The 'right' thing to do?

[Thinking Skins]

http://thoughtsparadigm.blogspot.com/

I'm in one of my philosophical/religious moods right now, so I've been doing a little thinking this morning. Anyway, I've been thinking of what Christianity kinda calls the 'right' thing to do with two philosophical definitions of 'right' - utilitarianism and the categorical imperative.

What Christianity calls right is what many call the golden rule. It states to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Utilitarianism says to do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number. And the Categorical Imperative says that we should act in a way that we would want everyone else to act.

Each of these principles presents what appears to me as loopholes in logic so that they can't be adapted in a universal manner. For instance, who is the 'others' in the golden rule? I often think about how I should act if I were to catch someone breaking into my house while I had family members still sleeping. If I put myself into the shoes of the robber, then maybe I'd think about showing compassion and not responding violently. If, on the other hand, I were to put myself into the shoes of my family members, I'm sure they'd want protection as guests in my house - and this may drive me towards a more forceful approach to this situation.

The principles of Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperative present similar situations. For instance. How are we able to predict the 'greatest good' without knowing all possible actions? And when I say all possible actions I mean ALL POSSIBLE ACTIONS, even those that we are unable to think of. And what's the time frame on Utilitarianism? Do we want to produce the greatest good for this moment? for the next few days? for the rest of eternity? And how accurate do our predictions need to be? Many things like witch-hunting can be said to be based on utilitarianism principles, but based on false logic. But is this still utilitarianism? And if so, does this discount utilitarianism?

Finally, I turn to the categorical imperative, which I greatly respected when I first learned of it as a child. But I've grown to realize that even this is not without its questions. For instance, say a woman was considering getting an abortion. How much of that woman's situation should the categorical imperative take into account? Would the universal law that the categorical speaks of be that 'every woman should be allowed to get an abortion', that 'every woman whose life is in danger should be allowed to get an abortion', that 'every woman whose life is in danger in the first tri-mester should be allowed to get an abortion', etc.

These are three principles that I've respected over the years as a reader of philosophy. And as I search for direction, I often turn back to these principles. But it seems that even they have their limitations.

[Koolblue13]

Do onto others, just about covers everything, in my book.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just a note of clarification the Golden Rule is not the be all and end all, nor the summation of Christian teaching. If you want a summation of Christian teaching its this:

Summation of God's teaching for His people

Matthew 22:34-40 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 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.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The discussion then comes to who is my neighbor:

Luke 10:29-37 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

As for the guy breaking into your house:

Matthew 5:43-48 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Acting in love takes many forms, it is sometimes very clear (feeding the hungry), at other times it is ambiguous (healing on the Sabbath) the end is love for God, for self (properly understood) and love for others. The results are completely secondary. If you're looking for strict guidelines for behavior as far as what to do in given circumstances then you won't find it in Christianity, because Christianity is not interested in legalism, i.e. establishing set rules.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think Kant fails in a much broader way than Mill does when comparing the Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism.

First of all, I think the categorical imperative stands for the proposition that the right thing to do, is always the right thing to do. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Based on that, I would say that it is totally impracticable.

Utilitarianism certainly has its limits, and there are times when you should say "what's right is right," but I think its a much more flexible philosophy, and even allows you to employ that categorical imperative thinking. That is, what's good for one person is allowed to trump what's good for the masses, if its really a more important, or a better good. The real problems with utilitarianism come into play when you try to employ it... like most philosophies.

[Thinking Skins]

Just a note of clarification the Golden Rule is not the be all and end all, nor the summation of Christian teaching. If you want a summation of Christian teaching its this:

Summation of God's teaching for His people

Matthew 22:34-40 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 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.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

True that the love the Lord commandment was stated to be more important, but it is also less precise. What exactly does that mean in terms of morality? What is not loving the Lord? Different people can come up with their own interpretations of what this means and nobody will be wrong but many will be contradictory. So its hard to use that as a judgement of what the 'right' thing to do is.

