This morning as I traveled to work I listened to a podcast summarising utilitarianism. Some good points of criticism was made but I was struck by an illustration that was used which, it was thought, indicates some warrant for a utilitarian theory. The listener was asked to imagine that some had certain knowledge that a meteor would soon strike the earth, destroying it. It might be argued that in the interests of promoting the best total aggregate of happiness for the human race it was best not to inform people of such an inevitability, but to leave them in the dark.
It struck me that this is precisely the same mentality that opposes any talk of people being accountable for their lives to almighty God on a day of judgment. The podcaster, even in his critique of utilitarianism, shared the same humanistic understanding of happiness - that it was something that only applied to this life. To the extent that utilitarians and others have any warrant in pursuing happiness as an end in itself - whatever “happiness” is (see prior blogs) - then what must be considered is whether there is life after death. For anyone with an ounce of common sense must realise that it is pretty pointless to achieve rapturous happiness in this life if after death one will experience eternal misery. Further, can it be assumed that if there is a life after death that we, by our actions in this life, can ensure our own happiness in that life hereafter? Buddhists certainly hang everything on this humanistic assumption as do many others, even if they say they are not sure if there is an after-life or not.
Of course, things are greatly complicated for us if our experience of “happiness” after death or otherwise is something which is controlled and determined not by ourselves but by another, God. At a popular level many seek to reassure themselves that they are basically decent people whom such a God, if he exists, would not deny entrance into his heaven of delights. But this presupposes a concept of God who is prepared to “wink his eye” at our failings, that is, a God who is less than morally perfect. The moment we entertain the notion that any experience of eternal bliss in the life hereafter presupposes a perfectly good and generous God then we are in big trouble. For why should such a God lower his standards by granting us admittance into his paradise and thereby polluting it?
The Westminster Confession defines “the chief end of man” as being “to glorify God and enjoy him forever”. Any utilitarian or other goal of “happiness” that does not consist in enjoying God must inevitably arrive at the very opposite of what it seeks. Given that we are all tarred with the same brush of serious moral deficiency we are dependent on God himself to bring this end about in a way that does not compromise his moral perfection. The cross of Christ is his solution! Apart from this there is no possible solution to this conundrum!
Posted August 27, 2008
Upon clicking 'Buy now' you will be redirected to paypal.com where you can securely and quickly complete your purchase with a few clicks.
Immediately after payment at PayPal you will be redirected to a download page which
provides you instant access to your purchase.
