by Vesa Hautala.

This is the second part of a series on the relationship between Christianity and utilitarianism, a philosophical moral theory popular in EA circles. The first post examined the relationship between utilitarianism and Christianity in general. This post explores the particular questions of animal ethics, abortion, euthanasia, and duties to the poor.

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.

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

In conclusion, 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.