The discussion then comes to who is my neighbor:

Luke 10:29-37 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

As for the guy breaking into your house:

Matthew 5:43-48 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I don't think I raised the question "who is my neighbor", but I will pair these two responses together to show my point. If a man is walking with his family in downtown DC and is approached by a homeless man, the question arises "is this man trying to harm me or asking for help?" If he determines that the homeless man is asking for help, a second question may arise, "if I help him and he is not satisfied, will he respond by trying to harm me or my family?"

Its easy to preach a principle like love your neighbor and love your enemies, but even the word "love" is ambiguous as to what it means. What has my family gained if I'm killed by the man I've tried to give a dollar? Or if I try to show mercy and talk to the guy who's in the process of breaking into my house? Even if I put myself into the robber's shoes, I don't know if I'd want somebody to "understand my struggles to ease my pain" or to "punish me harshly to teach me a lesson". We see these kind of battles over and over between the Christian churches - some of whom are against things like gay marriage and others who are for it; some who are against the death penalty and others who are for it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

First of all, I think the categorical imperative stands for the proposition that the right thing to do, is always the right thing to do. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Based on that, I would say that it is totally impracticable.

Impracticable? Expalin what you mean please.

Utilitarianism certainly has its limits, and there are times when you should say "what's right is right," but I think its a much more flexible philosophy,

How can it be a flexible philosophy when the "rightness" of an action is soley determined upon its outcome?

[Thinking Skins]

Acting in love takes many forms, it is sometimes very clear (feeding the hungry), at other times it is ambiguous (healing on the Sabbath) the end is love for God, for self (properly understood) and love for others. The results are completely secondary. If you're looking for strict guidelines for behavior as far as what to do in given circumstances then you won't find it in Christianity, because Christianity is not interested in legalism, i.e. establishing set rules.

This I agree with you on. I'm not trying to define a strict set of rules for any of these things, more the opposite. I feel like because there are such loopholes in the understanding of these principles (definitions of right) two people could be acting under the exact same principle, but behave in completely opposite ways, just based on their own individual interpretation.

[AsburySkinsFan]

True that the love the Lord commandment was stated to be more important, but it is also less precise. What exactly does that mean in terms of morality? What is not loving the Lord? Different people can come up with their own interpretations of what this means and nobody will be wrong but many will be contradictory. So its hard to use that as a judgement of what the 'right' thing to do is.

Exactly, it is hard, no one said it was supposed to be easy.

I don't think I raised the question "who is my neighbor",

Quite right, you didn't but it is so often the next question that follows that I often simply directly address it without waiting.

but I will pair these two responses together to show my point. If a man is walking with his family in downtown DC and is approached by a homeless man, the question arises "is this man trying to harm me or asking for help?" If he determines that the homeless man is asking for help, a second question may arise, "if I help him and he is not satisfied, will he respond by trying to harm me or my family?"

Its easy to preach a principle like love your neighbor and love your enemies, but even the word "love" is ambiguous as to what it means. What has my family gained if I'm killed by the man I've tried to give a dollar? Or if I try to show mercy and talk to the guy who's in the process of breaking into my house? Even if I put myself into the robber's shoes, I don't know if I'd want somebody to "understand my struggles to ease my pain" or to "punish me harshly to teach me a lesson". We see these kind of battles over and over between the Christian churches - some of whom are against things like gay marriage and others who are for it; some who are against the death penalty and others who are for it.

What you're missing is that Christian thought while it finds its summation in the Greatest Commandment, does not stop there, in fact Christian thought in scripture goes on to explain and exemplify what "Love" is and at least one point love is defined as laying down one's life for one's friends. Self sacrifice for the other is Christian love.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Impracticable? Expalin what you mean please.

Sure... the categorical imperative basically says that certain actions are right, and some actions are wrong. That right actions are always right, and wrong actions are always wrong. Morally speaking. The truth is, there are shades of gray in life, and these shades need to be weighed and dealt with accordingly.

