices that will have negative results to some extent, but must be balanced by what will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. We need some place to put our garbage -- where can we built a landfill so that it benefits the greatest number of residents while inconveniencing the fewest? Note, that there is no objective "good" or "right." Where the Bible is silent on an issue, it's not a bad way to consider choices. The trouble comes when this approached is used under the assumption that there truly is no objective right and wrong -- Abortion "benefits" some women, so it should be available for all even though it might seem repugnant to some.

 

[Philip]

I have to disagree on that one. All ethics and all philosophy are personal, because the universe, as God's creation, is an inescapably personal place.

What I mean to say is that one could be a stoic utilitarian or a utopic utilitarian. I might argue that Fascism is based in utilitarian ethics of a sort. My point is that utilitarianism is a criterion that does not necessarily presuppose any particular personal philosophy.

 

[jwright82]

This is for the devi's advocate, when this statement uses the word "should" that presuposes an ethical imperative (it is no different than the word ought).

(Devil's advocate hat)

I dispute that "should" and "ought" are equivalent. "Should" entails desirability, whereas "ought" entails a moral imperative. The perceived good is what is being sought here and thus will vary slightly from culture to culture and person to person. If I condemn an action, it is because I perceive it (or its effects) to be undesirable.

I'm not arguing, BTW, from any particular brand of utilitarianism--I'm modifying it somewhat to make it more defensible.

You are right that should does have the added value of "desirability", but in common usage these two words are used in the same context. Meaning that most people would virtually read the same thing here:

1. You "should" not kill someone.
2. You "ought" not to kill someone.

I'll grant that these are two different words with different meanings but they are roughly in the same form of discourse we could call ethical talk. But if you think the substitution of one word for another drastically changes the meaning of the sentence than I could be mistaken, so please point out the drastic difference and than we can use the two different definitions and see how they apply to your first argument. Great post by the way!

 

[Philip]

"Should" has shades of grey that "ought" does not. For example, I should not go throwing books out the window. I ought not to throw library books out the window. One is simply imprudent (or at least wasteful) while the other is immoral. "Should" does not necessarily entail "ought."

Example:

I should not eat the cake (ie: the act of eating the cake is somehow imprudent, immoral, or undesirable)
I ought not to eat the cake (ie: the act of eating the cake is somehow immoral)

In precise meaning, "ought" is a much narrower term with a clearer moral force than "should." In arguing for utilitarianism, I have used the "should" language because it is broader and less forceful.

Side note: I should note that my current studies in analytic philosophy are rubbing off a bit.

 

[jwright82]

Side note: I should note that my current studies in analytic philosophy are rubbing off a bit.

I was going to say you have an excellant grasp of philosophy, which would imply studies in philosophy. You, among others, have forced me to think through my position again. As far Analytic Philosophy goes I tend to side a little more with later Wittgenstien, so did Bahnsen, but it is inescable not to employ the methods of analysis they developed.

"Should" has shades of grey that "ought" does not. For example, I should not go throwing books out the window. I ought not to throw library books out the window. One is simply imprudent (or at least wasteful) while the other is immoral. "Should" does not necessarily entail "ought."

Example:

I should not eat the cake (ie: the act of eating the cake is somehow imprudent, immoral, or undesirable)
I ought not to eat the cake (ie: the act of eating the cake is somehow immoral)

In precise meaning, "ought" is a much narrower term with a clearer moral force than "should." In arguing for utilitarianism, I have used the "should" language because it is broader and less forceful.

I stand corrected, I guess Wittgenstien is as smart as I thought he was!

 

[au5t1n]

"Should" has shades of grey that "ought" does not. For example, I should not go throwing books out the window. I ought not to throw library books out the window. One is simply imprudent (or at least wasteful) while the other is immoral. "Should" does not necessarily entail "ought."

Example:

I should not eat the cake (ie: the act of eating the cake is somehow imprudent, immoral, or undesirable)
I ought not to eat the cake (ie: the act of eating the cake is somehow immoral)

In precise meaning, "ought" is a much narrower term with a clearer moral force than "should." In arguing for utilitarianism, I have used the "should" language because it is broader and less forceful.

Side note: I should note that my current studies in analytic philosophy are rubbing off a bit.

Is it possible that our decisions not to eat cake at a given time and not to throw a book through a window ought to be considered moral decisions? i.e. "As a steward of the body God has given me, I ought not eat too much cake" and "In keeping with God's commands to be a patient person and respectful of property, I ought not get angry and throw books out of windows"? I submit to the discussion that it would be difficult to find a decision with no moral basis whatsoever.

 

[MW]

The same applies to so-called "Christian hedonism."

Would you please elaborate on this statement? My understanding is that "Christian hedonism" is a misnomer and actually refers to making God our chief desire rather than worldly things.

Yes, God becomes man's chief end for happiness in Christian hedonism. The same principle is being applied. The main focus is man's happiness. It is made the root rather than the fruit of life.

