Christian utilitarianism

essentialsaltes · May 15, 2020

zippy2006 said:
Increasing the probability that a disease with a <0.5% fatality rate spreads, and actively killing a human being, are worlds apart.

Not really. If we grant that fetuses are human beings, then both are actions that lead to deaths of human beings.

I'm not sure the moral weight is any different if some stranger dies (that you never hear about) due to your actions versus your fetus.

It may be more like all those trolley problem examples. Where in some cases, you allow something to happen passively, and in others you have to throw a switch.

zippy2006 · May 15, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
Not really. If we grant that fetuses are human beings, then both are actions that lead to deaths of human beings.

I'm not sure the moral weight is any different if some stranger dies (that you never hear about) due to your actions versus your fetus.

It may be more like all those trolley problem examples. Where in some cases, you allow something to happen passively, and in others you have to throw a switch.

I just happen to think that there is a difference between "intentional" and "unintentional;" "certain," and "unlikely;" "managing an outcome that you have directly caused," and "managing an outcome that has been forced upon you from the outside." If those distinctions are invalid, then yeah, I suppose you could argue that murder and driving your car to work are basically the same thing.

[serious] · May 16, 2020

jayem said:
A number of threads have been posted in various forums questioning the value of trying to restrict Covid-19 contagion by closing workplaces, prohibiting public gatherings, and issuing stay-at-home orders. Most, if not all, have been posted by Christian believers. Who I’m sure are sincere. The general argument is that these measures are of limited effectiveness. And even if opening up society results in some increase in illness and death (the exact amount is uncertain) the greater risk is economic damage. It’s saying that a healthy business environment provides the greater good to a greater number of people than trying to limit the spread of an illness that sickens and could be fatal to a smaller number of people. Maybe this is true. No one should doubt that a thriving economy, with low employment, and as many people as possible earning, saving, investing, and spending money benefits everyone in the long term. But what interests me is that this is clearly a utilitarian ethic. Which has not generally been adopted by observant Christians. Who have traditionally followed a divine command ethic. Moral behavior is in keeping with God’s will and commands. Which must be determined by scripture, or church doctrine, or prayer.

So here’s the question: Is it better to open up and restart the economy? Which hopefully will benefit many. Or to stay closed for some time longer to preserve life and health—even if fewer benefit? What would Jesus do?

I think there is certainly a point of economic hardship where we would have to start looking at the cost vs human lives, as morbid as that sounds. The question then becomes, what is the dollar value of a human life? A google search gives a value of $10 million, Of course, you could argue this up or down, but let's provisionally run with it. The US is running about a 6% case fatality rate, but given our testing is pretty abysmal, we can assume there are a lot of undiagnosed infections. Let's assume a 1% death rate by infection. Fully opening up, lets' assume 80% of people will eventually contract it, meaning 328.2 million * .8 * .01 = 2.6 million deaths if we just go all in. at a human life being worth 10 million, that's a life value of 26 trillion dollars. Should the cost of shutdown exceed 26 trillion, we should consider our efforts too expensive. This is not accounting for direct effects on the economy of 2.6 million deaths. We're currently at 80,000 dead ($800 billion) and lets spitball that we've spent/lost about $3 trillion, so I'd say we're still on the reasonable side of restrictions.

Sketcher · May 17, 2020

jayem said:
So here’s the question: Is it better to open up and restart the economy? Which hopefully will benefit many. Or to stay closed for some time longer to preserve life and health—even if fewer benefit? What would Jesus do?

Shut down the economy long enough, and that starts costing lives too. That's where I can see a moral imperative to open states back up. I also see the desire to get out and work again as well-meaning. The desire to be productive is fundamentally good. I think people protesting for the right to work and against government overreach is a good problem to have. Unfortunately, the virus is still out there, and people can still transmit it unknowingly, and conspiracy theories seem more rampant than ever. If I thought there was less risk, I would see my family a lot more. Because I don't want to accidentally spread the virus to the weaker members of my family, I don't, and I'm not happy about it. I want this to be over as fast as possible so I can enjoy their company, and so that we don't have to endure a death with a limit on how many people we could have at a funeral. That means we have to not reopen too quickly.

2PhiloVoid · May 20, 2020

jayem said:
A number of threads have been posted in various forums questioning the value of trying to restrict Covid-19 contagion by closing workplaces, prohibiting public gatherings, and issuing stay-at-home orders. Most, if not all, have been posted by Christian believers. Who I’m sure are sincere. The general argument is that these measures are of limited effectiveness. And even if opening up society results in some increase in illness and death (the exact amount is uncertain) the greater risk is economic damage. It’s saying that a healthy business environment provides the greater good to a greater number of people than trying to limit the spread of an illness that sickens and could be fatal to a smaller number of people. Maybe this is true. No one should doubt that a thriving economy, with low employment, and as many people as possible earning, saving, investing, and spending money benefits everyone in the long term. But what interests me is that this is clearly a utilitarian ethic. Which has not generally been adopted by observant Christians. Who have traditionally followed a divine command ethic. Moral behavior is in keeping with God’s will and commands. Which must be determined by scripture, or church doctrine, or prayer.

