Utilitarianism in Catholic Ethics

[curlycool89]

Note: I wanted to ask this on the Traditionalist forum because I’d like to see what traditional Catholic thinking thinks of this issue. But if the mods feel this belongs on the Morals forum, they can move it there

In my philosophy class we’ve just started to cover utilitarianism (Mill’s version), and I started thinking about how it seems that Catholics have started to adopt utilitarian thinking when it comes to moral issues.

For example, when we talk about the issue of abortion, we always seem to want to appeal to psychological issues that the mother has post-abortion. Or for the Pill, we always want to point out the studies on increased chances of breast cancer. Or for gay marriage, we want to point at long term affects on the people. All of these are based on us saying “doing this” leads to pain later in life and we should avoid pain, which is the very principle behind utilitarianism! Even when we talk about sin sometimes, we want to focus on the fact that sin leads to pain and we should avoid sin to avoid pain, and focusing way less on why something is intrinsically sinful.

Is this just me seeing this, or do others see this as a problem? I guess what I’m asking is do we need to go back to more traditional understandings (such as Aristotle and virtues) if we want to recover the moral high ground? Because it seems to me that we can’t possibly win these arguments if we’re appealing to the same ethical logic as the other side (we’re advocating avoidance of pain, they’re advocating increase of pleasure, which are both utilitarian in nature, and utilitarianism seems to be fairly subjective).

Maybe we want to modify some of our language a bit? It does seem that sins lead to pain, but maybe it would be better for us to speak of that as a symptom of sinfulness instead of appealing to it as a/the reason it is sinful.

Or was this how we always looked at these issues, and utilitarianism co-opted them for it’s own purpose?

 

[Cran]

Using “sin” as an argument will work well if you confine yourself to arguing with other religious people.

To have relevance for all people, you need to use arguments also shareable by non-believers, therefore utilitarian arguments.

Using them can also show that Catholic teaching teaches what is natural and good for people: It does not forbid abortion etc. on a whim or on a definition of human not everybody shares, but also based on the good of all people involved, mother, father and child.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

What you’re describing isn’t utilitarianism, but hedonism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

[wasserfall]

Even when we talk about sin sometimes, we want to focus on the fact that sin leads to pain and we should avoid sin to avoid pain, and focusing way less on why something is intrinsically sinful. Is this just me seeing this, or do others see this as a problem?

I think you are correctly sensing the problem. Sin is not sin because of the effects it has. Sin is sin because it is contrary to natural and/or divine law. Sin is something contrary to the nature of God and is wrong because God is God.

For what it’s worth, I have never, ever heard a traditional priest use what you are calling utilitarian arguments. They are not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Go listen to audiosancto.org if you want to see what I mean.

 

[Jerusha]

Using “sin” as an argument will work well if you confine yourself to arguing with other religious people.

To have relevance for all people, you need to use arguments also shareable by non-believers, therefore pragmatic arguments.

I use the word in red above for what you are talking about. We are also talking about the concept of natural law.

 

[curlycool89]

What you’re describing isn’t utilitarianism, but hedonism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number.

Actually, and I’ve made that mistake before, utilitarianism is about the greatest aggregate happiness. To do this, you minimize pain as much as you can and maximize pleasure.

Using “sin” as an argument will work well if you confine yourself to arguing with other religious people.

To have relevance for all people, you need to use arguments also shareable by non-believers, therefore utilitarian arguments.

Using them can also show that Catholic teaching teaches what is natural and good for people: It does not forbid abortion etc. on a whim or on a definition of human not everybody shares, but also based on the good of all people involved, mother, father and child.

But we don’t and can’t accept definitions from utilitarianism either. For utilitarianism, humans exist as a means to an end, which is to get the greatest aggregate happiness. As Catholics we say that humans have an inherent worth separate from anything they do (even Kant got this right, his categorical imperative forbids using people as mere means, which is basically what we believe although we’d add “because we’re children of God” while Kant would say it’s because we have reason).

