The Veritas Conflict (20 page)

Five minutes later Claire listened to Professor Kwong’s introduction of the day’s topic. “The philosophy of utilitarianism,” the professor said, writing on the board, “proposes that the test of right or wrong is what will maximize pleasure for the greatest number of people.”

Professor Kwong turned back to the class. He was a handsome man, his dark hair peppered here and there with streaks of silver. “Now, before we dive into the utilitarian perspective, let’s review the definition of philosophy so we can ensure that we fit this discussion into the philosophy paradigm. Can anyone summarize the widely accepted definition?”

A guy in the second row, wearing slouchy khakis and shaggy sideburns, made a slight motion with his hand. Professor Kwong nodded. “Karl.”

The student read from his notebook, scarcely looking up. “The philosophical method, as defined by Plato and Aristotle, is the ’pursuit of truth through reason.’ ”

“Exactly. As we said previously, the three principles of philosophy are—” he ticked
the items off on his fingers—“A—beliefs cannot be contradictory; B—beliefs must be based on appropriate reasons; and C—a philosopher ought to arrive at the view based on the best reasons. Therefore, in our discussions you must both give your reasons for your beliefs and critically evaluate the reasons that others give for their beliefs.”

Claire’s thoughts flickered to her biology professor. Too bad she’d never taken philosophy.

Professor Kwong was leaning on the podium, his face intent. “Philosophy is part science part art. It is a common view that science is absolute, but it is not. It is changing all the time. Philosophy is the same—we have to be open to change if someone presents a better reason for truth.

“So now we turn to our first philosophy, utilitarianism, which holds that morality arises from satisfying the most preferences and avoiding the most pain for the most people. Can anyone tell me the genesis of this philosophy?”

A female student in the back raised her hand. “It started in the 1800s in England, with John Stuart Mill and a couple of other philosophers. You had us read those sections from Mill’s book
The Subjection of Women
.” She flipped through some papers in front of her. “He said that a prime example of something that
didn’t
maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people was the legal subordination of women. So utilitarianism proposed that a principle of perfect equality’ be instituted instead.”

Professor Kwong nodded. “Good, Alicia, good. Okay. So for utilitarians an act is morally right if it leads to the best outcome—as defined by the most happiness for the most people. Mill felt that the emancipation of women would maximize happiness and was therefore morally right. Can anyone tell me how this view of morality differs from some of the philosophies we studied last week—for example, the Ten Commandments? Brad?”

“Well, the Ten Commandments and the Bible say that certain principles must be followed because they are objectively right and true.”

As the student started speaking, Claire recognized the voice and craned her neck to see across the room.

Brad Jacobson! From Christian Fellowship? He’s in this class?

“Objectively right meaning …?”

“Meaning that right and wrong were created by God and exist independent of whether they have this or that effect. Something just
is
or
is not
true. Utilitarians focus solely on the results; the Bible focuses on the principles before talking about the results.”

Jo raised her hand and got Kwong’s nod. “Utilitarians thought biblical philosophies placed too much emphasis on rules. They wanted to help people get out from under that kind of repressive society—which was one reason women were subjugated to begin with—and to allow people to do whatever would have the best results.
Clearly, that philosophy is much more flexible and allows laws and governments to change as times change.”

She looked across the room at Brad. “Following certain strict rules may work for
you
morally and that’s fine. Whatever works for you. But I think most people these days don’t need that. Besides, how can you impose your religiously based standards on a society where some people disagree with you? It’s far better to look at things on a case by case basis. What might be right one time could be wrong the next time. Why should you lock yourself into saying something is always right or always wrong?”

Another student chimed in. “Besides, the Ten Commandments are so archaic, who can figure them out? And—let’s be honest—who’d really want to? Like I’m really going to covet my neighbor’s oxen or whatever anyway!”

The classroom broke up in laughter as the student scratched himself like a country bumpkin, a goofy smile on his face.

Claire’s face grew hot as she looked over at Brad. He seemed unaffected by the derision.

The professor shook his head, smiling. “Okay, Tim, thank you for your fine impersonation of Jethro Bodine.” More laughter rippled across the room as he called on another student.

“Actually, in my economics class last week, the professor mentioned this. He said the common cost/benefit analysis that’s used to make economic decisions was actually derived from utilitarian philosophy. For example, to decide whether to dam up a recreational river in order to generate power, an economist will try to attach a cost or a benefit to each outcome. What’s the numerical benefit for the population in leaving the river open for fishing and boating versus having more electricity for their city? That’s all derived from this philosophy apparently.”

Claire kept her head down, furiously taking notes. So many opinions! Her mind was racing. How was she ever going to get an organized opinion out of her mouth? Page after page filled up in her notebook as she tried to keep up with the discussion. Page after page of reasons why utilitarianism was a solid foundation for moral decision making. There was something about the utilitarian philosophy that didn’t sound right, but what on earth was it? She couldn’t even catch her breath and think coherently, couldn’t formulate any kind of counterargument.

Her attention was jerked back by the professor’s next question.

“… was a good overview of the benefits of utilitarianism. Now, what are the holes in the philosophy? Are there any?” He paused, looking around. “Come, come. You can’t just blindly accept any philosophy without acknowledging both it’s positives and negatives. Find some holes! How do we
disagree
that it helps us make good moral decisions?”

Well, obviously, it has no reference to what God says is right or wrong! How can you even
think of morality outside of God?
Claire’s train of thought was stopped in its tracks as she saw the professor scanning the crowd, looking for someone to call on. He was looking in her direction. She lowered her head and pretended to be writing in her notebook.

“Let’s try … Brad. Why don’t you take a crack at this. Give us an example where utilitarian philosophy may
not
determine what is right or wrong.”