 

[Philip]

Is it possible that our decisions not to eat cake at a given time and not to throw a book through a window ought to be considered moral decisions? i.e. "As a steward of the body God has given me, I ought not eat too much cake" and "In keeping with God's commands to be a patient person and respectful of property, I ought not get angry and throw books out of windows"? I submit to the discussion that it would be difficult to find a decision with no moral basis whatsoever.

Should I buy the red tie or the green one?
Should I hang the painting over the fireplace or the piano?
Should I get steak or chicken on my burrito?
Should I listen to Bach or Vaughan Williams in the car?

Aesthetic choices, it seems to me, are rarely moral.

That said, I'm not denying that "should" questions don't have a moral dimension, but that they don't always or don't necessarily have one. Prudence is not always the same as morality--indeed there are times when the obviously prudent thing to do is not the moral thing to do. Prudence has to do with practicality where morality has to do with ethical imperative. This is not to say that ethics should not be concerned with both, just that we need to be careful in distinguishing them.

I actually tend to be more of a Moore fan than a Wittgenstein fan (though Wittgenstein is also good).

 

[au5t1n]

The same applies to so-called "Christian hedonism."

Would you please elaborate on this statement? My understanding is that "Christian hedonism" is a misnomer and actually refers to making God our chief desire rather than worldly things.

Yes, God becomes man's chief end for happiness in Christian hedonism. The same principle is being applied. The main focus is man's happiness. It is made the root rather than the fruit of life.

I can see your point. But I believe John Piper (who, if I'm not mistaken, coined the term) would affirm that God's glory is the ultimate goal, not man's happiness. However, he would say that the Bible enjoins the believer to pursue God's glory as his true happiness. I think he is countering the idea that joy is undesirable, by saying that joy is not bad, merely misplaced - It should be placed in God's glory, not in worldly things. Is this different than what you have read "Christian hedonism" to be?

 

[MW]

I can see your point. But I believe John Piper (who, if I'm not mistaken, coined the term) would affirm that God's glory is the ultimate goal, not man's happiness. However, he would say that the Bible enjoins the believer to pursue God's glory as his true happiness. I think he is countering the idea that joy is undesirable, by saying that joy is not bad, merely misplaced - It should be placed in God's glory, not in worldly things. Is this different than what you have read "Christian hedonism" to be?

Very different. Piper has not merely engaged in word play in order to emphasise a neglected point -- Christian joy. He has developed a theology of Christian joy which stands in competition with other views. His view finds its roots in Jonathan Edwards' idea of virtue. The idea is specifically philosophical, and of the same family from which utilitarianism has emerged. It is the very idea which gave rise to the sensualistic ethics of the nineteenth century. It makes man his own centre. It's Christianised version turns Christianity into happiness seeking religion.

In reformed theology "enjoyment" was used in its Latinised sense of "fruition," "enjoying possession of." As such the use of "enjoyment" was always seen as a fruit of glorifying God. "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever" was interpreted to mean that the enjoyment of God follows the glorifying of God. The Hedonist alternative -- man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him for ever -- makes the enjoyment of God the means of glorifying Him. The two are completely different interpretations of the nature of Christian joy. One makes joy the fruit and the other the root of the Christian life.

 

[Philip]

The two are completely different interpretations of the nature of Christian joy. One makes joy the fruit and the other the root of the Christian life.

And they are not mutually exclusive. The glory of God is inextricably linked to the enjoyment of God. One is not truly glorifying God unless one is enjoying Him and one is not truly enjoying God unless one is glorifying Him.

 

[MW]

And they are not mutually exclusive. The glory of God is inextricably linked to the enjoyment of God. One is not truly glorifying God unless one is enjoying Him and one is not truly enjoying God unless one is glorifying Him.

In a fallen world joy must be a reckoned joy rather than a realised joy, James 1:2. Jesus Himself had to endure the cross and despise the shame for the joy that was "set before Him," Hebrews 12:2. There are many other points of this nature which could be made, but this fact alone demonstrates that your view lacks scriptural perspective.

 

[Philip]

And they are not mutually exclusive. The glory of God is inextricably linked to the enjoyment of God. One is not truly glorifying God unless one is enjoying Him and one is not truly enjoying God unless one is glorifying Him.

In a fallen world joy must be a reckoned joy rather than a realised joy, James 1:2. Jesus Himself had to endure the cross and despise the shame for the joy that was "set before Him," Hebrews 12:2. There are many other points of this nature which could be made, but this fact alone demonstrates that your view lacks scriptural perspective.

I do not mean joy as the world means joy, but real Christian joy apart from emotional state. The alternative is despair.

 

[au5t1n]

I can see your point. But I believe John Piper (who, if I'm not mistaken, coined the term) would affirm that God's glory is the ultimate goal, not man's happiness. However, he would say that the Bible enjoins the believer to pursue God's glory as his true happiness. I think he is countering the idea that joy is undesirable, by saying that joy is not bad, merely misplaced - It should be placed in God's glory, not in worldly things. Is this different than what you have read "Christian hedonism" to be?

