Utilitarianism... or Did you remember your Pain-o-meter?

Let's say that you are an doctor and you come upon six injured people.  Five of them are moderately hurt and one of them is extremely hurt.  You have enough supplies to help out both groups but you only have enough time to pick one group before the other group dies (sounds silly, but bear with me).  Which group do you pick first?

If you pick the extremely hurt person, congratulations, you know what the word triage means.

But if you pick the five other people, then congratulations, you just might be a utilitarian.

What's a utilitarian?  I'm so glad you asked.  Utilitarianism (besides being hard to type) consists of one and only one moral principle:  In ALL cases we ought to act so as to maximize total happiness.  It's the ends that matter most, not the means.

That's all there is to it.  A fairly simple statement and concept, but oh-boy does it have some serious problems in nailing down exactly what will 'maximize total happiness'.  Let's go back to the EMT and the six injured people.  By picking the five people you have increased the total happiness more than if you had picked the one person.  Thus, letting the extremely injured person die was the moral thing to do.  Strange, eh?  Cold?  Calculating?

Remember, in EVERY decision you make, to be moral you MUST pick whatever will maximize total happiness.  Can you imagine the problems with trying to figure this out?  How on earth are you to know whether one simple decision will maximize happiness or not?  Let's say that the five people you saved ended up becoming very bad people, spreading unhappiness wherever they went.  Thanks a lot, utilitarianism!  And if you had decided to choose the one person, that guy would have become a doctor and cured many people (at least six to make up for the five who died).  Way to go, utilitarianism!

This ethical theory is just too demanding for anybody to follow.  It's just impossible for anyone to have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future so they could know in advance what action will maximize happiness... unless, you have the knowledge of God (but of course this theory, like many others, is an attempt to get rid of God's rules).

Furthermore, how does one go about quantifying and measuring happiness?  I suppose you could keep one of these in your back pocket for any situation.

So if I come upon some people in pain I can ask the first guy, "Point to the face that shows how you feel... Oh, sorry.  You're arms are broken.  Okay, point to the face with your nose, then....  Ouch, you picked an eight.  Wow, that's pretty bad.  Now if I helped you how would you feel then? ... Ah, you'd feel a 2.  Okay, great.

I could then ask the next guy in pain, "So how are you feeling? ... You've got a splinter?  And can you point to the face that shows how you feel? ... Wow, that must be some splinter.  You picked a 10!"

First guy, "H-hey!  My arms are broken!  He's lying!"

"You already had your turn, sir.  Now I need to find out how much happiness I would bring if I helped this guy... I see, you would have no pain at all!  Great, let's get you to the hospital."

First guy, "But what about me?"

"Well, if I helped you, I would only maximize your happiness by a factor of six.  By helping this guy I maximize his happiness by a factor of ten.  Sorry!"


So using a pain-o-meter to make decisions is quite silly.  Or maybe it's just utilitarianism that's completely ridiculous.  With utilitarianism, theft can be justified if it maximizes total happiness.  Sending an innocent person to jail can be justified if it will maximize total happiness.  Harvesting poor people for their organs can be justified because it will end their unhappiness at being poor, maximize the happiness of those who need
organs, AND maximize the happiness of the United States of America by getting rid of poverty!

Umm... that's my liver you're damaging?

Most importantly, how does one define happiness?  If it is subjective in any way, shape, or form (be it subject to an individual, or a culture [a group of individuals]) when who is to say they're correct?  Maybe myself and a group of like-minded people have our own definition of happiness and it's diametrically opposed to yours?

 This group ensures maximum happiness.  Trust me.

In all seriousness, is there an objective standard of happiness?

Teach me, O LORD, to follow your decrees; then I will keep them to the end.

Give me understanding, and I will keep your law, and obey it with all my heart.

Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight.  (Psalm 119:33-35)

Yes, true happiness is found in God's Word.

Thanks for reading!

Social Contract Theory... or "Welcome to the Jungle"

We can thank Thomas Hobbes (by the way, Hobbes from Calvin & Hobbes was named after this guy) for this wondrous theory that I learned about today.  In 1651 he wrote a book called Leviathan which expounds upon his idea of morality.  This ethical theory is an easy one to grab a hold of if you can take the Golden Rule and turn it upside down.  In a nutshell it is "Don't do unto others so that they don't do unto you."


