The Problem of Evil, Christians, and Inconsistency

[The Grand Nudger]

The first is that when applied to society I think, though correct me if I am wrong, that it must lead to utilitarianism. That is whatever produces a net increase in happiness is best: that is how Richard Dawkins recently argued for abortion of Down's Syndrome children, perhaps forgetting, to the consternation of many Down's families, that they are frequently very happy people. RD, putting aside his misunderstanding that Down's Syndrome children and families frequently aren't unhappy, is probably being consistent with an Epicurean view. But equally consistent is harvesting organs from live people against their will. One person can save multiple other people (if good matches are assured in advance), potentially producing a net increase in happiness. utilitarianism can led to a tyranny of the majority; but it appears hard to argue against using its own logic.

A system in which one can be trodden on at the behest of the many in fact -does not- lead to any net increase in happiness. It leads to spikes of local happiness whereby misery is shifted around to produce the illusion of a net increase. If you find yourself on the business end of such a system you may immediately recognize your blunder - or, you could think it through and realize that the system is not actually providing the benefit it claimed before it ever gets around to harvesting your organs against your will - and is not actually a strictly utilitarian system. The tyranny of the majority is a case in which the net happiness is being ignored by a group of people looking to impose their will (and often shuck off their misery) on some smaller, less potent group of people, the nature of such a system means that there will -always- be someone to step on. We just have to keep making subdivisions. Today it's working for you, tommorrow it's cutting you open and leaving a lipstick message on the bathroom mirror. So, I wouldn't say that utilitarianism leads to any of that, personally. I'd say that a particularly bent fuck might try to borrow some weight and authority in making that argument - but he could borrow that from anywhere.

Why not, for example, say that what is most important is the survival (or perhaps even improvement) of the human species, accepting any pain that might entail.

Because we don't want to merely -survive-, and the notion of improvement is so nebulous that it defies being nailed to the wall sufficiently as to act as the basis of a moral system? We could say either, of course. I just don't think they'd be as useful as a basis for morality.