You know utilitarians, those jerky people who have beat their consciences into quietude so that they can support things like abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and such in the name of the greater good?
Yeah, those people. Well, it turns out they’re not just jerks. They might be psychos.
NEW YORK – September 30, 2011 – A study conducted by Daniel Bartels, Columbia Business School, Marketing, and David Pizarro, Cornell University, Psychology found that people who endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism—the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences—tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.
In the study, Bartels and Pizarro gave participants a set of moral dilemmas widely used by behavioral scientists who study morality, like the following: “A runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people, and you are standing on a footbridge next to a large stranger; your body is too light to stop the train, but if you push the stranger onto the tracks, killing him, you will save the five people. Would you push the man?” Participants also completed a set of three personality scales: one for assessing psychopathic traits in a non-clinical sample, one that assessed Machiavellian traits, and one that assessed whether participants believed that life was meaningful. Bartels and Pizarro found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended to view life as meaningless.
I didn’t know it, know it. But I kinda knew it, know what I mean?
Anyway, now that we know that Utilitarians are defective, can we kill them all? Ya know, for the greater good?
October 6, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I wrote a post recently about a study in which this same question was asked to the general public, to doctors, and to health-related administrators. The results were interesting…
http://deepsoftime.com/2011/09/27/the-rise-of-the-conditioners/
October 6, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Who are you to say that psychopathic and Machiavellian behavior is defective? Wouldn't that be just your personal opinion? 😉
October 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm
I have known psychopaths and have been victimized by a couple of them. Even though psychopaths aren't mentally ill in the conventional sense of the world, (they don't suffer from audio and visual hallucinations, they don't have a general deterioration of mental faculties) they have no empathy for their fellow men and women. They have no internal moral compass to inform them of morality. Their guilding principal in life is, "what's in it for me, and how will I get it?" It is useless to treat them like an average mental patient, their ability to reason is razor-sharp. It's their total lack of feeling and compassion that makes them 'crazy'. There is no treatment known for psychopathy. They literally come out of the womb with this mentality, so it really doesn't matter if their family of origin is good or bad, they're going to be bad to the bone no matter how good or bad their parents are. IMHO, psychopaths should be kept out of society. These folks have a mental problem that has no cure. They are a danger to the health and welfare of their fellow beings. My solution is to warehouse them for life in asylums to prevent them from inflicting any more harm on the general population. This may seem to be a heartless thing to do, but after being victimized by a couple of them, and reading several books (like "Without Conscience") on this distasteful subject, I don't know what else would work. Scotju
October 6, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Sadly, I think our schools and culture are breeding psychopaths. Scientism, atheism, relativism…one by one we are becoming a culture of collective psychopathology. We call it "tolerance".
October 6, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Christina,
From Webster on the net:
Machiavellianism: the political theory of Machiavelli; especially : the view that politics is amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can justifiably be used in achieving political power.
Machiavellian:1
1: of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism
2: suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.
Surely you wouldn't say this is OK because some are entitled to such personal opinions and still be considered "sane".
October 6, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Yes, people do use that utilitarian justification in order to justify and support sins like abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. I would also include war, nuclear weapons, the death penalty, racism, social darwinism and denial of health care.
October 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Actually nobody ever makes utilitarian arguments in favor of war, wars are unpleasant and expensive. At least for the last 100 years, all Western arguments for war have been purely on the basis of principle. Generally speaking it's anti-war people who make the utilitarian arguments, since again, wars are unpleasant and expensive.
The "utilitarian" arguments about nuclear weapons and the death penalty are often morally suspect, but they are, again, not the only or the most common arguments. Generally the death penalty is argued for on the basis of principle, namely justice.
I have never heard a utilitarian argument for racism.
"Utilitarian" arguments for "acknowledging that things cost money" and against "disincentivizing work by making not working just as beneficial if not moreso", which I'm assuming is what you meant by "social darwinism", are entirely appropriate, since it's an economic question—although merely arguing "which actually does the most good" is not utilitarianism. Similarly economic arguments are entirely appropriate in the case of tax-funded health care—and nobody is ever denied health care, even if it puts them in debt for the rest of their life. That debt is perhaps a disincentive for seeking necessary care, but do you actually want to force people to seek medical care they don't want?
October 6, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Sophia, all of those issues I listed are issues that the Church has a clear position on. People argued that we save lives by dropping the atom bombs on Japan. People argue that the death penalty is a deterrent for violent crime. People say things like we're protecting our freedom by voting against providing health care to people who might not want it. People thought that black slaves in American should migrate to Liberia where they wouldn't face slavery and prejudice here because that would solve the unpleasantness of the slavery issue. Therefore… I disagree that there haven't been utilitarian arguments for the issues that I have raised as well as the ones mentioned by the blogger. I was just reminding the forum that the Church is not only pro-life regarding the unborn, but also throughout the person's entire life until natural death.
October 6, 2011 at 11:27 pm
theotpr,
In some of those cases, you read more into the Church's position than is really there.
While I agree that Church teaching would preclude the use of nukes (and also the use of indiscriminate firebombing with conventional weapons that was probably more deadly, but nobody talks about that), it could be argued by some that "reasonable attempts" were made to warn innocents to allow them time to leave the target area.
Some people argue that the death penalty is a deterrent. Whether it is or not is not important. The Church acknowledges that nations have recourse to the death penalty, although Pope John Paul II expressed the opinion that it was unnecessary in the West, such a statement was never made binding (I agree with him, for what it's worth).
Nobody is voting against providing health care. Health care is already provided…health insurance is not provided. There is no requirement in Catholic social teaching that says health insurance must be provided to all. The bishops have made it clear that "health care" is a right, not "health insurance".
While utilitarian arguments have been used by some people on the issues you raised, I see no reason for you to tie those reasons to the authors of this blog or the readers/commenters.
This has been a lovely red herring.
October 7, 2011 at 3:02 pm
theotpr, maybe I'd take you more seriously if you could get my handle right. It's "Sophia's Favorite", not Sophia.
I'm a dude, just for the record.
Other than that, what Mr. Siekierski has said is essentially adequate.
October 8, 2011 at 3:11 am
Matthew 25: 31-46
October 8, 2011 at 3:11 am
Matthew 25:31-46
October 8, 2011 at 3:12 am
The Gospel is not invalid as far as I know and as far as our Holy Father knows. "I was a stranger and you welcomed me."
October 9, 2011 at 10:20 pm
2 Thessalonians 3:7-15. The Pauline Epistles aren't invalid either, but your argument is.
I mean, since all the stats say fiscal conservatives give more money to charity. And most of them also seem to say that low taxes and deregulation are better for the poor, since they result in more economic growth, and therefore both more work and higher wages.
October 11, 2011 at 10:50 am
Really, when will the red herrings stop? "Fiscal conservatives and constitutionalists think poor people should just go die. And that's not pro life", right? Is that what we're supposed to believe?
If I think Maryland should rightfully take care of many things that liberal statists declare MUST be done by the federal government, it means I don't care about lives, or providing care to the stranger?
Or perhaps I just realize that as with all things Christian, in it's totality, it makes the world right. It's called Subsidiarity. If the family can do it, it should. If charity can do it best, it should. Centralized, federal power is the LAST resort, not the first, as subsidiarity gives preference to the LOWEST level that a problem can be addressed, starting with the individual and the family.
October 17, 2011 at 5:48 am
This is completely false! Mark Shea is not a utilitarian but he is most certainly a psychopath. 😉