A Case for a utilitarian God
Kantianism and utilitarianism are the first things one learns about in a philosophy or ethics course. Kantianism takes a deontological approach to ethics and utilitarianism seems to take a teleological approach. Deontological meaning “backward-looking,” it asks “is this principle right?” The teleological view evaluates good or bad by looking at the ends or the consequence of an action.
The central teachings in Kantian ethics are the categorical imperatives. For purposes of this post, the term Kantian and the categorical imperatives will be used synonymously. The first categorical imperative, the universalizability principle, says,
“Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals)
“Maxim” here is a moral principle. In other words, when one sets a moral principle, all must follow that moral principle. Otherwise, contradictions would be made and Kant argues that there cannot be contradictions in morality. Stealing is always bad, lying is always bad, killing is always bad.
On the other hand, utilitarianism is teleological, consequential in its ethics. Meaning the value, or the morality of an action is judged based not on absolute principles, but on the consequence of the action. Jeremy Bentham, the father of Classical Utilitarianism and teacher of John Stuart Mill, says:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think… (Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)”
Bentham argues that an act is good when it produces pleasure, and an act is bad when it produces pain. The ends justify the means.
The clash between Kantianism and Utilitarianism can be seen, for example, in the ever-so-famous trolley problem. A runaway train with a dysfunctional break is bound to hit 5 railroad workers tied to the tracks. There is a lever on the side of the tracks that can divert the train to a different track. However, on the other track, there is one railroad worker tied to the tracks. A Kantian response would be to not pull the lever because it would be murder to do so. A utilitarian response would be to pull the lever because the pleasures of 5 people, the use they have for society, surely outweigh that of 1 person. The Kantian focuses on principle (i.e murder is bad) whereas the utilitarian focuses on the consequences (i.e the pain and pleasure of the railroad workers).
To the Kantian, principles are absolute; killing is always bad, stealing is always bad, lying is always bad. This sounds very much like the 10 commandments in Exodus 20:1–16:
1 Then God spoke all these words:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work — you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may belong in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor (Ex. 20:1–16, NRSV).
However, the bible also says this,
5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.
6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
for in his own image
God made humankind (Gen. 9:5–6, NRSV).
And this,
For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (Rm. 13:4)
The latter two verses seem to contradict the former verse. In Exodus, he condemns killing, in Genesis and Romans, he does not. Also, Romans 13:4 can be argued as a foundation for Just War Theory, which this post will not go into detail. In any case, unless God is contradicting himself, he does seem to permit killing in some situations, which does not seem deontological in its ethics.
So is God utilitarian? What does utilitarianism mean? Utilitarianism has had many revisions. Some theists would be uncomfortable saying that God is utilitarian because of the Machiavellian version of utilitarianism. Although Bentham was considered the father of modern utilitarianism, some utilitarian ideas can be found in Machiavelli’s work. In The Prince, Machiavelli writes:
Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result. (The Prince, XVIII)
He does not say “the ends justify the means” in fact, he never says that in The Prince. However, he observes that men often only judge an action by its consequence (the “end”). In The Prince, Machiavelli says that one needs to be cunning and has to be able to lie, manipulate, and resort to violence in some situations for the greater good. In chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli argues that it is more preferable for one to be feared than loved. Some theists would have a problem with this because this is not the God we see in scripture.
However, utilitarianism does not have to be a cruel philosophy portrayed by Machiavelli, nor does it have to be a one-dimensional hedonistic philosophy portrayed by Bentham and Mill. In fact, utilitarianism seems to be alike to Christianity in that it is “other-regarding.” Utilitarianism argues for the maximization of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Interestingly enough, Immanuel Kant arguably would agree with this notion. Kant’s second categorical imperative says:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end (Kant, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).
Philosopher RM Hare, in his essay, “Could Kant have been a utilitarian” interprets this to mean “I have to treat other people's ends as my ends.” Consider this example: Andrew asks his dad for money to buy a textbook for a class. His dad gladly gives money. Andrew uses that money to buy a new Xbox. Andrew used his dad as a means and not an end. Also, Andrew’s dad had, in mind, an end that Andrew studies hard. However, Andrew had a different end; to play games. So, for the second categorical imperative to work, Andrew’s end and his dad’s end must align. Both the Kantian and the utilitarian will agree with this.
Furthermore, Hare argues for a “two-level utilitarianism.” A response to the critique of act utilitarianism that a person cannot accurately calculate utility all the time. This form of utilitarianism seems to be compatible with both the deontological view and the teleological view of ethics. The theory states that there are two levels of moral thought. The first level is thinking at the “intuitive level,” which abides by universalizability principles. The second level of thinking is the “critical level” which is in agreement with act utilitarianism. Hare seems to be arguing that morality is universal, in agreement with Immanuel Kant’s first categorical imperative, however, in cases where the maximization of utility is clear, one must think consequentially.
This form of utilitarianism, set forth by Hare, closely describes God in the scriptures. Take the example from Genesis and Exodus above. God saying, “…that person’s blood be shed” in Genesis juxtapose the commandment “do not kill” in Exodus. But why the juxtaposition? It seems hypocritical for God to tell us that we cannot kill and yet He himself can. Isaiah 55 seems to give a sub-satisfactory answer:
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8–9, NRSV)
When positing his idea of a two-level utilitarianism, RM Hare uses an image of the “archangel” and the “prole”. The “archangel” according to Hare had super-human knowledge, super-human powers of critical thinking, and no human weaknesses. On the other hand, the “prole” is ignorant, uninformed, incapable of critical thinking, and has all the human weaknesses. The “archangel” according to Hare, does not need “intuitive level” thinking. For the “prole” however, “intuitive level” thinking is necessary. It could be argued that God is the “archangel” because He is perfect. God created man and is therefore all-knowing (super-human knowledge and critical thinking) and all-powerful (no human weakness). Making humans the “prole”.