So here’s the question: Is it better to open up and restart the economy? Which hopefully will benefit many. Or to stay closed for some time longer to preserve life and health—even if fewer benefit? What would Jesus do?

I don't know. Some of the answer will depend upon how many people are willing to remain peaceful and not resort to violence as more and more jobs drop to the wayside and the economy degenerates ...

I'm not sure there's a solid calculus by which to assess all of the social factors that could realistically inhere to various choices for these possible outcomes.

Junia · May 26, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Why not open the economy carefully, only allowing the uninfected to participate, with appropriate safeguards, while effectively sequestering the sick and vulnerable.

I haven't found wearing a mask or washing my hands to be terribly inconvenient.

amen. it is worth noting, (maybe?) that Sweden has low rate of covid-19 and they never locked down but practiced handwashing and mask wearing

Junia · May 26, 2020

Sketcher said:
Shut down the economy long enough, and that starts costing lives too. That's where I can see a moral imperative to open states back up. I also see the desire to get out and work again as well-meaning. The desire to be productive is fundamentally good. I think people protesting for the right to work and against government overreach is a good problem to have. Unfortunately, the virus is still out there, and people can still transmit it unknowingly, and conspiracy theories seem more rampant than ever. If I thought there was less risk, I would see my family a lot more. Because I don't want to accidentally spread the virus to the weaker members of my family, I don't, and I'm not happy about it. I want this to be over as fast as possible so I can enjoy their company, and so that we don't have to endure a death with a limit on how many people we could have at a funeral. That means we have to not reopen too quickly.

there is that, too. risk of suicide, alcoholism due to mass job insecurity and debt. we do have to consider mental health as well as avoiding virus deaths

renniks · May 26, 2020

Assuming opening is going to make any difference is highly suspect. People on shutdown going no where still got the virus in cities.
Quarintining healthy people is senseless unless the goal is to destroy the economy.

Noxot · Jun 5, 2020

I believe in a kind of morality where we don't act like some freakish conglomeration called Society is the adult and each individual is a child. People have to go by the hand that they are dealt. they must weigh the pros and cons for themselves and are in some measure responsible for those that they directly affect. they need to decide for themselves what precautions they want to take and they need to respect others. So if you don't want to wear a face mask then don't get offended when people tell you to wear a face mask or get out.

there is no one-size-fits-all because no one knows each person's life better than that person. Some of us simply cannot afford to not work. We are all going to die one way or another but I think that quality of life is preferable to quantity though ideally we should have both.

Life is always full of risk and dangers and suffering. some Rich bureaucrat pushing this or that or some scared religious or atheist person telling me I must do such and such do not know me and quite frankly have no skin in the game when it comes to my own life.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

Albion said:
Very well. Then what's the moral imperative inherent in totalitarianism? That's what we're talking about.

The floor is yours.

No, that's not what the OP is talking about.

The question is whether a utilitarian argument is proper for Christians who profess to follow a deontological ethic.

You're deflecting.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Why not open the economy carefully, only allowing the uninfected to participate, with appropriate safeguards, while effectively sequestering the sick and vulnerable.

I haven't found wearing a mask or washing my hands to be terribly inconvenient.

In most countries, including the US, sequestering the sick and vulnerable is not practicable.

In the US, 60% of people over 60 and 40% of people over 65 are still part of the workforce. They can't be sequestered.

The vast majority of the elderly are living with people who are part of the workforce. They can't be sequestered.

Thirty percent of persons younger than 60 have comorbidity factors such as high blood pressure and obesity. They can't be sequestered.

Being in my late 60s, I'm also going by the mask and wash regimen, and I foresee that being part of my life henceforward. I was already being much more careful about touching and washing since the H1N1 epidemic. People protesting wearing masks--and especially those who are even protesting other people being masked--are not being reasonable.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

Speedwell said:
That would require more testing capability than we possess.

Testing provides statistics for medical research. Beyond that, it's not a silver bullet.

Let's say we have a reliable antibody test that provides results within minutes and is available on demand anytime and anywhere (which is not likely to ever happen). I take it and test either positive for active contagion, negative for active contagion, or positive for antibodies (inactive contagion).

