This post is based on a chapter of an almost-fully-written but unpublished book called The Grand Coherence: A Modern Defense of Christianity, for which I hope to find a publisher.
Once again one of these comes out on the eve of a writing day so I can’t give it the attention it deserves, but I did want to note that it seems to me that most of the major moral systems start to look like each other (or at least can) when we start considering their elements in a more robust way. For example, the Golden Rule can start to sound like an application of the Categorical Imperative, and Utilitarianism can start to sound like both once one reaches Rule Utilitarianism.
Well, yes! Conscience and experience supply a lot of the content of what we want morality to say, and meta-ethical systems tend to be rationalizations of that, which drives a considerable amount of convergence.
However, I think MacIntyre is right, ultimately, in dismissing the Enlightenment project of rationalizing morality as a failure, even if he's somewhat too hasty and under-appreciative. Rule utilitarianism, in particular, which is an attempt to escape from some monstrous conclusions of pure utilitarianism, strikes me as a rank evasion. Can we really prove the utilitarian benefits of following some particular set of rules? Christian tradition in general, and my argument in this post, are rather larger and more satisfactory than that.
I think rule utilitarianism (at least in some forms) is very close to equivalent to the 1) golden rule formulation in which we’re to treat everyone as as if they and ourselves are interchangeable in value, with our good differing based on our differing circumstances and characteristics plus 2) the realization that we as fallible and finite beings are all fundamentally and eternally limited in our understanding of the totality of consequences of anything we do. It’s so similar that I’m unsure if there’s a difference (beyond phrasing/rhetorical focus) even in principle.
Suppose Pure Utilitarian argues that sometimes you have to use torture and slavery for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Rule Utilitarian says no: there can be local benefits, but ultimately the fear, the copycatting, the uncertainty, the temptation of self-interest, etc. make the warrant to comply crimes too dangerous. The best outcomes for the happiness of the greatest number are achieved through role following.
But how does the Rule Utilitarian know that? I don't think they know it at all, it's just rationalization and guesswork. But it's appealing because it lets people evade some horrific consequences of pure utilitarianism while keeping the metaphysics of ethics oversimplified. It's a dodge.
I think Rule Utilitarianism takes the step you describe as demonstrated or assumed; your counter argument is along the road between pure utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. And maybe rule utilitarians are helping themselves to a leap to which they have no right beyond gut feeling or something, but I would counter: how do we justify the golden rule? It seems to me that rule utilitarianism at least pays homage to the need for first principles, whereas the Golden Rule seems to be more like a raw command or a free-floating heuristic. Which isn’t to say it’s wrong or even that it’s not the best of all such things! Just that the Golden Rule doesn’t so much solve the kind of objection you adduce so much as ignore it entirely.
Well, how to justify the Golden Rule is a very large question. The post tries to do some of that work, but it's not designed to address a Golden Rule skeptic head on. Partly I'm aiming to leverage the fact that there's a lot of spontaneous sympathy with the Golden Rule. A general problem here is that while at one level the Golden Rule is a place where it's easy for Christians and secularists to find a lot of common ground, the Christian has big reasons to believe in the Golden Rule that aren't available to the secularist. Most obviously, the Christian thinks he has reasons to believe in the Bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus, as divine revelation, and Jesus teaches the Golden Rule. The secularist doesn't have that. How well I could develop a rational defense of the Golden Rule that doesn't lean on Christian revelation, I'm not sure. It's not easy. Since lots of secularists do seem to believe in the Golden Rule, though, it can be a good principle to leverage for broad-based persuasion.
I think this touches on the single most attractive thing about a religion like Christianity: it offers to cut through all the uncertainty and doubt that are inevitable for a finite being attempting their own moral reasoning, showing the path to doing right. Though of course morally sophisticated still end up struggling with principles quite a lot, but at least they have a reason to feel secure in their foundations that is unavailable a secularist: advice from an infinite being who *does* know the answers.
Once again one of these comes out on the eve of a writing day so I can’t give it the attention it deserves, but I did want to note that it seems to me that most of the major moral systems start to look like each other (or at least can) when we start considering their elements in a more robust way. For example, the Golden Rule can start to sound like an application of the Categorical Imperative, and Utilitarianism can start to sound like both once one reaches Rule Utilitarianism.
Well, yes! Conscience and experience supply a lot of the content of what we want morality to say, and meta-ethical systems tend to be rationalizations of that, which drives a considerable amount of convergence.
However, I think MacIntyre is right, ultimately, in dismissing the Enlightenment project of rationalizing morality as a failure, even if he's somewhat too hasty and under-appreciative. Rule utilitarianism, in particular, which is an attempt to escape from some monstrous conclusions of pure utilitarianism, strikes me as a rank evasion. Can we really prove the utilitarian benefits of following some particular set of rules? Christian tradition in general, and my argument in this post, are rather larger and more satisfactory than that.
I think rule utilitarianism (at least in some forms) is very close to equivalent to the 1) golden rule formulation in which we’re to treat everyone as as if they and ourselves are interchangeable in value, with our good differing based on our differing circumstances and characteristics plus 2) the realization that we as fallible and finite beings are all fundamentally and eternally limited in our understanding of the totality of consequences of anything we do. It’s so similar that I’m unsure if there’s a difference (beyond phrasing/rhetorical focus) even in principle.
Suppose Pure Utilitarian argues that sometimes you have to use torture and slavery for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Rule Utilitarian says no: there can be local benefits, but ultimately the fear, the copycatting, the uncertainty, the temptation of self-interest, etc. make the warrant to comply crimes too dangerous. The best outcomes for the happiness of the greatest number are achieved through role following.
But how does the Rule Utilitarian know that? I don't think they know it at all, it's just rationalization and guesswork. But it's appealing because it lets people evade some horrific consequences of pure utilitarianism while keeping the metaphysics of ethics oversimplified. It's a dodge.
I think Rule Utilitarianism takes the step you describe as demonstrated or assumed; your counter argument is along the road between pure utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. And maybe rule utilitarians are helping themselves to a leap to which they have no right beyond gut feeling or something, but I would counter: how do we justify the golden rule? It seems to me that rule utilitarianism at least pays homage to the need for first principles, whereas the Golden Rule seems to be more like a raw command or a free-floating heuristic. Which isn’t to say it’s wrong or even that it’s not the best of all such things! Just that the Golden Rule doesn’t so much solve the kind of objection you adduce so much as ignore it entirely.
Well, how to justify the Golden Rule is a very large question. The post tries to do some of that work, but it's not designed to address a Golden Rule skeptic head on. Partly I'm aiming to leverage the fact that there's a lot of spontaneous sympathy with the Golden Rule. A general problem here is that while at one level the Golden Rule is a place where it's easy for Christians and secularists to find a lot of common ground, the Christian has big reasons to believe in the Golden Rule that aren't available to the secularist. Most obviously, the Christian thinks he has reasons to believe in the Bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus, as divine revelation, and Jesus teaches the Golden Rule. The secularist doesn't have that. How well I could develop a rational defense of the Golden Rule that doesn't lean on Christian revelation, I'm not sure. It's not easy. Since lots of secularists do seem to believe in the Golden Rule, though, it can be a good principle to leverage for broad-based persuasion.
I think this touches on the single most attractive thing about a religion like Christianity: it offers to cut through all the uncertainty and doubt that are inevitable for a finite being attempting their own moral reasoning, showing the path to doing right. Though of course morally sophisticated still end up struggling with principles quite a lot, but at least they have a reason to feel secure in their foundations that is unavailable a secularist: advice from an infinite being who *does* know the answers.