Doing philosophy during a pandemic
Philosophers inquire. They do not (or at least should not) avoid difficult questions, unless there is good reason to do so. As a philosopher, I find that the COVID-19 pandemic raises important questions of moral philosophy. In what follows, I will examine one. Should our response to the pandemic be guided by consequentialist reasoning? I will suggest a negative answer.
Consequentialism is the position that the only factor which morally justifies an act is its results. In other words, the moral rightness or wrongness of an act is fixed solely by its outcome; the consequence of an act makes the act right or wrong.[i] If the outcome of an act is beneficial, then the act is justified: the end justifies the means. The main versions of consequentialism are utilitarianism and moral egoism. Utilitarianism is the view that, in any moral situation, the right act is the one which will lead (or tend to lead) to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.[ii] On moral egoism, one ought to behave in ways which maximize the best outcomes for oneself and let others do the same. Philosophers who deny consequentialism are called non-consequentialists.
Utilitarianism is a popular view of morality. Prima facie, the idea is attractive and easy to understand: satisfy desire for as many people as possible. After all, we intuitively grasp the idea of desire-satisfaction. And who doesn’t want to maximize his own satisfaction, anyway? But there are significant objections to consequentialism in general, and to utilitarianism in particular. As David Oderberg puts it:
I have given a number of fairly abstract reasons why consequentialism is on the face of it unintuitive and unmotivated. But I also think it is straight out false, and not only false but an evil and dangerous theory – a view I am not alone in holding. There are a number of ways in which I could defend the view, but I want to focus on one in particular, …This is the charge that consequentialism allows, indeed requires, certain kinds of action that are obviously wrong and so not to be done. In particular, consequentialism permits and requires actions that are horrendous evils, as evil as anything can be… In general, according to consequentialism, it is at least permitted, often obligatory, for a person to commit what looks to any sane observer like a blatant and serious violation of someone else’s rights, and hence to commit an act of grave injustice, in order to maximize value, or at least to do what he thinks is likely to maximize value. Now, for the non-consequentialist, no intuition his opponent can bring to bear in support of the consequentialist position on this matter is as strong as the intuition that such apparent injustices are indeed injustices, and so to be forbidden on all occasions, no matter what the consequences.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
In short, on consequentialism, serious violations of individual moral rights and dignity are permissible and even obligatory – if such violations are beneficial for the majority (utilitarianism) or the agent (egoism). However, plausibly, it is always wrong to violate individual rights and dignity, regardless of the consequences.[iv] Thus, consequentialism is false. Here is another objection to consequentialism: it requires that a human being knows all the short-term and long-term results of each of his actualized and unactualized (but possible) choices. For instance, how can one know each and every consequence of a state-imposed lockdown? Such knowledge is beyond human. Hence, consequentialism is highly infeasible. Any moral theory that cannot be thoughtfully practiced should be rejected.
Moreover, Christian ethics is a combination of deontology and virtue ethics, and thus is non-consequentialist in nature. The Decalogue and the Golden Rule are deontological. As philosopher J. P. Moreland has argued, Jesus was a virtue ethicist and “was no ethical utilitarian.”[v] Arguably, Paul rejects consequentialism in Romans 3:8. Therefore, Christians ought to be non-consequentialists, and so have reason to doubt consequentialist thinking.
Now, there are many reasons to recognize the leadership of Governor Andrew Cuomo. He is concerned about his fellow New Yorkers. He has been active in communicating to the public and making tough decisions for the sake of protecting New York residents. He is an important leader during this time. However, this does not mean that his leadership is beyond question. For example, in a recent press conference, Cuomo said the following: “I want to be able to say to the people of New York — I did everything we could do, … And if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.”[vi]
Consider this statement carefully: If we save just one life, then everything we do is justified. In other words, the saving of only one life justifies all coronavirus-related actions taken in the state of New York.[vii] This is a succinct example of consequentialist reasoning. Is Cuomo’s statement plausible? Recall the objections to consequentialism. If consequentialism is false, then Cuomo’s statement is false.
