Christian utilitarianism

[jayem]

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?

 

[Albion]

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.

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

The floor is yours.

 

[Speedwell]

How does "totalitarianism" come into it?

 

[Silmarien]

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 find the idea that we ought to sacrifice the elderly, the disabled, and the working class for the benefit of the majority to be highly anti-Christian. (And anti-Jewish, for that matter, since the obligation to protect vulnerable parts of the population--widows, foreigners, the poor--runs throughout the entire Old Testament as well.)

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the economic effects of the pandemic may ultimately cost more lives than the pandemic itself, and thus ought to be taken into consideration as well, but I think a more cautious approach to opening up the economy is necessary. (I think what much of Europe is currently doing is reasonable.)

 

[Speedwell]

I find the idea that we ought to sacrifice the elderly, the disabled, and the working class for the benefit of the majority to be highly anti-Christian. (And anti-Jewish, for that matter, since the obligation to protect vulnerable parts of the population--widows, foreigners, the poor--runs throughout the entire Old Testament as well.)

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the economic effects of the pandemic may ultimately cost more lives than the pandemic itself, and thus ought to be taken into consideration as well, but I think a more cautious approach to opening up the economy is necessary. (I think what much of Europe is currently doing is reasonable.)

Yes, the economic argument has merit--so long as ii it recognized that deaths due to economic deprivation are to be estimated based on our practical ability to prevent them rather than adherence to economic ideology.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not improve the general health of the population, then open the economy carefully, only allowing the uninfected to participate, with appropriate safeguards, while effectively sequestering the vulnerable. We divide the country into those two groups instead of insisting that they mix, to the detriment of both.

That would require more testing capability than we possess.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That would require more testing capability than we possess.

That's not all bad. It provides for a gradual entry into the economy as people are tested.

 

[zippy2006]

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?

Lyman Stone has been arguing against lockdowns:

• Lockdowns Don’t Work - Public Discourse
  
• Information Can Do What Lockdowns Can’t - Public Discourse

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.

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

But that would only facilitate the recovery of life as normal--or something approaching it. It would not do a thing for electing someone other than President Trump in the fall. A desperate people is more likely to produce a desire for change, any change, as opposed to a satisfied electorate, which is what we had before March of 2020.

 

[Silmarien]

But that would only facilitate the recovery of life as normal--or something approaching it. It would not do a thing for electing someone other than President Trump in the fall. A desperate people is more likely to produce a desire for change, any change, as opposed to a satisfied electorate, which is what we had before March of 2020.

Shutdown measures are a state by state thing, and I would assume that Democratic controlled states are largely going to be voting for Biden one way or the other, so the idea that there's some sort of Democratic conspiracy to make populations that are already majority Democrat vote Democrat is a little odd.

Also, New York is going to begin to cautiously open up again starting tomorrow, so... yeah. That's an example of Democrats wanting to facilitate the recovery of life as normal.

(It's also not just Democrats who are in favor of strict shutdown measures, at least in areas that got hit badly. Our Republican county executive has been criticizing Cuomo for not going far enough.)

 

[Albion]

Shutdown measures are a state by state thing, and I would assume that Democratic controlled states are largely going to be voting for Biden one way or the other, so the idea that there's some sort of Democratic conspiracy to make populations that are already majority Democrat vote Democrat is a little odd.

No, it isn't. You are correct that we are referring almost exclusively to states in which there is a Democratic governor, even though the Democrats do not have a big advantage in that department.

And while some (such as California and New York) are solidly blue states, others such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania--the toss-up states that swung the election to Trump in 2016--are not.

 

[Silmarien]

No, it isn't. You are correct that we are referring almost exclusively to states in which there is a Democratic governor, even though the Democrats do not have a big advantage in that department.

And while some (such as California and New York) are solidly blue states, others such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania--the toss-up states that swung the election to Trump in 2016--are not.

But both Pennsylvania and Michigan have detailed plans for reopening that they have already started to put into motion. Pennsylvania apparently began to reopen last week, and Michigan is going to start opening up the car industry next Monday. See here: This is where all 50 states stand on reopening

I really don't see any evidence that Democrats are intentionally trying to delay reopening their economies for political reasons. In any case, if they really wanted desperation, ignoring health concerns and aiming for a worse wave of the virus in election season would work just as easily.

 

[Albion]

But both Pennsylvania and Michigan have detailed plans for reopening that they have already started to put into motion.

Oh, very small ones. Meanwhile, the dictatorial edicts, power grabs, and rabid partisanship on the part of the governors speak louder as to their purposes.

apparently began to reopen last week, and Michigan is going to start opening up the car industry next Monday.

The UAW figures big in any partisan strategizing, wouldn't you say? Anyway, she made this declaration but it hasn't happened yet.

I really don't see any evidence that Democrats are intentionally trying to delay reopening their economies for political reasons.

I'm sorry that's the case.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sorry that's the case.

What do you see? Surely in such a widespread conspiracy there must be leaks or clues that it is actually happening.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh, very small ones. Meanwhile, the dictatorial edicts, power grabs, and rabid partisanship on the part of the governors speak louder as to their purposes.

Don't forget that there is a deadly pandemic capable of tearing apart a state's healthcare system behind what's going on. Governments always enact special provisions during emergencies--that's kind of part of why they exist, after all. I will concede that this can be a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, but I see no evidence that state governments are trying to do more than just cope with the situation as best they can, given limited resources.

If you have evidence of genuine dictatorial edicts, where measures are not proportional to the situation faced, then please do share it. It's important to know if this sort of stuff is really going on.

The UAW figures big in any partisan strategizing, wouldn't you say? Anyway, she made this declaration but it hasn't happened yet.

If someone says that they're going to start opening up on May 18, why would you expect it to happen before May 18?

I'm sorry that's the case.

Honestly... if you genuinely think there's a Democratic conspiracy to set up a dictatorship, please do more than just be sorry that people don't agree with you. Please actually present your case with concrete evidence. This is a hugely important allegation to be making.

 

[jayem]

I posted this in the E & M forum to focus on the ethical aspects of limiting social contact. Not the political.

Everyone’s knows Godwin’s Law. Is there a name for this law: In an election year, every on-line discussion will devolve into politics. It’s a worse plague than Covid-19.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But that would only facilitate the recovery of life as normal--or something approaching it. It would not do a thing for electing someone other than President Trump in the fall. A desperate people is more likely to produce a desire for change, any change, as opposed to a satisfied electorate, which is what we had before March of 2020.

"Dey's too much conflatin' goin' on roun' heah."

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

People complaining about the public health orders have legitimate concerns about being unable to go to school, or to work, or to care for loved ones. Not to mention the financial burdens of losing a job and not being able to afford the things one needs. This, of course, does have to be set off against the lives of everyone. They have decided the former outweighs the latter.

This seems to me not too different from the moral calculus that many people who choose abortion make.

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%);

Economic decisions can outweigh decisions about lives.

 

[zippy2006]

People complaining about the public health orders have legitimate concerns about being unable to go to school, or to work, or to care for loved ones. Not to mention the financial burdens of losing a job and not being able to afford the things one needs. This, of course, does have to be set off against the lives of everyone. They have decided the former outweighs the latter.

This seems to me not too different from the moral calculus that many people who choose abortion make.

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%);

Economic decisions can outweigh decisions about lives.

Except Jayem's point about utilitarianism does apply to that sophistry. Increasing the probability that a disease with a <0.5% fatality rate spreads, and actively killing a human being, are worlds apart.