As a philosophical moral theory, utilitarianism has two foundational characteristics. Primarily, it is a consequentialist moral theory. This means that it is solely concerned with the outcome rather than the intention of any given moral decision. It is also non-egoistic, meaning it is other-regarding. The tenets of utilitarianism dictate that the best moral decision is the one that produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, regardless of one’s own well-being. One characteristic of utilitarianism that sets it apart from other consequentialist moral theories is that it does not differentiate between the beneficiaries of each moral decision. Thus, at face value, utilitarianism seems to be fairly in line with Christian morality, but further scrutiny reveals areas in which it stands directly opposed to the ethical code modeled and taught by Christ.
What are the Origins of Utilitarianism?
Elements of utilitarian thought can be traced back to the modern Epicurean tradition in the seventeenth century and throughout philosophical thought in England during the eighteenth century, but modern utilitarianism was developed primarily by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Bentham, often referred to as the father of modern utilitarianism, was foundational in shaping utilitarianism as we know it today. He was influenced by Thomas Hobbes in his hedonistic evaluation of what constituted moral rightness as a measure of pleasure produced by the action in question. Like Hobbes, Bentham felt that there were two ruling passions in man: pleasure and pain. Every decision made, he reasoned, was in pursuit of the former or in avoidance of the latter. Thus, he proposed that the morality of every action should be measured by its ability to bring about pleasure, or happiness, for the greatest number of people. Bentham was also influenced by the philosopher David Hume in his assessment of utility as the only appropriate measure of moral rightness. Unlike Hume, though, he was unconcerned with the formation of character and was focused entirely on social utility.
In the end, the moral theory contrived by Bentham stood distinct from all other previously proposed philosophies. It dictated that all moral decisions should be made with an expectation of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, regardless of personal dignity or character formation.
Following Bentham, John Stuart Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, though he disagreed with some of Bentham’s claims. Bentham famously held that pleasures did not differ qualitatively, only quantitatively. According to this view, sophisticated pleasures were no greater than simple-minded, and there was no such thing as a “noble” pleasure. All were equal. Mill, on the other hand, held that psychological pleasures were better than carnal, physical pleasures. He argued for a version of hedonism that favored the pleasures that involved one’s “higher faculties.” Both Bentham and Mill were integral in shaping utilitarian thought as we know it today and in popularizing it as a workable moral theory.
How Does Utilitarianism Differ from Christian Ethics?
There is one glaring difference between utilitarian and Christian ethics, and multiple nuanced differences. While the utilitarian cares only about the effect that a decision makes, the Christian should find regard for the state of one’s heart to be a primary issue, “for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, acts of adultery, other immoral sexual acts, thefts, false testimonies, and slanderous statements” (Matthew 15:19). Jesus seemed not to be focused on the perceived benefit of any given action, but to be wholly concerned with the holiness of man. Whereas Bentham and Mill might argue for the rightness of any given act, be it an act of lying, stealing, murder, theft, or adultery, if such actions were projected to produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the most people, Jesus commanded that His followers put those behaviors behind them, noting that such behaviors are unfit for one who has been made in the image of a loving God.
For the utilitarian, no thought or action is inherently wrong, but is only bad insofar as it does not produce the greatest amount of happiness. For the Christian, an inherently unloving action could never be considered “good,” even if it might possibly make many people momentarily very happy. The Christian realizes that there is a God in heaven that is entirely good and loving, and that He created humankind to not only enter into that love but also to propagate it, to invest, by one’s own actions, in a world that is bound together by lovingkindness and truth.
Christian ethics acknowledges that that very God desires to have a relationship with every one of His creatures, but that sin is real, and that its presence acts as a barrier between man and a holy God. Certain thoughts and behaviors are not only less favorable for a given situation but are inherently harmful and wrong, and “every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different than it was before. And… all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing into a heavenly creature or a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hared with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity). Morality, for a Christian, is not a subjective assessment of possible visceral and intellectual pleasures but is an objective assessment of what is loving, according to God’s law. The end-goal being the abundant love, not the proliferation of pleasure.
This focus on love and the dignity of human beings that is absolutely integral to the Christian faith cannot be found within the confines of utilitarian thinking. While its inception was birthed under the guise of justice for all, it, in reality, undergirds much of the modern thinking about the worth of the unborn, the disabled and the elderly. If one’s life does not produce perceived happiness for an adequate amount of people, is it of value? Christian thought, that which aligns with Christ, would say absolutely. True utilitarian thought would say no. Innate human dignity is absent from utilitarian thinking which allows for ethical compromises that are wholly absent from Christian thought.
What are the Limitations of Utilitarianism for Christians?
Utilitarianism does not acknowledge the presence of a moral law-giver. Thus, it does not concede to the reality of objective moral laws. Without a moral law, there is no true sin. Jesus came to earth and died for our sins so that we may live freely of them and in relationship with Him. If there is no such thing as true sin, then there was no reason for Christ to die on the cross.
Furthermore, for the Christian, Christ’s death acted not only as the means to eternal freedom from condemnation, but also as the daily grace that gives one the ability to live sacrificially for others. While utilitarianism praises the act made in view of other’s happiness, it does not offer any explanation for the purpose of such actions, nor does it offer means by which one could become the type of person who is willing to choose another’s happiness over one’s own. For a proper moral decision to be made according to utilitarian thought, one must approach any given situation as if they are an uninvested onlooker. Their happiness is taken into equal consideration with everyone else’s. But why should the happiness of other people matter if they do not have inherent dignity? And how, if I am shaped by corrupt decision-making, should I be expected to be the type of person that would choose someone else’s happiness over my own? Utilitarianism cannot answer these questions. Christ can, and has.
For the Christian, sacrifice does not come from a place of cold, calculated indifference but from a place of compassionate lovingkindness. It comes from the perspective of one who understands the grace that they have been given in being brought from death to life, and who walks by faith in the promise of eternity with Christ. Sacrifice, for the Christian, is not an act of removing oneself from the picture. Rather, it is a choice to fully enter into every given situation with the intention of shaping and molding any given circumstance according to the love of God, even if that means giving up one’s rights to momentary personal pleasure. As followers of Christ, we recognize that this is not something that comes naturally, but is a way of living that must be developed gradually through daily acts of lovingkindness.
How Should Christians Approach Utilitarian Thinking?
There is good in recognizing our need to think of others’ happiness, but doing so properly will never come at the expense of one’s sanctification. Paul addresses this in his letter to the Romans. “Why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8). For we know that sin is real, and that lives given over to sinful tendencies create relationships, institutional structures and laws which beget brokenness. We reap what we sow, even if we convince ourselves that happiness would be best attained through sinful behaviors. Our hearts are prone to leading us astray, so that what may seem pleasurable at the time will reap only despair if it is sown in sin. Thus, Christians should not look at moral decision-making from the pleasure-seeking perspective of utilitarianism but from the love-honoring guidance of Christ, whose ways are all lovingkindness and truth (Psalm 25:20).
The Christian mandate to “consider others more important than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3) goes above and beyond the utilitarian standard of considering one’s own happiness in equal proportion to others’. Our calling as followers of Christ is to die to ourselves that we may live with Him, the ultimate pleasure. “For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God then dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Psalm 84:10).
Photo Credit: ©iStock/Getty Images Plus/Trifonov_Evgeniy