The most famous example of the shortcomings of the categorical imperative goes like this: You and a friend are at your house. A psychotic killer comes to your house, and asks where your friend is and tells you he is here to kill him. Under the categorical imperative philosophy, lying is wrong. It is always immoral to lie. So, employing Kant's theory, you say, "sure, my friend is in my living room." And the killer kills him, but you have not deviated from your set of morals because you have not bent them and you have told the truth.

Now, Kantian philosophers even try to reason this out by saying that if you lie to the killer and tell him he's not there, there is a chance that your friend may have snuck out the backdoor. And so, if you tell the killer to leave, there is a chance that he finds him trying to escape your house, whereas, if you had told the killer the truth, your friend would have gotten away. But, either way, YOU would have done the right thing by telling the truth.

Personally, I think that very famous example really demonstrates the failures of Kant's philosophy. :2cents:

How can it be a flexible philosophy when the "rightness" of an action is soley determined upon its outcome?

As for utilitarianism, like I said, it has its limits. It certainly is not perfect. However, I do not think that Mill would really argue that the action itself cannot bring some good. That is, I disagree that Mill did not take into account the means, AT ALL. I think Utilitarianism does allow one to say that doing something which is the right thing is actually the greatest good. This is the reason I say its more flexible. You can stay true to your principles of what is right and wrong, and still employ utilitarianism. Or you could tell a lie to a killer and do something "wrong," but still see the best outcome. :2cents:

[Thinking Skins]

Sure... the categorical imperative basically says that certain actions are right, and some actions are wrong. That right actions are always right, and wrong actions are always wrong. Morally speaking. The truth is, there are shades of gray in life, and these shades need to be weighed and dealt with accordingly.

The most famous example of the shortcomings of the categorical imperative goes like this: You and a friend are at your house. A psychotic killer comes to your house, and asks where your friend is and tells you he is here to kill him. Under the categorical imperative philosophy, lying is wrong. It is always immoral to lie. So, employing Kant's theory, you say, "sure, my friend is in my living room." And the killer kills him, but you have not deviated from your set of morals because you have not bent them and you have told the truth.

See, I thought I understood Kantian philosophy when I read about the theory behind it, but whenever I see an example like this it makes me question it.

Like I said in my original post, who determines the universal law? There are several universal laws that one could try to put into place in this instance. For example, if I know that there is a psychotic killer in my house who wants to kill my friend, then I would definately be worried about my own life as well, and so things about self defense come into play, "is it ok to retaliate in self defense?". Even if the answer to this is no, then a second question would come up, "is it ok for me to call the police" or "what if I tried to calm him down"...

This is just trying to make usage of the gray area in this situation without actually violating the categorical imperative. I think that the heart of my problem with the discussions I've read on the categorical imperitave is that people act like these universal laws can't be any kind of complicated laws "If A or B then C"....all I ever see is "Don't do X", but we are capable of thinking of and experiencing many complex situations and so limiting ourselfs not to use conjunctions and implication in these universal laws makes a large gray area that becomes impossible to deal with using the categorical imperative.

As for utilitarianism, like I said, it has its limits. It certainly is not perfect. However, I do not think that Mill would really argue that the action itself cannot bring some good. That is, I disagree that Mill did not take into account the means, AT ALL. I think Utilitarianism does allow one to say that doing something which is the right thing is actually the greatest good. This is the reason I say its more flexible. You can stay true to your principles of what is right and wrong, and still employ utilitarianism. Or you could tell a lie to a killer and do something "wrong," but still see the best outcome. :2cents:

But utilitarianism can also be used to do obviously immoral things like killing witches because its thought to bring about the 'greatest good'.

[Bang]

I think in searching for the happy harmony between the two you're assuming you have the ability to do so. Human beings are inherently flawed.

For one, if the robber breaks into your house, the Golden Rule becomes reversed doesn't it? This guy has done unto you what he should expect in return. And so, if you respond violently, he pretty much asked for it, no?