But suppose we were to argue that consequentialism is true. Still, it is not evident that the saving of just one life justifies every coronavirus-related action taken by the political leadership of New York, including the statewide lockdown and all its ramifications – many of which will adversely affect millions of people. Think about it: with a global ban on tobacco usage, we could save at least one life lost to tobacco-related disease. According to the CDC, “smoking is the leading cause of preventable death, and tobacco use causes more than 7 million deaths worldwide per year.”[viii] Yet we do not prohibit tobacco. We could make driving illegal; that would save at least one life lost in automobile accidents. But we do not ban driving. Clearly, in these cases, we do not “do everything” to save “just one life.” So, why accept Cuomo’s claim that the saving of only one life justifies all actions taken in the state of New York?[ix]
In closing, let me be clear. I do not mean to be insensitive about the COVID-19 pandemic. I am concerned about the well-being of individuals, cities, counties, and states in the U. S. I am concerned about persons, communities, and countries around the world. I believe that intelligently practiced social distancing is a wise and responsible course of action. And I pray that leaders around the world, including Cuomo, are graced with wisdom. However, I also believe that our moral reasoning should be sound. Let us hope that it is. And let us ask Socratic questions to examine and sharpen it.
[i] This is a strong sense of consequentialism. However, consequentialism can be articulated in a weaker sense: the most important factor which justifies an act is its consequences; the rightness or wrongness of an act is fixed primarily by its outcome.
[ii] Utilitarian thinkers usually define ‘happiness’ in terms of pleasure or desire-satisfaction. However, virtue ethicists such as Aristotle disagree. For example, Aristotle defined ‘happiness’ by the Greek term “eudaimonia,” which is a matter of moral and intellectual excellence, and the human flourishing produced by the possession of such virtues.
[iii] See Oderberg’s Why I am not a Consequentialist at http://www.davidsoderberg.co.uk/home/miscellaneous-writings
[iv] This is one reason why slavery is morally wrong; indeed, it is a grave moral evil.
[v] See Moreland’s A Biblical Case for Limited Government at https://tifwe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JP-Moreland-Limited-Govt.pdf
[vi] See https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/coronavirus-in-ny-cuomo-orders-lockdown-shuts-down-non-essential-businesses/
[vii] I grant that this might not have been Cuomo’s meaning. Perhaps his statement is hyperbole. Maybe it was articulated in a rough and non-philosophical manner. However, sans clarification from Cuomo, this is a reasonable interpretation of his meaning. And given the popularity of utilitarianism, it is rational to raise questions about Cuomo’s claim.
[viii]https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm
[ix] Perhaps the saving of many lives is a plausible justification for large-scale, state-imposed curtailments of individual freedoms and rights, even on non-consequentialist grounds. This question is worthy of examination.
In any case, I am concerned that the television media's coverage of COVID-19 involves frequent advice from physicians, epidemiologists, and other medical scientists - which is good - but virtually no counsel from moral philosophers or bioethicists. Moreover, the medical experts are providing moral guidance on what we ought to do, despite the fact that they probably are not experts in moral philosophy (at least the media does not advertise their philosophical credentials). These scientists might not realize that they are speaking beyond the range and the efficacy of science. Likely, they don't recognize the moral and metaphysical assumptions they are making. Yet the public listens to them, as if they were moral philosophers. Most people seem to believe it is all quite normal that scientists should speak as the normative voice of the 21st Century. This fact, in itself, highlights a significant problem in contemporary society. The problem is called scientism.
Roughly, scientism is the view that science alone provides knowledge (strong scientism), or that science is by far the most reliable and authoritative method to obtain knowledge (weak scientism). According to strong scientism, only scientific propositions can be known and/or rationally believed. On weak scientism, knowledge is possible outside of science, but science is vastly superior to all other disciplines as a means of acquiring knowledge and reasonable beliefs about the world.
There are many problems with scientism; for example, strong scientism is self-refuting. Consider one sociocultural problem with scientism that currently hamstrings our thinking: in a culture of scientism, society likely comes to accept that only scientists are qualified to tell us what to believe and how to act – even in areas such as morality, which are essentially non-scientific and cannot be known via the methods of science.
Elliot Crozat is a professor of philosophy and the humanities at Purdue University Global. He lives in Sarasota, Florida, and teaches philosophy and theology as a volunteer at his local church.