Hobbes speaks of something called the 'state of nature' in which man used to live.  There is, by nature, no good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust.  We are creatures entirely without conscience, ruled solely by pleasure and pain, ravenous in our desires and ruthless in their pursuit.  Of course, most people would suffer, there would be continual fear and danger of violent death, and it is very likely that your live would be, in Hobbes' words, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Because conditions were so deplorable, someone got together a bunch of people and said, "Well, I want you guys to know that I do not want to die.  I can also appreciate that you don't want to die either.  So let's say that we make something up called a 'rule' in which we all agree to not kill one another.  How's that sound?"

Affirmative grunts all around.

"Great, next item on the list is that if someone breaks the 'rule' they are now outside of the contract.  Therefore, we can beat that person to death with rocks.  Agreed?"

More grunts.

"Wonderful, wonderful.  We also need someone in authority to make sure that others don't break the 'rule'.  I nominate myself and immediately close nominations.  All in favor?"

Grunts all around.

"And finally if I do not protect your lives you have the duty to resist.  You could write, say, a document  and declare your independence from me or some such thing."

The end.



Okay, okay, so that may not have been 'exactly' how it happened, but this does illustrate the three  things that social contracts need.  The first is that rights do not exist before the contract, rather they are created by the contract.  Think about that, morals have been created by people.  I hope you can start to see the problem with that.  The contract does need someone in authority to enforce the rules because other people will more than likely break the contract.  And what happens if it is the authority that breaks the contract?  If your rights (usually life and liberty, but John Locke would include the pursuit of happiness) are violated by those in authority you are under no obligation to obey them anymore.

Problems
First and foremost, Thomas Hobbes was working on pure speculation when it came to the origins of society and especially morals.  He wrote this in 1651 and archaeology wasn't even invented yet.  All of his ideas about the 'state of nature' came from his imagination.  And even if it were true, then humanity would have self-destructed before it could even have begun!

Also if you are against senseless cruelty to animals, you might not be a social contract theorist.  Wait, what?  Think about it.  Animals have not signed any social contract with humans, so they lie outside of the contract.  Therefore, we are under no obligation to protect them!  But if you think that it is wrong to be senselessly cruel to animals then social contract theory isn't for you.

Let's say there is a guy who decides to live out in the middle of nowhere in an attempt to get out of any social contract with anybody else.  He's out in the woods and comes upon a hiker stuck under some rocks.  Should he help the hiker?  If you answer yes, he is morally obligated to help the trapped hiker, then social contract theory isn't for you.

And finally, supposing that social contract theory is true, do you remember signing it?  No of course not, you were born into this society!  You had no choice in the matter.  Strictly speaking, a social contract theorist cannot obligate future generations under the current contract.  There is no authority to do so.  The current contract is only good for those who sign it.  Now future generations may agree to to the contract, but the people alive now cannot obligate them to do so.


A Christian Response
Now what does the Christian make of all of this?  Let's say that you come upon a social contract theorist who tells you, "Oh, so I'm under some obligation to listen to God?  Well, I don't remember coming into an agreement with Him.  Nobody asked me.  I never agreed to be born into this world where God has set up the rules.  Why should I listen to him?"

Well, who are you to demand that God needs your approval?  God is God!  The sovereign Almighty-who-is-in-charge most certainly does not need to consult you on any matter whatsoever.  Job tried asking God for a justification of His behavior.  He said,

"I sign now my defense—let the Almighty answer me; let my accuser put his indictment in writing." (Job 31:35)

God answered Job, and oh boy, did He answer,

"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?  Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.  Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?  Tell me, if you understand. (Job 38:2-4)

God basically gives Job a verbal beatdown for two whole chapters.  He enumerates item after item that show his majesty and power.  He ends it up with saying,

"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?  Let him who accuses God answer him!" (Job 40:2)

Job answers the only way that a sane person can.

"I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?  I put my hand over my mouth.  I spoke once, but I have no answer — twice, but I will say no more." (Job 40:4-5)

Good job, Job.  You got it.  You understand that when confronted with God's authority, wisdom, and power the only proper behavior on our part is to (1) Shut up, and (2) Repeat rule number one.

