A
compelling argument for the existence of God is the near universal
belief in absolute morality. People seem to instinctively understand
there are such things as right and wrong yet absolute right and wrong
can only exist if there is a universal standard that transcends men's
opinions. People often use the example of Hitler's Germany as an
example of a true evil. The Holocaust may be evil by our standards
by what makes our standards more correct than Hitler's? It is only
because there is an immutable standard, one given by a supreme
Lawgiver, that we are able to know what is always right and what is
always wrong.
Because
the idea of absolute right and wrong seems to exist and is
acknowledged by so many people, some non-believers seek ways to
explain how it can exist without a transcendent Judge. One ethical
theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically the idea that
whatever provides the most benefit to the most people is “good.”
It's a sort of pragmatic approach to morality that says whatever
maximizes pleasure or most greatly reduces pain is “right.”
Stealing from my neighbor might benefit me, but it doesn't benefit
him. Therefore, it would produce more benefit to both of us if we
cooperated. Because the benefit to society derived from not stealing
seems to align itself with the universal understanding that it's
wrong to steal, utilitarianism seems to explain why we could consider
stealing to be immoral.
There
are a couple of problems with such a concept. First, what makes this
the correct standard by which we can measure good/evil? In other
words, why benefit the most people instead of working primarily for
the benefit of myself? It is only because benefiting the most people
sounds reasonable? This philosophy suffers from the same weakness as
many other theories in that it is not objective. There is no
compelling reason to adopt this belief unless I just happen to agree
with it. I could say, “Screw you. I'm only looking out for
myself.” You have absolutely no unequivocal grounds to rebut my
position except to appeal to my reason and hope to persuade me to
your side.
I'm
also curious why adherents to utilitarianism would prefer a belief
that seems antithetical to a belief in evolution. Natural selection
(a driving force behind evolution) is sometimes characterized as the
survival of the fittest. Richard Dawkins, for example, wrote an
entire book called, The Selfish Gene, where a organism is considered
“successful” if is maximizes the chances of its genes being passed along to posterity. This exhibits itself in varied ways. A
male lion, for example, earns its right to reproduce by killing or
driving off the current male leader of the pride. One of its first
acts as the new leader is to kill all the cubs of its former rival.
This actually helps the pride in the long run since it ensures the
genes of only the strongest males are passed along. How would
utilitarianism condemn this behavior if a similar practice were
exhibited among people?
Which
brings me to still another point. How do we know what response will
bring about the most benefit in any given situation? There are
various strategies for helping the poor, for example. We could just
give them food and shelter, which might sustain them but it will only
perpetuate their poverty. It also drains the resources from
productive citizens. Or consider a more extreme example: Suppose a
person is permanently disabled. He may not only require food and
shelter, but may also require extraordinary medical care. Such a
person is not able to contribute to society (nor even care for
himself) but instead creates a burden on everyone else. His very
existence diminishes the prosperity of society in general. If the
objective of morality is to provide the most benefit to to the most
people, then it should be justifiably moral to euthanize the infirm
and chronically poor.
We see
then, that utilitarianism fails in many ways to provide an objective,
immutable standard for what is good or moral. People seem to
instinctively know there is a still higher, moral standard where it
is wrong to summarily execute a group of people even if it is for the
benefit of many more people or wrong to kill weaker persons for the
sake of improving the gene pool. On the other hand, the Bible
provides the best solutions to the moral ambiguities not answered by
utilitarianism.
In the
case of the lions, the Bible makes it clear that we are not like the
animals. Out of all creation, only man was created in the image of
God and we are accountable to Him. Therefor, we should not behave
the way animals behave but we should behave in the way commanded by
God. See? Isn't that simple? Mental gymnastics aren't necessary
when one directly applies the ultimate standard of morality. Jesus
also commanded us to care for the poor, the widows, the orphans, and
the infirm. We help them in spite of the cost to ourselves; not
because helping them necessarily brings about the greatest benefit to the most
people but because it's the right thing to do.
There's
an old saying, “The ends justify the means.” Does anyone really
agree with that? People just know that certain things are always
wrong no matter what good might seem to come from them. It's this
very instinct that drives humanists to seek a natural explanation for
the self-evident existence of universal morality. Utilitarianism is
simply another failed attempt to explain goodness without God.
No comments:
Post a Comment