Claire craned her neck. Brad was turning his pen over and over in both hands, thinking.

“Well, there seem to be a couple of obvious holes in the philosophy. It’s fine as far as it goes—it may be a useful exercise to help make some decisions—but as for determining what is ultimately morally right, it doesn’t seem to cut it.

“First of all, at the most basic level, how can you even have the
idea
of the ‘most good for the most people’ without some objective external standard of what
good
is? From a faith-based point of view, the answer is clearly what God says is good, but utilitarianism doesn’t acknowledge that and so basically disproves itself.

“Utilitarianism says that the most pleasure for the most people somehow creates moral rightness. But what if what is clearly morally right goes against what the majority wants? For example … well, look at slavery. White people were the majority in America, and they decided that having slaves made them happy. According to utilitarians the happiness of the minority—the slaves—wouldn’t be enough to counter the majority view. But slavery was still clearly, morally
wrong.”

The room was silent for a moment, and Claire grinned to herself.
Great argument!

Professor Kwong nodded. “Good example. So let’s look at two counterarguments. The subjugation of women—a clear moral wrong—was countermanded by utilitarianism. But the subjugation of African slaves in America would not be. How do we reconcile those two opposites?”

Brad spoke up again. “Well, utilitarians used their philosophy to propose that women be made equal with men.
However
, society could’ve come to that decision just as easily using the Bible’s standard of objective truth—which is, after all, what the abolitionist leaders drew on to justify their defiance of slavery—like Phillips Brooks, the famous pastor, and Harvard Overseer, who fought for the rights of slaves.”

Claire heard Jo mutter to herself, “I thought the Bible actively
justified
slavery.”

Brad was continuing. “The Bible’s standard of right and wrong clearly says, for example, to ‘love your neighbor as yourself. And since no one presumably wants to be a slave, loving your neighbor as yourself means setting him free. It also says to ‘look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others’ and that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ ”

“It
says
that? In the Bible?” Jo blurted out the question, astonished.

“Yes, it says that. The last Scripture was—um—Galatians 3:28.”

Claire was surprised to see Jo jot the Scripture reference down. “But what about all the Bible stuff about keeping women as second-class citizens? How does that jibe with those passages?”

“Actually, the Bible says nowhere that women are to be treated as second-class citizens. The subjugation of women was much more the tradition of the culture than anything codified as morally right in the Bible. In fact, Jesus and the apostles spent quite a bit of time trying to elevate women’s position in society, which was incredibly unusual for that day. I know a lot of people
think
the Bible says women are to be subservient, but it really doesn’t.”

Jo started to say something else, but Professor Kwong broke in, laughing. “Okay, let’s pull the discussion back to utilitarianism, shall we? Does anyone want to comment on the holes Brad raised?”

It was astonishing, Claire thought, to watch how quickly one dissenting opinion could change the tone of an entire debate. She was bemused to see some of the former utilitarianism fans suddenly raising cases where the philosophy didn’t adequately determine right and wrong—the Nazis trying to exterminate the Jews or other wars of ethnic cleansing. One student even discussed how medical experiments involving animal cruelty ran counter to utilitarianism.

She also noticed that a half dozen students who had previously sat silent were now speaking up, actively raising dissenting viewpoints. They weren’t willing to be the first naysayer, but once someone else had broken that ground, they were suddenly empowered to express themselves.

The discussion heated up as the staunch utilitarians stood their ground. As the opinions flew back and forth, Claire’s frantic notes got further and further behind. By the time she finished processing one person’s statement, she had missed half of the next person’s rebuttal.

She was right on … wait … his point seemed so off, but … I didn’t get that …

Her fingers cramped. She sighed and set down her pen with a click.
Forget it. Just forget it
.

Gael turned to Kai, standing in the back of the classroom. “She has never been one to give up. These types of classes…” His voice trailed off, the unspoken question grave in his eyes.

Kai’s voice was deep. “Our Lord gave the words to Hosea: ‘My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.’ Your charge does not yet have the tools she needs to stand. That is your mandate from On High. She loves the Lord her God with her heart and her
soul, but her mind and strength are still the battlegrounds. Just as it has been for centuries in this nation.”

“For centuries that battle has been undermining God’s people.” Gael’s gaze traveled back to Claire, and his face grew determined. “But not this one.”

Kai surveyed the glum carriage of Claire’s body. “She has become wrapped in confusion and fear. But she must gain the knowledge to win the fight for her mind. She must develop the courage to take a public stand. God has not given His people a spirit of timidity or fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind! God has given her all those things, but she must learn how to walk in them and how to stand on them. In this class, my friend, she will learn. She must. She must be ready to fulfill God’s mandate on her life—for the life of this campus, the life of this nation.”

“That is why you are here then, commander? Because this young one is—”

“Chosen of God for generations. She has been given the mantle to speak and see eyes opened, to catalyze change. It is a mantle of power. But she must learn how to carry it with humility before she learns
of
it, else she will either speak in her own strength, with no power for transformation, or … she will be destroyed under it’s weight.”

As the students began filing out, Brad crossed the room. Jo looked surprised to see him coming but smiled pleasantly enough. He smiled briefly at Claire where she sat gathering her books, then turned to Jo.

“I hope I didn’t slam you in class. I wasn’t trying to … just trying to correct a common misunderstanding.”

“Don’t worry about it,” Jo said. “I was wondering how on earth you can say that the Bible doesn’t preach the subjugation of women when it has all that stuff in there about wives obeying their husbands.”

Claire glanced at Brad with a panicked look. With some surprise she noticed that he didn’t look flustered at all. He was searching through his backpack.

“Well, do you mind if I just address that directly?” He brought out a small Bible.