Christian Personalism versus Utilitarianism: An Analysis of Their Approaches to Love and Suffering*
Although Christian ethics and contemporary utilitarian ethics both employ terms such as “love” and “compassion” in their efforts to deal with human suffering, they are in fact polar opposite ethical views. This fact is not at all easy to discern. One key to perceiving the radical opposition between them lies in clarifying their respective concepts of love and suffering and the relation between the two. In Christian personalism, suffering is always understood as the suffering of individual persons, while in utilitarianism, suffering is primarily understood as a quantifiable entity detached from the individuals who experience it. This detachment of suffering from individuals leads to the depersonalizing and commodifying recommendations of utilitarianism. The dignity of persons as understood in Christian anthropology serves as the foundation of Christian ethics and is the only basis on which ethics can avoid commodifying people. The article begins with an explanation of the utilitarian approach to suffering and its concept of love. It then proceeds to express the view of love and suffering that flows from the Christian perspective. The article concludes by exposing the inherently self-defeating structure of utilitarian ethics and offers the hope-filled, if challenging, approach of Christian personalism. Although Christian anthropology and ethics developed within the historical context of Christianity, and in fact could only have developed there, the arguments here are primarily philosophical elucidations of the differences between the two opposing schools of thought discussed, while here and there including occasional theological points. Summary: The article examines the difference between Christian ethics and utilitarian ethics, bringing out their stark opposition on the topics of love, suffering and the human person.