Very different. Piper has not merely engaged in word play in order to emphasise a neglected point -- Christian joy. He has developed a theology of Christian joy which stands in competition with other views. His view finds its roots in Jonathan Edwards' idea of virtue. The idea is specifically philosophical, and of the same family from which utilitarianism has emerged. It is the very idea which gave rise to the sensualistic ethics of the nineteenth century. It makes man his own centre. It's Christianised version turns Christianity into happiness seeking religion.

In reformed theology "enjoyment" was used in its Latinised sense of "fruition," "enjoying possession of." As such the use of "enjoyment" was always seen as a fruit of glorifying God. "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever" was interpreted to mean that the enjoyment of God follows the glorifying of God. The Hedonist alternative -- man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him for ever -- makes the enjoyment of God the means of glorifying Him. The two are completely different interpretations of the nature of Christian joy. One makes joy the fruit and the other the root of the Christian life.

The greatest commandment is "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut. 6:5). This would seem to root glorifying God precisely in making him our love, and abandoning all other loves for him. Isn't this the nature of Christianity - to hate even self and instead love God and his ways? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but isn't this all that is meant when Piper et al. say true religion is seeking enjoyment of God as the means of glorifying him?

 

[MW]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but isn't this all that is meant when Piper et al. say true religion is seeking enjoyment of God as the means of glorifying him?

I noted that Piper's concern is not a mere "all that is meant," as if he were trying to recover a forgotten truth, but provides a distinct system of teaching on Christian joy with a heritage in philosophical history. It might be worth your while to have a look at what Piper says in this light.

 

[a mere housewife]

And they are not mutually exclusive. The glory of God is inextricably linked to the enjoyment of God. One is not truly glorifying God unless one is enjoying Him and one is not truly enjoying God unless one is glorifying Him.

In a fallen world joy must be a reckoned joy rather than a realised joy, James 1:2. Jesus Himself had to endure the cross and despise the shame for the joy that was "set before Him," Hebrews 12:2. There are many other points of this nature which could be made, but this fact alone demonstrates that your view lacks scriptural perspective.

I do not mean joy as the world means joy, but real Christian joy apart from emotional state. The alternative is despair.

If Christian joy functions on such a plane that the human emotional state must always go groping in the experience of despair, it is terrible and inhuman -- one is facing despair anyway. The alternative to despair is hope of future joy -- of something more. If joy was set before Christ, there is some sense in which he was not presently -- at the time he was undergoing misery -- experiencing it.

 

[MW]

I do not mean joy as the world means joy, but real Christian joy apart from emotional state. The alternative is despair.

You are introducing another definition of joy altogether. Man is an emotional being. The Bible does not know of real Christian joy apart from emotional states. Even reckoned joy, if truly reckoned, will produce certain kinds of emotions, as the emotional states of the Psalmist and Jesus Christ clearly evince.

 

[Philip]

I do not mean joy as the world means joy, but real Christian joy apart from emotional state. The alternative is despair.

You are introducing another definition of joy altogether. Man is an emotional being. The Bible does not know of real Christian joy apart from emotional states. Even reckoned joy, if truly reckoned, will produce certain kinds of emotions, as the emotional states of the Psalmist and Jesus Christ clearly evince.

Can you then define exactly what you mean by "joy" here so that we can see whether this is the sense in which the Scriptures speak of it? I have always understood joy to be a state of existence grounded in faith in God's promise and producing hope.

 

[au5t1n]

Thank you for explaining, Rev. Winzer. I have just one more question. You mentioned Jonathan Edwards' definition of virtue. What would you say is wrong with his definition, and what would you propose instead? I have found Edwards' ideas in The Religious Affections to be quite good (esp. with regards to true religion being rooted in the affections, i.e. God commands man to love his ways, to have a zeal for his truth, to hate wickedness, etc.). Is there something I need to watch out for in my readings of him?

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------

There must be some sense in which joy can be said to transcend one's temporal emotional state. A believer may rejoice in God's sovereignty and salvation even while suffering despair at some great loss.

 

[MW]

Can you then define exactly what you mean by "joy" here so that we can see whether this is the sense in which the Scriptures speak of it? I have always understood joy to be a state of existence grounded in faith in God's promise and producing hope.

The English word is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a vivid emotion of pleasure, gladness; thing that causes delight. From my reading on the subject, this is the basic definition of the word as it is used in philosophical and theological discussions in the English language.

 

[MW]

Thank you for explaining, Rev. Winzer. I have just one more question. You mentioned Jonathan Edwards' definition of virtue. What would you say is wrong with his definition, and what would you propose instead? I have found Edwards' ideas in The Religious Affections to be quite good (esp. with regards to true religion being rooted in the affections, i.e. God commands man to love his ways, to have a zeal for his truth, to hate wickedness, etc.). Is there something I need to watch out for in my readings of him?

An excellent book that I have no desire to discourage anyone from reading. But for Edwards, love of being is the essence of virtue; for Scripture, love of good being is the essence of virtue, and hatred of evil being is equally virtuous. Again, for Edwards, there is always a motive of advantage in the choice of good; for Scripture, the good is to be chosen as good because God commands it, regardless of advantage.

 

[py3ak]

Should I listen to Bach or Vaughan Williams in the car?

If you have to ask, that's symptomatic of a moral disease.