So that is an answer to the critic of God, but not the only one.  Appealing to God's power and might is necessary, AND we can also appeal to His love for us.  It's not that all of a sudden we popped into existence with no forethought on God's part.  We didn't just come into being because of unknown forces at work.  Paul explained this to the Ephesians.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:4-8)

God's love can't be topped so I'll just end this post here.

Thanks for reading!

Test results... or responding to responses!

So the test went very well (I got 100% on it).  It was mostly a short answer/essay test so I did have chances to give the book answer and have room left over for the real answers.  The portion of the test where it really came out was with the two questions about divine command and natural law theory.  The test question will be in bold, my written answer will be in italics, my teacher's response will be in red, and my response to my teacher's response will be in blue.

I understand that it is impossible for either me or my teacher to present complete defenses for our positions with little comments on a test.  My only intent is to not just think of my first response to someone's question, but also how to think of possible responses to my first responses.

Please characterize Divine command theory.

This is the idea that "God says it, therefore  it is."  Normally it is characterized by God having made an arbitrary choice about what is good and what is bad.  If that were the case, then it's possible that God could have made bad to be good and good to be bad.

However, I would argue that although God (the Christian God of the Bible) has made commands about what His people ought and ought not do, it was in no way an arbitrary choice.  His commands are based on His holy nature so no matter what He has commanded it is always true and correct.  His is the standard by which all morality and ethical theories are judged.

Would it have been true prior to His commandments?  If so, then it's not His commandments that make it true.  God says "It's wrong to murder" - if it's already wrong to murder, then it's wrong for some reason independent of His saying so.

No, it wouldn't have been true prior to His commandments because when it comes to God there was no 'prior'.  He has always existed and His nature has always been perfect and holy.  So whether or not He has verbally 'commanded' does not matter.  His perfect character has never changed.


Please characterize Natural law theory.

This is the idea that natural laws (lying is bad, nurturing infants is good) just exist and we are able to figure them out by being in the is world and experiencing it.  Thus, God is not necessary.

However, there are two problems with this.  If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. [I don't see this]  Objective moral values and duties do exist. [How do we know this?]  Therefore, God exists.  So rather than thinking that God is not needed, on the contrary, He most certainly is. [Even by your argument he is necessary only for the raw existence of moral values - the determination of these values may yet be done on His absence.]

1. Objective moral values and duties are those things that are right/wrong  independent of anyone thinking them to be right or wrong.  If God does not exist, why should I think there is a realm of universal and objective behavior when all anyone has experienced are particular and subjective events?

2. We know that objective moral values and duties do exist because God has written that knowledge in our hearts.  That knowledge is shown by the way we live.  We KNOW that it objectively GOOD to nurture children and it is BAD to torture them.  People who say, "morals are just whatever floats your boat" contradict themselves by their reactions to immoral behavior.  This contradiction needs to be brought to light.

3. C.S. Lewis said that if you're out on a boat in the middle of the ocean there are three things that you need to know.  One is why are you out there?  Two is how do you stay afloat?  And three is how do I keep from bumping into other boats?  The thing is that the last two questions to not matter unless you know WHY you are out there in the first place.

Because God has written his law onto our hearts, we know that we shouldn't bump into other people (boats).  The only reason why people would want to stop there would be to avoid the first question, WHY are you here in the first place?  True, you can live harmoniously with your fellow neighbors without acknowledging God's existence (Romans 2:14-15), but WHY should you pick moral virtues over moral vices?  That WHY is only supplied by God.

The other problem is that unless unless there is some authoritative source to confirm the idea that lying is wrong, how would you know for sure that lying is wrong?  Someone could have the idea that lying is wrong and another may say that lying is great.  They could ask a third party but he would be just expressing another opinion.  Unless there is some outside source of knowledge there can be none amongst people.  God is that source and furthermore He has written moral knowledge in our hearts and in His Word. [could that outside source be intersubjective(?) (agreement/assurement/?)]

I couldn't read those last words so I can't really comment on his comment!  Too bad.

So that's that.  Nothing too heavy, but again, it's good to be prepared.

Thanks for reading!