Why has the Church historically preferred virtue and deontological ethics over utilitarian ethics?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I read the YouCat in a couple of days during my World Youth Day trip (nice book, easily accessible). One thing that struck me was why the Church prefers virtue ethics and deontological ethics over utilitarianism. I can easily see the influence(s) that philosophers such as Aristotle and Immanuel Kant had on Church teaching. That isn’t to say that the Church blindly follows all what Aristotle/Kant/etc taught, but you can safely assert it follows the crux of it. Why does the Church consider virtue ethics and deontological ethics superior to utilitarian ethics? What is the precise reason? Are there any documents to suggest why this is the case?

For those who may not know what these terms mean (I want this thread to be as accessible as possible), these are the terms given the context of a man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor:

• Virtue ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is wrong because the man lacks the virtue of charity. Instead, the man has a vice, namely, selfishness.
• Deontological ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is wrong because the man is not adhering to a sense of individual duty; he is not following the universal law written (allegedly) in man’s heart “Do not steal”.
• Utilitarian ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is not necessarily wrong. In reality, morality is shades of grey. If more happiness is gained by the man stealing money from the bank to give to the poor (e.g. shelter, quenching hunger, etc) than pain (e.g. firm’s unemployment, loss in profit) than it is acceptable.

Thanks.

 

[_L]

I think the reason is because we understand God not as shades of gray, but white only, and God is the only true measuring stick as to what is right and what is wrong. So stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is always objectively wrong, because you are depriving someone of property that is rightfully theirs regardless of the pure intentions afterwards. The guilt in the situation is subjective though, the person who steals from the rich and gives to the poor would presumably be committing a sin of a lesser degree than a man who steals from the rich and goes out to buy drugs which he then sells to others to make even more money. The problem with utilitarian ethics is that there is nowhere you can draw the line definitively and say this action is wrong and this action is right, if injecting deadly diseases into prisoners (that ultimately kills them) yields cures that could save the lives of thousands, the utilitarian might say that yes, this is permissible because it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number and its being done to prisoners rather than the innocent. and if this is the case, where we can make victims out of fellow human beings and kill them and then call it ethical where is the line drawn? When we can victimize one human being and call it ethical, why not two or three? or 100, 1000 and so on? I recall there being huge moral dilemmas when the allies uncovered Nazi research done by experimenting on people in concentration camps. The question was whether or not it would be permissible to use this research because of the way in which it was gained, by abominably treating human beings like lab rats. If the nazi research done on say 100 human test subjects (that died as a result) discovered the cure for cancer, would it be permissible for such tests to be done under utilitarian ethics? I do not see why not, if the death of 100 yields saving the lives of millions, why would it not be permissible?

I think utilitarian ethics merely plays a numbers game, and a flawed numbers game at that. Greatest good for greatest number…well, that begs the question, what is “good” ? who decides what “good” is? Is good merely synonymous with people preserving their life? Does good regard quality of life? does good stand alone apart from man and not intrinsically tied to his well being? What if we do not all agree with what is good to begin with?

We often hear people warn us of an impending overpopulation crisis on this planet, if this is the case, then is it not permissible to allow people to die from disease, starvation, abortion and so on? If it means the preservation of the planet, then under utilitarian ethics, it seems that it is okay (however unfortunate) that we just have to let some people die/ promote the deaths of others if it means preservation of the planets resources for the future.

So under utilitarianism, I just do not see how anything at all can be considered definitively wrong. It seems that the only wrong is doing that which does not promote the “good” of the majority, when that good cannot be defined definitively or agreed upon by all. So in the end, when it comes down to it, anything can be considered permissible and moral under utlitarianism from theft to murder, and so on.

2 cents.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

I believe the emphasis on virtue ethics (and deontological ethics only by extension) is rooted in an Aristotelian/Thomistic understanding of natural and divine law. No other system of ethics accounts for both the moral responsibility of the subject or ‘acting person’ and his/her relationship to reality as ordered by God.

Some encyclicals which deal with this include

Evangelium Vitae
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

and especially

Veritatis Splendor
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Bl Pope John Paul II has written extensively on the issue of ethics and the traces the origin of the Christian understanding of the relationship between the acting person and objective reality.

 

[revert_jen]

I think the best discussion of this (and I’m afraid I can’t remember where I read it) boils down to the following.

One of the precepts of the Church is that you may not do evil that good may come. That is basically what this is about. The main reason that you may not do this is when you are committing the act, the evil is definite and immediate, and the good is distant and theoretical.

The other problem with it is that it sets you up as a judge of what sort of good cancels out what sort of evil. This is not a power that humans deal well with. It starts out with, say, stealing overpriced medicines from a pharmaceutical company and sending them to Haiti for the poor, and ends up with you killing someone to prevent this “good work” from being stopped by you being put in jail. And to go back to the original argument, there is no amount of theoretical good that cancels out actual evil.

I have no idea whether this is why the Church prefers not to trust “utilitarianism” (which is not in fact practical). But it’s why I don’t trust it.

–Jen

 

[danserr]

I read the YouCat in a couple of days during my World Youth Day trip (nice book, easily accessible). One thing that struck me was why the Church prefers virtue ethics and deontological ethics over utilitarianism. I can easily see the influence(s) that philosophers such as Aristotle and Immanuel Kant had on Church teaching. That isn’t to say that the Church blindly follows all what Aristotle/Kant/etc taught, but you can safely assert it follows the crux of it. Why does the Church consider virtue ethics and deontological ethics superior to utilitarian ethics? What is the precise reason? Are there any documents to suggest why this is the case?