Here’s an example. A utilitarian would in some cases forbid suicide because you’re going to reduce future aggregate happiness because you can no longer add anything; ie. we’re only important so that we can add happiness. Kant would say you can’t commit suicide because you’re using yourself as a mere means (and you’re ending your reason, which is contrary to our reason). Catholic would say that suicide is immoral because you’re rejecting the gift of life that God has given you (and thereby rejecting God).

So you can see that the utilitarian position is the same, but the explanation that underlies it is wholly unacceptable because it treats us as nothing more than what we can add to the group.

For what it’s worth, I have never, ever heard a traditional priest use what you are calling utilitarian arguments. They are not afraid to call a spade a spade.

I kind of thought they would.

I use the word in red above for what you are talking about. We are also talking about the concept of natural law.

I think maybe that might be our problem. We’re afraid to talk about natural law (divine law) with others because we’re afraid that it won’t be accepted. And if I may point out, this actually just became a meta-issue because we’re afraid of rejection of our arguments, which is pain, and we want to avoid the pain, which is yet another utilitarian argument.

Being afraid of using our own Catholic moral arguments is itself a utilitarian position!

 

[Andre1000]

Isn’t Catholicism also in some way utilitarian, sin leads to unhappiness (hell or purgatory) and not sinning leads to happiness (heaven)? Mission tries to give happiness to as many people as possible.

 

[curlycool89]

Isn’t Catholicism also in some way utilitarian, sin leads to unhappiness (hell or purgatory) and not sinning leads to happiness (heaven)? Mission tries to give happiness to as many people as possible.

That was something else I was thinking about. Is it that we are trying to go for eternal happiness in Heaven, or is it our love of God that spurns us to act rightly and God chooses to reward us in Heaven?

Maybe this points to steps we take in our faith journey. We start off by avoiding sin because of the consequences, but as we strive towards Holiness (everyone’s primary vocation in life) we have to start doing things that are right because they are right, and not because of consequences.

 

[epan]

Note: I wanted to ask this on the Traditionalist forum because I’d like to see what traditional Catholic thinking thinks of this issue. But if the mods feel this belongs on the Morals forum, they can move it there

In my philosophy class we’ve just started to cover utilitarianism (Mill’s version), and I started thinking about how it seems that Catholics have started to adopt utilitarian thinking when it comes to moral issues.

For example, when we talk about the issue of abortion, we always seem to want to appeal to psychological issues that the mother has post-abortion. Or for the Pill, we always want to point out the studies on increased chances of breast cancer. Or for gay marriage, we want to point at long term affects on the people. All of these are based on us saying “doing this” leads to pain later in life and we should avoid pain, which is the very principle behind utilitarianism! Even when we talk about sin sometimes, we want to focus on the fact that sin leads to pain and we should avoid sin to avoid pain, and focusing way less on why something is intrinsically sinful.

Is this just me seeing this, or do others see this as a problem? I guess what I’m asking is do we need to go back to more traditional understandings (such as Aristotle and virtues) if we want to recover the moral high ground? Because it seems to me that we can’t possibly win these arguments if we’re appealing to the same ethical logic as the other side (we’re advocating avoidance of pain, they’re advocating increase of pleasure, which are both utilitarian in nature, and utilitarianism seems to be fairly subjective).

Maybe we want to modify some of our language a bit? It does seem that sins lead to pain, but maybe it would be better for us to speak of that as a symptom of sinfulness instead of appealing to it as a/the reason it is sinful.

Or was this how we always looked at these issues, and utilitarianism co-opted them for it’s own purpose?

Utilitarianism has a lot of appeal for a majority. But tramples the dignity of individuals, and minorities.

In practice, it could be the demise of any religious entity in a given society. In theory, it is reasoned. In application, it is mob rule.

When I studied Ethics, the one line that stuck out in my mind from Mill was something to the effect of, ‘Is it better to be a pig satisfied, or Socrates dissatisfied?’ This question seems to contradict his entire argument.