The only stable condition (we hope!) of the three is being positive for antibodies. That will relieve me, but is there a badge I can wear that will also relieve anyone I come into contact with? They will still have to treat me as a possible source of contagion.

If I test positive for active contagion, then I have to go into isolation and care, and even that can be dicey. I'll also have to do some contact tracing as a good citizen. Presuming I survive, then I'll reach that stable (we hope!) inactive contagion state.

If I test negative for either active or inactive contagion, I'm still a fiddler on the roof.

The closest thing we'll get to a silver bullet is a vaccine producing a stable (we hope!) inactive contagion state.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 5, 2020

RDKirk said:
In most countries, including the US, sequestering the sick and vulnerable is not practicable.

In the US, 60% of people over 60 and 40% of people over 65 are still part of the workforce. They can't be sequestered.

The vast majority of the elderly are living with people who are part of the workforce. They can't be sequestered.

Thirty percent of persons younger than 60 have comorbidity factors such as high blood pressure and obesity. They can't be sequestered.

Being in my late 60s, I'm also going by the mask and wash regimen, and I foresee that being part of my life henceforward. I was already being much more careful about touching and washing since the H1N1 epidemic. People protesting wearing masks--and especially those who are even protesting other people being masked--are not being reasonable.

Then the disease will have to take it's own course. Happily the economy, under Trump's leadership, is rebounding splendidly, and the disease is slowing.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

zippy2006 said:
Not really. Even if you want to take up the dubious premise that Christians have traditionally followed a divine command ethic, divine command ethics (and also deontology) isn't wholly incompatible with utilitarian analysis. For example, the principle of lessening harm is at play in all ethical theories, and principles of morality often come into conflict with one another, even on a divine command theory. In Catholicism the utilitarian analysis is often called "proportionality." Christians, like all other ethical agents, are interested in minimizing harm. The desire to follow God's commands doesn't change that.

In this case, there is no utilitarian practice of proportionality possible in the face of a direct, explicit command for a person professing a deontological ethic.

The command to protect the vulnerable is direct and explicit. I don't think there is any command in either testament that is any more direct and explicit. For people who profess deontology, there is no compatible ethical argument against it.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 5, 2020

RDKirk said:
In this case, there is no utilitarian practice of proportionality possible in the face of a direct, explicit command for a person professing a deontological ethic.

The command to protect the vulnerable is direct and explicit. I don't think there is any command in either testament that is any more direct and explicit. For people who profess deontology, there is no compatible ethical argument against it.

We are 'commanded' to help the poor. But what does that mean exactly?

Albion · Jun 5, 2020

RDKirk said:
No, that's not what the OP is talking about.

Thanks for your reply, but then there is no possibility of a discussion.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

WrappedUpinHisLove3 said:
amen. it is worth noting, (maybe?) that Sweden has low rate of covid-19 and they never locked down but practiced handwashing and mask wearing

Forty percent of Swedes already live alone. A large proportion of those in relationships continue to maintain separate domiciles. A large proportion of their elderly are already sequestered in government-paid living facilities.

So they were already practicing a large amount of social distancing as their normal social pattern.

And then, Swedes also trust their government and obey government "suggestions" without needing government enforcement, so they don't need a governmental "lockdown."

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
We are 'commanded' to help the poor. But what does that mean exactly?

Figuring out what it means becomes relevant only after we realize and decide that we are ethically bound to obey it.

We're not there yet in this discussion thread.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

The military has a strict deontological ethic just like Christianity, which is why the centurion introduced himself to Christ as "a man under authority" and displayed a level of faith that astonished the Lord. For that centurion, putting his faith in Christ was merely a matter of discovering the right commander. He already understood his deontological duty of obedience.

One military command is, "Never target your own troops."

By the verb "target," we mean the intentional act of designating them for attack and destruction. The fact that in the fog of war, one may accidentally experience so-called "friendly fire" doesn't change the applicability or validity of the command. The fact that ordering troops into combat is likely to get some of them killed does not change the applicability or validity of the command.

There is no utilitarian argument that overcomes that deontological command. Not ever. Even if by some twist of circumstances, targeting a few of our own troops will result in the destruction of a greater number of the enemy, the command stands: "Never target your own troops." No level of subsequent military success will protect a soldier who is found to have targeted his own troops to achieve that success from judgment: "Yes, you won the battle by targeting your own troops, but we're still going to send you to prison for targeting your own troops."

That's how deontological imperatives work.

RDKirk · Jun 5, 2020

Albion said:
Thanks for your reply, but then there is no possibility of a discussion.

Sure there is. And I'm pursuing it.

Christian utilitarianism

Stranger in a Strange Land

Dragonsworn

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

anarchist personalist

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Wake me when it's soup.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Wake me when it's soup.

Facilitator

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads