Utilitarianism and Christianity

By Vesa Hautala

This post explores the relationship between Christianity and utilitarianism, a moral theory that has close ties with Effective Altruism. The contents of the post are largely based on an article on Utilitarianism and Christian theology that I coauthored with Dominic Roser for the St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology.

Utilitarianism and Effective Altruism

Utilitarianism is a moral theory, a philosophical account of what makes things right and wrong. According to utilitarianism, the right thing to do is to maximize welfare. Two prominent ways to understand welfare are pleasure and the satisfaction of preferences. An important aspect of utilitarianism is impartiality: everyone’s welfare matters equally. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, which means that the rightness of an action is ultimately judged by its consequences and what counts as duty or virtue is fully derivative from this.

Utilitarianism and Effective Altruism

It is easy to see how this impartial, maximizing mindset connects to EA. EAs aspire to do the most good (maximizing) and to be impartial in doing so. Effective Altruism is a consistent way for a utilitarian to put their ethical views into practice. About 70% of respondents considered themselves utilitarians in the EA Survey 2019.

EA, however, does not require utilitarianism. It is commendable to use reason and evidence to do good effectively based on various ethical frameworks; for example because one considers it virtuous or a commandment of God. The maximizing aspect of EA might raise challenges for people using different ethical frameworks. But it is possible to want to do the most good with the resources devoted to altruistic activity even if one does not subscribe to an overall maximizing paradigm. In practice very few, if any, people actually live the life of an impartial utility maximizer. It is also possible to practise maximizing within certain ethical constraints, like within the bounds of avoiding harm and human rights violations. In principle, effective altruism is also compatible with purely non-moral motivations, since someone might pursue “doing the most good” simply for social reasons, to find intellectual stimulation, etc.

Utilitarianism and Christianity

EA and utilitarianism clearly have considerable overlap, but what is the relationship between utilitarianism and Christianity?

Christian responses to utilitarianism have often been negative. Utilitarianism has been condemned by two popes. Many Christian ethicists also reject it, even if they might find some partial truth in it, and criticize all forms of consequentialist ethics. They ground the rightness of actions in the commandments of God or in a natural moral law given by God.

The response of utilitarians to Christianity has been mixed. While many prominent utilitarians have been atheists and criticized aspects of Christianity (and other religions) harshly, they have nonetheless had positive things to say about Jesus and Christian ethics, especially the golden rule and encouraging sacrifice for others.

History of Christian utilitarianism

Interestingly, however, utilitarianism first developed in a Christian context. Its first proponents were a group of thinkers called “theological utilitarians” or “Anglican utilitarians” in 18th century Britain. They believed that because God desires the happiness of all his creatures, it is God’s will we should promote the welfare of others. They also had a religious solution to the problem that has puzzled many secular utilitarians: why should we pursue the happiness of others in the first place, instead of caring only for our own welfare? Their answer was that God has designed things so that pursuing the greatest happiness of all and our own best interests always coincide. This is so not least because rewards and punishments await in the afterlife based on behaviour in this life.

Compatibility with Christianity

Whether utilitarianism and Christianity really are compatible is not a straightforward question. Much depends on how ‘welfare’ is defined. Many Christians probably feel uneasy about the idea that pleasure or the satisfaction of preferences is ultimately the only (moral) good. The Bible and Christian tradition speak of multiple valuable things: love, justice, the glory of God, freedom, etc. On the other hand, Christians are also familiar with the thought that every good thing ultimately comes from God who is goodness itself. Hence, being close to God is the most valuable thing which in some sense encompasses everything else that is valuable. However, neither the various valuable things nor the one valuable thing sounds like it could be subsumed under pleasure or preference satisfaction.

However, utilitarianism is not limited to a particular definition of welfare. Instead of defining welfare in subjective terms like pleasure or satisfaction of preferences, some have included objective elements like perfecting one’s nature, justice, love, etc. in their understanding of welfare (though some might not view this as genuine utilitarianism anymore). This sounds a lot closer to common Christian ideas about what is valuable. Union with God as the greatest happiness and the best kind of life also offers a definition of welfare that might sound worth maximizing to Christian ears. 

Another potential disconnect between Christian and utilitarian ethics is the difference in how individuals are valued. Christian ethics gives great value to individuals as unique creations of God, beings capable of relationships, etc. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, does not place value on individuals or persons per se, but rather on welfare. Persons have value only as sites for welfare to occur. This criticism might not be fair in practice, though, since increasing welfare means making individuals better off. Still, there are cases where the difference could lead to different actions, for example in animal ethics (if animals are considered individuals with value) and end-of-life decisions, which will be discussed in part two of this post.

From a Christian point of view, the consequentialist nature of utilitarian ethics also raises questions. In utilitarianism, right and wrong are determined solely by consequences, but most systems of Christian ethics seem to consider some acts – such as lying – bad in themselves. Yet the question of why certain acts are wrong is surprisingly hard because bad consequences are so closely intertwined with other qualities that can be seen to make an action bad, perhaps up to a point where it is mostly a matter of perspective whether acts are wrong based on their consequences or other characteristics.

