The first ``Heaven and Heresy'' meditation written on ``Heresy.'' The goal of this meditation is to introduce the concept of utilitarianism, and then reflect on it's compatibility (or lack thereof) with the Christian worldview. The key text on which this meditation is based is Love and Responsibility, by Fr. Karol Wojtyla, who we now know better as Pope John Paul II. We'll start on the first section of the first chapter of Love and Responsibility, which is entitled, ``Analysis of the Verb `to Use.' '' I've tried to maximize the number of scenarios and discussion points. From there we'll visit a few chunks of the second and third chapter, beginning with ``Metaphysical Analysis of Love,'' followed by ``The Ethical Analysis of Love'' and finish with ``The Rehabilitation of Chastity.''
Scenario: John was headed to Best Buy to pick up a new television, since his old TV finally died. As he entered the store and saw the vast array of TVs, he was struck with the question -- which one of these should I buy? He knew how much he wanted to spend, but there were so many options...Discussion: What criteria should John consider in buying a TV? Is there one general rule to follow?
Ultimately, we would hope that John would settle on getting the most ``bang for his buck,'' or to put things more explicitly, he would be trying to get the most utility from his purchase. This is the essence of the utilitarian principle -- to put the emphasis on what is useful. To quote Fr. Wojtyla:
The useful is whatever gives pleasure and excludes its opposite, for pleasure is the essential ingredient of human happiness. To be happy, according to the premises of utilitarianism, is to live pleasurably (Chapter I, p. 35).
But is this sufficient on a personal or societal level?
Scenario: John and his roommate Paul head off to the Walnut Street Tea Company to get some more coffee for their apartment. John finds a great deal on a pound of Columbian coffee and excitedly shows Paul. Paul frowns, noting that the coffee is not ``Fair Trade.'' He suggests finding a different brand.Discussion: John is approaching this from the utilitarian perspective. Paul is not. Why is Paul thinking differently? What is different in this scenario?
An intuitive critique of utilitarianism shows itself here -- Paul is concerned about the livelihood of the coffee grower. He is willing to pay more (thus decreasing his personal utility) in order to assure that the coffee grower is able to make a decent living on this coffee. People are more important to him than cheap coffee.
Scenario: John and Paul head home with their shopping bags full of ``Fair Trade'' Coffee. Upon reaching their apartment, they encounter their third roommate, George drinking vodka and smoking cigars. As John and Paul unpack the coffee, George starts waxing philosophically, something he often does when he drinks vodka. John, still miffed over the coffee fight with Paul, tells George about the situation. George sneers and says, ``What does it matter what kind of coffee you buy? You're still using the farmer to get what you want! Save your moralizing for someone who cares!''Discussion: What does it mean to use something? Which of John and Paul used the coffee farmer? How is George correct, and how is he incorrect?
Fr. Wojtyla defines the verb 'to use' as follows, ``To use means to employ some object of action as a means to an end'' (Chapter I, p. 25). From this perspective, both John and Paul are using the coffee farmer, Walnut Street Tea Company and the crew of the ship who sailed the coffee to the US. So what's the difference? Paul is treating the farmer as a end in and of himself, and John is treating him merely as a means to cheap coffee. Paul is following Kant's categorical imperative: acting always in such a way that the human person is an end and not merely a means. Discussion: So how are we to treat our neighbor as an end in and of himself?
This allows us to make the positive reformulation of Kant's categorical imperative, known as the personalistic norm, namely, A person is an entity of a sort to which the only proper and adequate way to relate is love (Chapter I, p. 41). Discussion: What does Fr. Wojtyla mean by this, and what are its implications?
Fr. Wojtyla writes: ``It is impossible to put your trust in another human being, knowing or feeling that he or her sole aim is utility or pleasure'' (Chapter II, p. 86) Such an attitude has the natural consequence of suspicion and jealousy. A consumeristic view of love can last only as long as the other remains a source of pleasure...after that point, the ``illusion of reciprocity will burst like a bubble'' (ibid.). The ultimate message is that ``Genuine reciprocity cannot arise from two egoisms'' (ibid.).
What lesson can we take from this? First, ``People should always carefully `verify' their love before exchanging declarations, and especially before acknowledging it as their vocation and building their lives upon it'' (ibid.). Second, ``They must determine what their reciprocity relies on, and whether or not it is apparent rather than real'' (ibid.). Discussion: How can people do this?
``If marriage is to satisfy the demands of the personalistic norm, it must embody reciprocal self-giving'' (ibid., p. 89)Discussion: Why is this true? Of what does this consist? Is this the same for both the man and woman?
This self-giving must be a total self-giving. As Fr. Wojtyla notes, a sexual relationship is not sufficient for this self-giving. He writes, ``The giving of oneself of which we speak cannot...have merely a sexual context...Giving oneself only sexually, without the full gift of person to validate it, must lead to...utilitarianism'' (ibid.).
Likewise, Fr. Wojtyla notes that this self-giving will be different for men and women, ``The acts of surrender reciprocate each other, that of man and that of woman, though they are of different kind'' (ibid..)
``Where love between man and women is concerned we must admit two meanings of the word: love can be understood as a certain situation with a psychological significance, but it also has an ethical significance and so is connected with a norm'' (ibid., p. 120).Discussion: How is the love as a psychological experience related to love on the ethical level?
Fr. Wojtyla warns against placing primacy on love as a psychological experience, which leads to a sort of situationism. We see that idea often enough in our society, the attitude that you cannot judge a course of action unless you have been in that situation in the past. Fr. Wojtyla notes that situationism ``recognizes no norm'' and ``falls into vulgar psychologism in its understanding of love'' (ibid.).
Rather, ``Love as an experience should be subordinated to love as a virtue'' (ibid.). But he goes a step further, noting that, ``There is no possibility of psychological completeness in love unless ethical completeness is attained'' (ibid.). The ethical level of love is indispensable for the proper psychological completeness of love.
Subjectivism is the natural consequence of overemphasizing the emotional components of love. With that mindset, ``the objective value of love is partially or wholly swallowed up and lost'' (Chapter III, p. 154). The natural consequences of this are twofold.
`` `Sexual' values, vibrantly present in their sensual and emotional reactions, contribute to the decision and make it a more intense psychological experience, but it is not they which determine its authenticity. The essential reason for choosing a person must be personal, not merely sexual'' (Chapter II, p. 134).Discussion: What does it mean that ``the essential reason for choosing a person must be personal?'' What are sexual values, and how do they relate to these personal reasons?
To answer the second question first, Fr. Wojtyla defines sexual values as follows: ``the urge to mutual completion which accompanies this division [of male and female] indicates that the attributes of each sex possess some specific value to the other. We may therefore speak of sexual values which are connected with the psychological and physiological structure of man and woman'' (Chapter I, p. 48).
Sexual values then are part of this personal reason, but only a part, and should not be allowed to eclipse the person's value as a whole. In fact, Fr. Wojtyla notes, ``[Love] is put to the test most severely when the sensual and emotional reactions themselves grow weaker, and the sexual values as such lose their effect. Nothing then remains except the value of the person, and the inner truth about the love of those concerned comes to light'' (Chapter II, p. 134).