In wondering whether or not to show compassion, (as you would prefer for yourself) you assume that one day you will be in his place. I think most of us can safely say we won't be burgling some other guy's house, so you're actually satisfying the Golden Rule (his) by acting accordingly.

In the other case, you have to assume you know all of the possible outcomes of all the possible scenarios that can exist for each situation to do the most good for the most people. And since you don't and can never actually hope to, it's really kind of a pointless worry.

Sometimes the action that provides the greatest good for the most people is obvious. There's a fire in the trash can. You have a fire extinguisher. You could run out and save yourself, but...

Good thread. Beats politics.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

This I agree with you on. I'm not trying to define a strict set of rules for any of these things, more the opposite. I feel like because there are such loopholes in the understanding of these principles (definitions of right) two people could be acting under the exact same principle, but behave in completely opposite ways, just based on their own individual interpretation.

I think you may be correct, but I don't consider them loopholes, in many ways it is a sign of Christian maturity to act in certain ways over chosing to act in other ways. However, I would not argue for pluralism here in a strict sense, since as a Christian I am not held accountable for that which I do not yet understand. i.e. a new Christian who responds to a given situation is not viewed in the same light as a mature Christian in the same situation.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

But utilitarianism can also be used to do obviously immoral things like killing witches because its thought to bring about the 'greatest good'.

I think Bang hit the nail on the head when he said this:

I think in searching for the happy harmony between the two you're assuming you have the ability to do so. Human beings are inherently flawed.

I would just add that in saying that utilitarianism can be used to do immoral things, I would agree. HOWEVER, I think what you're saying is that it can be employed wrongly. For example, killing women who you think are witches, but are not, is not a good. Its when you mistakenly think that they are witches, that utiltarianism becomes wrong. But then again, would the categorical imperative not say that destroying evil is the right thing to do, also?

I think the categorical imperative is INHERENTLY flawed. It is not practicable, even when used in the manner it was designed to be used. I think utilitarianism is a much broader philosophy which, if we had all the right answers, we would be able to make very good decisions. If not all the time, most of the time. I don't see the inherent flaw. I see flaws in its employment. I can't say the same for the categorical imperative. :2cents:

[Bang]

But utilitarianism can also be used to do obviously immoral things like killing witches because its thought to bring about the 'greatest good'.

In this case it's a matter of the greatest good being a subjective thing based on someone's personal belief. When based in metaphysical reasoning, there can be no chance at all of determining the greatest good for the most people, because you're predisposed to an answer you feel is obvious.

She's a witch.

Burn her.

the poor girl at the stake certainly has another viewpoint, and she's right. Unfortunately for her, because the metaphysical reasoning has been used to determine that her death will help the entire village, the scope of reason is severely limited by emotional response. Any hope of anyone seeing the true greater good for her case is out the window. (Namely because if anyone did stand up and say "we shouldn't do this, we should respect one another and grow as people" they'd be burned too. Friggin' namby pamby witches! )

~Bang

[alexey]

I think difficulties will always arise when you try to apply principles directly to actions. This seems to happen because life situations are very direct and immediate, while principles are abstract and are removed from day-to-day activities.

When dealing with situations, one tends to already be in a state of mind where one knows what options are available. Then one would try to apply "universal" principles to choose one course of action from several. I think this approach is fundamentally unsound. Principles, being "universal" by nature, simply cannot operate in a "limited options" environment.

The alternative to what would be applying principles to yourself, and then letting yourself deal with situations as they arise.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think difficulties will always arise when you try to apply principles directly to actions. This seems to happen because life situations are very direct and immediate, while principles are abstract and are removed from day-to-day activities.

When dealing with situations, one tends to already be in a state of mind where one knows what options are available. Then one would try to apply "universal" principles to choose one course of action from several. I think this approach is fundamentally unsound. Principles, being "universal" by nature, simply cannot operate in a "limited options" environment.

The alternative to what would be applying principles to yourself, and then letting yourself deal with situations as they arise.

I think I agree. For me its a matter of being so well versed in the philosophy or principles that the required actions are apparent in a given situation, like second nature.