The Problem of Evil
Observing the natural world, it is easy to conclude that there is no God. Natural disasters, diseases, and crimes make one wonder if an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God would allow such tragedies. If God is all-knowing (Omniscience), he would know the evils that are occurring or will occur. If he is omnipresent, he could be there to stop the evils that occur or will occur. If he is omnibenevolent, he would want to stop the evils that occur or will occur. If he is omnipotent, he is able to stop the evils that occur or will occur. But one only needs to turn on the news channel to observe that all sorts of evils occur. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus puts it more elegantly:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
So God is not all-knowing, or not everywhere, or not all-good, or not all-powerful. This is not the definition of God. The scriptures are clear on who God is:
The eyes of the Lord are in every place,
keeping watch on the evil and the good. (Proverbs 15:3, NRSV)
He is omnipresent and omniscient.
For the Lord is good;
his steadfast love endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations. (Psalm 100:5, NRSV)
He is omnibenevolent.
Then Job answered the Lord:
I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:1–2, NRSV)
He is omnipotent.
Another conclusion that could be made is that God does not exist. This is an easy conclusion for the atheist but to the theist, this is a painful conclusion. So what alternative conclusion can be drawn from this that makes compatible the premises “God does exist” and “God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent”? The only conclusion seems to be that God is a utilitarian. God must be a utilitarian or the theist must accept that God does not exist.
Theft, murder, and assault are examples of human evil and they occur because of humans’ free will given by God. Then one could ask, could God not take away the free will so that evil cannot occur?
Consider the dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 22:
Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:36–40, NRSV)
God wants humans to love Him freely. He not only wants that but He wants humans to love one another “as yourself”. But what does that look like in a world without free will, or “free agency”. Humans need to be able to think for themselves in order to love “as yourself”. Furthermore, God is good, according to Psalm 100:5. To know God then is to know good. But to know good is to also know bad just as to know the feeling of being full, one must know the feeling of being hungry. What if God calculated that knowing Him freely but suffering the consequences of sin caused by free will had a net gain in utility?
Then what about natural disasters and diseases? Free will has nothing to do with earthquakes, wildfires, and cancer. Natural evils are harder to answer than human evils. Dr. William Lane Craig, an American philosopher and a theologian, responds to this by saying that God has morally sufficient reason in permitting these evils so as to bring about a greater good. An easy answer to these natural evils is this: Earthquakes occur because of the shifting of tectonic plates, wildfires occur because of a lack of moisture and some sort of spark to ignite the fire, and cancer happen because cells divide uncontrollably. However, science also says plate tectonics are also crucial to sustain life. The rocks below the surface erupts to make mountains and oceans for life to flourish. Volcanoes erupt and with it CO2 comes out into the atmosphere and when rain falls, and controls CO2 levels. This acts to sustain stable temperature for life. The same wildfires that ravage California is necessary for the giant sequoia trees to reproduce. The heat of the fire pops the seeds out of the trees pine cones. The same mutations and cell division is what drives evolution.
This is by no means a science post so this post will not look further into the detailed scientific mechanisms that underly these phenomena. But it provides a microcosm example of there being a good in bad. That being said, one could ask the question, “Could God then, by His omnipotence, turn off aspects of physics, chemistry, and biology that cause evil to eliminate evil?” One thinker who wrestled with this question was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. He argued that one can think of certain token features (the “aspects) that could be better off eliminated. However, one cannot be certain that without these features the world will indeed be a better place because one cannot be certain of the connections between the token feature and other events in the world. In other words, it would indeed be a better place if God could tweak just one aspect of natural science in isolation. However, because of the uncertainty that exists between the relationship between the “one aspect” and other events in the world, one would have no way of knowing if the “tweaking” will indeed eliminate that evil or worse, worsen that evil in the world. So Leibniz argues that we live in the “best possible world.”
So what if God calculated that the world where natural disasters and diseases exist according to His natural order has a net gain in utility than an alternate world where God controls the order of things. even violating the natural order.
Scores of philosophers and theologians went into much more detail exploring the problem of Evil. This post does not go into such sophisticated details into this problem. This post argues that God is a utilitarian and observing the natural world riddled with evil, that God has to be a utilitarian. And because humans are weak and sinful and God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, it is okay for God to be utilitarian, but humans ought to live by principles.
Reference
BibleGateway.com, www.biblegateway.com/.
Driver, Julia. “The History of Utilitarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 22 Sept. 2014, plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
Hall, Shannon. “Earth’s Tectonic Activity May Be Crucial for Life — and Rare in Our Galaxy.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 20 July 2017, www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-tectonic-activity-may-be-crucial-for-life-and-rare-in-our-galaxy/.
Hare, R. M. “Could Kant Have Been A Utilitarian?” Utilitas, vol. 5, no. 1, 1993, pp. 1–16., doi:10.1017/s0953820800005501.
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 7 July 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#KinEndFor.
Murray, Michael J., and Sean Greenberg. “Leibniz on the Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 27 Feb. 2013, plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/.
Price, Anthony. “Richard Mervyn Hare.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 10 May 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/hare/.
“R.M. Hare.” Hare’s Two-Level Utilitarianism, Texas A&M University, people.tamu.edu/~g-varner/bioethics/ethicaltheory/hare.html.
