| IMPLICATIONS OF UTILITARIANISM (2) Jerry D. McDonald |
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 {The Principles of Moral and
Legislation, p.1}.
We have already seen how some have tried to twist this so-called moral
principle around to make it sound like it is right and good. John Stuart Mill,
Doug Krueger, and even the Epicureans denied that this taught (or at least
implied) that man was to do whatever made him personally happy. However
we saw in our last edition that this idea simply deteriorates into a kind of
“eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” ideology. We saw how that
people today forget the principle and go to the logical conclusion of “whatever
makes me happy is what I ought to do.”
Some have tried to argue that this is only for a society, or for all societies.
In Bentham’s book he added a footnote in July 1822:
“To this denomination has of late been added, or substituted, the greatest
happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at
length that principle which states that the greatest happiness of all those
whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and
proper and universally desirable, end of human action” (Ibid).
Hitler made good use of this principle during WWII. His idea was to start a
society of perfect human beings who had no flaws, nor who were interracially
mixed. He envisioned a society so perfect and could not allow racially inferior
races such as the Jewish race to exist. He wanted to apply this world-wide,
and did everything humanly possible to do so. Even though this is not what
Bentham, nor Epicurus wanted, this was the logical conclusion of this idea.
Bentham wrote:
“When a man attempts to combat the principle of utility, it is with reasons
drawn, without his being aware of it, from that very principles itself. His
arguments, if they prove anything, prove not that the principle is wrong, but
that, according to the applications he supposes to be made of it, it is
misapplied” (Ibid, pp. 4,5).
So he denied any responsibility to the misapplication of this principle. This
sounds a lot like the denials made by the alcohol industry when they say that
when a person is killed by a drunk driver that one should not blame the
alcohol industry, but rather the person who got drunk. This is why they all
have slogans such as: “Think When You Drink,” as though such a thing is
possible. One drink and the alcohol impairs ones ability to think. How,
therefore, can he think when he drinks. Some say “drink responsibly,” but
drinking is one of the most irresponsible things that a person can do. In
other words, the alcohol industry wants to be able to continue making money
on their product without taking any of the responsibility for its consequences
whatsoever. The companies say: “Well, the drunk driver misused our
product.” This way they don’t have to take responsibility for making a
product which takes a person’s ability to think rationally, away from this
person.
Bentham argued the same way. He argued that if a person carried out
crimes against humanity in the name of utilitarianism, that it wasn’t the
principle of utility that was wrong, but rather the application that the person
made of it.
Now, we are aware of wars that have been made in the name of God and/or
religion. The terrorists of 9/11 said that they were doing what they were doing
in the name of God. However, neither God nor his word, teaches people to kill
innocent people, or even to go to war with other countries. Jesus said: “My
kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom
not from hence” (Jno. 18:36). Therefore, the so-called Holy Wars were
without justification. The 9/11 terrorists were not living according to the
Bible, but rather the Quran which explicitly teaches Muslim’s to kill
unbelievers. The Quran and the Bible are in opposition to each other, at least
on this one point. Therefore one cannot bring these things up as examples of
how something good could be misapplied. We all realize that even the Bible
can be misapplied, but the Bible’s teachings will not logically conclude in these
misapplications. Bentham’s theory does, just as does the alcohol industry’s
product, logically conclude in the applications that man has made of them.
One implication that comes from “utilitarianism” is that there is no God.
Now just looking at this one wonders how the non-existence of God logically
follows from the idea that mankind is governed by two masters, pain and
pleasure. The founding father of this principle, as we have already seen, was
not Jeremy Bentham, but rather Epicurus. And although he professed a
belief in gods (because atheism was illegal in Athens at that time), he made
this argument against God:
“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?” (The Ancient Greeks,
Part Three: Epicureans and Stoics, C, George Boeree)
He was an atheist, at heart. If one is an atheist, then he owes (in his mind)
nothing to a creator, and he has no need of keeping laws of a supposed
creator. The implication, thus being, if mankind is governed by pain and
pleasure and only these two things, then God does not exist. If God exists
then man is governed by God’s laws rather than pain and pleasure. More to
come.