A core problem with answering questions about the compatibility of utilitarianism and Christian ethics is that while utilitarianism is explicitly a systematic moral theory, Christian ethics is not first and foremost a philosophical system. In the history of Christian thought, there have been different attempts to conceptualize Christian ethics in the language of philosophical moral theory, but I believe it is fair to say Christian ethics is primarily focused on answering what is wrong or right, rather than why it is so on a fundamental philosophical level. 

This post explores the particular questions of animal ethics, abortion, euthanasia, and duties to the poor.

Specific questions

Animals

Utilitarianism takes animal suffering seriously because it considers the welfare of all beings impartially. If animals are capable of welfare, their interests must be considered when evaluating which actions maximize welfare. Animal welfare is also one of the top cause areas in EA based on similar reasoning.

Peter Singer, the most famous living utilitarian philosopher and one major influence on EA, was instrumental in starting the modern animal rights movement. He has blamed the Christian creation narrative for justifying cruelty towards animals. However, the tension between Christianity and utilitarianism is smaller than Singer thinks. It is true there are passages in the Bible that clearly ascribe greater value to humans than animals, and using animals for food is never presented as wrong per se, even though it is something that did not belong to the original creation. But there are also passages in the Bible that say God takes care of animals and that humans should treat animals well. Exploitation and cruelty are hardly in line with these passages. (I’ve written a more in-depth look from an EA perspective on what the Bible says about animals here.)

The actual differences between utilitarianism and Christian ethics with regard to animals may lie in the relative moral weight given to humans versus animals and the value of individual animal lives. In Christianity, humans have a special status as beings created in the image of God, and the Bible presents humans as more valuable than animals. On the other hand, most utilitarians also concede that humans matter more because they have more complex minds that make them more capable of welfare or preferences. At the same time, Christian animal ethics might lead to valuing individual animal lives more than utilitarianism. Christian animal ethicist David Clough argues that the utilitarian approach differs from Christian animal ethics in that it sees nothing wrong in painless killing per se, whereas according to Clough, Christian animal ethics prohibits the intentional prevention of the flourishing of animals as fellow creatures of God. Clough’s position on killing and eating animals is stricter than most Christians’, but many Christians might agree with the kind of approach that takes into account the dignity and sanctity of individual lives created by God.

Bioethics

Christianity has traditionally condemned both euthanasia and abortion, though today some argue for more accepting positions. Peter Singer notoriously argues not only that abortion is permissible but that in limited cases infanticide would be as well. Ultimately the only thing that matters in hedonist or preference utilitarianism is pleasure or preference satisfaction, respectively, so painlessly ending the life of a being that does not yet have sentience or preferences about its future would not be wrong in itself. However, not all utilitarians are as pro-choice as one might conclude from reading only Singer. (Torbjörn Tännsjö, for example, is much more cautious.) Considerations about the future welfare of the fetus or infant complicate the question. 

Still, there are differences with common Christian views. Sanctity of life is not a concern for utilitarians, neither with regard to euthanasia nor abortion. Even pro-choice and pro-euthanasia Christians operate with such categories as autonomy, relationality, dignity, care, and justice which are secondary in utilitarian ethics. 

Poverty

There is considerable overlap between utilitarianism and Christian ethics when it comes to poverty. Both Christian ethics and applied utilitarianism prescribe a duty of the well-off to use significant amounts of their possessions to help the poor.

In the Bible, John the Baptist tells people who have two shirts to give the other one to someone who has none (Luke 3:11), Jesus exhorts his disciples to sell their possessions and give alms (Luke 12:33), and Acts and the Epistles continue this theme (e.g., Acts 2:44–45; 1 Tim 6:17–19). Later Christian teaching continued along similar lines. St. Basil the Great, for example, taught: “When someone steals another's clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry.”

Peter Singer is famous for his drowning child thought experiment. He asks us to imagine seeing a child drowning in a shallow pond. You can easily wade in to save the child, but you happen to be wearing your best clothes and shoes, which would be ruined. Should you save the child? Singer assumes most would answer yes and asks why it should be any different with the “drowning children” suffering from poverty, disease etc. – after all, with some personal cost to ourselves, we could save those children too. Singer’s principle results in an obligation to give away most income above subsistence level, but he advocates for a more realistic standard of giving around 5 % for those who are financially comfortable, less for those who are below this level, and significantly more for the very rich.

However, Christians generally also think there are particular obligations, which Singer’s ethics does not recognize: special duties towards our spouses, children, etc. that can justifiably take precedence over helping strangers. Still, the level of giving Singer actually advocates for does not necessitate sacrificing the well-being of loved ones, so particular obligations do not create a strong practical contradiction.  Even while acknowledging particular duties, Christian ethics is strongly in favour of extending moral concern to those not in our immediate communities (the parable of the Good Samaritan is a prime example).

Conclusion

Christianity and utilitarianism have much more overlap than is commonly acknowledged. But, at the end of the day, trying to squeeze the Christian message into pure utilitarianism encounters many obstacles. There is clear synergy between Christian ethics and utilitarianism with regard to helping the poor, but differing approaches in animal ethics and bioethics. In practice, it is possible to find a lot of common ground in applied animal ethics and the differences are sometimes exaggerated. In bioethics, fundamental differences seem to remain but because this is not currently a central EA cause area it is unclear how much of a difference this makes in the context of EA.