For those who may not know what these terms mean (I want this thread to be as accessible as possible), these are the terms given the context of a man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor:

• Virtue ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is wrong because the man lacks the virtue of charity. Instead, the man has a vice, namely, selfishness.
• Deontological ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is wrong because the man is not adhering to a sense of individual duty; he is not following the universal law written (allegedly) in man’s heart “Do not steal”.
• Utilitarian ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is not necessarily wrong. In reality, morality is shades of grey. If more happiness is gained by the man stealing money from the bank to give to the poor (e.g. shelter, quenching hunger, etc) than pain (e.g. firm’s unemployment, loss in profit) than it is acceptable.

Thanks.

Well, utilitarian ethics is pretty problematic on its own terms.

1. It would mean that we make our moral decisions based on how well they would contribute to the well-being of the majority, but this doesn’t seem to leave very much room for minority rights.
2. This means that if torturing and killing innocent people would contribute to the well-being of the majority, then we would be obligated to do it.
   2b. Utilitarianism doesn’t really seem to allow for anything to be intrinsically wrong. On utilitarianism, if torturing and killing an innocent little girl contributed to the well-being of society, (maximized happiness for the greatest number of people, then we would be obligated to do it).
3. A classic utilitarian dilemma is: if a doctor has 5 patients who will die unless they get organ transplants, and he has one innocent healthy person in the waiting room who is a perfect match for all those 5 patients, is the doctor morally obligated to kill the 1 healthy patient to benefit the 5 sick ones? (Assume no one would find out what he did).
4. Utilitarianism, logically followed would probably entail killing all the disabled since they (on utilitarianism) are a drain on resources that might be more productively used elsewhere.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, utilitarian ethics is pretty problematic on its own terms.

1. It would mean that we make our moral decisions based on how well they would contribute to the well-being of the majority, but this doesn’t seem to leave very much room for minority rights.
2. This means that if torturing and killing innocent people would contribute to the well-being of the majority, then we would be obligated to do it.
   2b. Utilitarianism doesn’t really seem to allow for anything to be intrinsically wrong. On utilitarianism, if torturing and killing an innocent little girl contributed to the well-being of society, (maximized happiness for the greatest number of people, then we would be obligated to do it).
3. A classic utilitarian dilemma is: if a doctor has 5 patients who will die unless they get organ transplants, and he has one innocent healthy person in the waiting room who is a perfect match for all those 5 patients, is the doctor morally obligated to kill the 1 healthy patient to benefit the 5 sick ones? (Assume no one would find out what he did).
4. Utilitarianism, logically followed would probably entail killing all the disabled since they (on utilitarianism) are a drain on resources that might be more productively used elsewhere.

Utilitarianism has some value and utility! It may be combined with deontological and virtue ethics. For example, the right to life is absolute because it is always evil to kill a person. But if we are compelled to defend ourselves or others against an assailant who intends to use a lethal weapon against us it is the lesser of two evils. We are taking into account the motive, the means and the consequences…

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I read the YouCat in a couple of days during my World Youth Day trip (nice book, easily accessible). One thing that struck me was why the Church prefers virtue ethics and deontological ethics over utilitarianism. I can easily see the influence(s) that philosophers such as Aristotle and Immanuel Kant had on Church teaching. That isn’t to say that the Church blindly follows all what Aristotle/Kant/etc taught, but you can safely assert it follows the crux of it. Why does the Church consider virtue ethics and deontological ethics superior to utilitarian ethics? What is the precise reason? Are there any documents to suggest why this is the case?

For those who may not know what these terms mean (I want this thread to be as accessible as possible), these are the terms given the context of a man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor:

• Virtue ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is wrong because the man lacks the virtue of charity. Instead, the man has a vice, namely, selfishness.
• Deontological ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is wrong because the man is not adhering to a sense of individual duty; he is not following the universal law written (allegedly) in man’s heart “Do not steal”.
• Utilitarian ethicist: A man stealing money from a bank to give to the poor is not necessarily wrong. In reality, morality is shades of grey. If more happiness is gained by the man stealing money from the bank to give to the poor (e.g. shelter, quenching hunger, etc) than pain (e.g. firm’s unemployment, loss in profit) than it is acceptable.

Thanks.

Ave Maria again Bohm, you seemed to be on the hunt for information tonight. Always a plus. Nothing else to do for us insomniacs

This seems to be one of those impasse realities between atheists and theists, the theist will put God first and the atheist will put himself first. When the theist puts God first and the preservation of self life second the entire mentality of the self is diametrically opposed to the atheist. Where the theist will observe his immortal soul first and care for that ultimately, if a decision will put that in jeopardy the theist will choose the safest decision concerning his immortal self. If the theist, namely the Catholic Church in this context, observes the laws that God gave to him/them, he will keep to them as best as he can, over his own physical safety.

Whereas the atheist does not accept or is not sure of self-existence after bodily death, he will preserve his life first and observe the law of the land second when his life is put in jeopardy.

The theist is naturally inclined Virtue and Deontological ethics when practicing a dogmatic way of life. The atheist is naturally inclined to the Utilitarian ethics, for afterlife is either not or is uncertain therefore all must be done to preserve the physical self in safety and in pleasure. Why pleasure? The theist believes there will be immensurable pleasure in the afterlife when living a life according to the will of God, not in the sexual sense but in a sense where “desire” itself is fully satisfied. So physical pleasure or material things are put aside. The atheist will try and fulfill every physical pleasure and every material want in his life, or at least he ought, for the atheist is unsure or not convinced of an immaterial existence. Which is why I break my brain in thinking why do some atheists commit suicide or others not do anything significant with their life. Very sad there

Hope that was at least somewhat helpful.