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 {The Principles of Moral and
Legislation, p.1}.
We have already seen how some have tried to twist this so-called moral
principle around to make it sound like it is right and good. John Stuart Mill,
Doug Krueger, and even the Epicureans denied that this taught (or at least
implied) that man was to do whatever made him personally happy. However
we saw in our last edition that this idea simply deteriorates into a kind of
“eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” ideology. We saw how that
people today forget the principle and go to the logical conclusion of “whatever
makes me happy is what I ought to do.”
Some have tried to argue that this is only for a society, or for all societies.
In Bentham’s book he added a footnote in July 1822:
“To this denomination has of late been added, or substituted, the greatest
happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at
length that principle which states that the greatest happiness of all those
whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and
proper and universally desirable, end of human action” (Ibid).
Hitler made good use of this principle during WWII. His idea was to start a
society of perfect human beings who had no flaws, nor who were interracially
mixed. He envisioned a society so perfect and could not allow racially inferior
races such as the Jewish race to exist. He wanted to apply this world-wide,
and did everything humanly possible to do so. Even though this is not what
Bentham, nor Epicurus wanted, this was the logical conclusion of this idea.
Bentham wrote:
“When a man attempts to combat the principle of utility, it is with reasons
drawn, without his being aware of it, from that very principles itself. His
arguments, if they prove anything, prove not that the principle is wrong, but
that, according to the applications he supposes to be made of it, it is
misapplied” (Ibid, pp. 4,5).
So he denied any responsibility to the misapplication of this principle. This
sounds a lot like the denials made by the alcohol industry when they say that
when a person is killed by a drunk driver that one should not blame the
alcohol industry, but rather the person who got drunk. This is why they all
have slogans such as: “Think When You Drink,” as though such a thing is
possible. One drink and the alcohol impairs ones ability to think. How,
therefore, can he think when he drinks. Some say “drink responsibly,” but
drinking is one of the most irresponsible things that a person can do. In
other words, the alcohol industry wants to be able to continue making money
on their product without taking any of the responsibility for its consequences
whatsoever. The companies say: “Well, the drunk driver misused our
product.” This way they don’t have to take responsibility for making a
product which takes a person’s ability to think rationally, away from this
person.
Bentham argued the same way. He argued that if a person carried out
crimes against humanity in the name of utilitarianism, that it wasn’t the
principle of utility that was wrong, but rather the application that the person
made of it.
Now, we are aware of wars that have been made in the name of God and/or
religion. The terrorists of 9/11 said that they were doing what they were doing
in the name of God. However, neither God nor his word, teaches people to kill
innocent people, or even to go to war with other countries. Jesus said: “My
kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom
not from hence” (Jno. 18:36). Therefore, the so-called Holy Wars were
without justification. The 9/11 terrorists were not living according to the
Bible, but rather the Quran which explicitly teaches Muslim’s to kill
unbelievers. The Quran and the Bible are in opposition to each other, at least
on this one point. Therefore one cannot bring these things up as examples of
how something good could be misapplied. We all realize that even the Bible
can be misapplied, but the Bible’s teachings will not logically conclude in these
misapplications. Bentham’s theory does, just as does the alcohol industry’s
product, logically conclude in the applications that man has made of them.
One implication that comes from “utilitarianism” is that there is no God.
Now just looking at this one wonders how the non-existence of God logically
follows from the idea that mankind is governed by two masters, pain and
pleasure. The founding father of this principle, as we have already seen, was
not Jeremy Bentham, but rather Epicurus. And although he professed a
belief in gods (because atheism was illegal in Athens at that time), he made
this argument against God:
“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?” (The Ancient Greeks,
Part Three: Epicureans and Stoics, C, George Boeree)
He was an atheist, at heart. If one is an atheist, then he owes (in his mind)
nothing to a creator, and he has no need of keeping laws of a supposed
creator. The implication, thus being, if mankind is governed by pain and
pleasure and only these two things, then God does not exist. If God exists
then man is governed by God’s laws rather than pain and pleasure. More to
come.
| "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth" (Jno. 17:17). bellecofc.centurytel.net |
Bulletin Article
Belle church of Christ
 |
| |
 |