Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Anchoress

Home
Catholic
Why Does Moral Absolutism Work (Some of the Time)?

Why Does Moral Absolutism Work (Some of the Time)?

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 12:25 am by Ben Conroy

Why Does Moral Absolutism Work (Some of the Time)? 2015-03-13T00:25:12+00:00 Ben Conroy

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam recently had a very cordial exchange on the merits of legalising prostitution – so cordial, in fact, that they were accused of doing Twitter fights wrong.

Salam was making a reluctant case based on harm reduction, which followed a familiar pattern: “people are going to buy sex anyway, and legalising it will make things safer for those selling sex.” Douthat, in defending the Swedish model (where selling sex is not criminalised, but buying is) made two arguments. The first was utilitarian: that demand for bought sex actually could be reduced, that doing so would reduce the amount of human trafficking and pimping, and that this in the long run would reduce the overall amount of harm done to women.

But he also agreed with some of the Swedish feminists interviewed by Michelle Goldberg in an excellent piece for the Pulitzer Centre, who made arguments like the following:

Stéphanie Thögersen, (of the Swedish Women’s Lobby) adds that it’s also about the principles underlying Swedish society. “Do we want a society where it’s OK to buy another person?” she asks.

What interested me was the potential connection between the two arguments. The exchange made me think again about a question I’ve been ruminating over since Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry wrote his “Stray Thoughts on Consequentialism” post a while back: why does embracing a morally absolutist position and rejecting the bean-counting of consequentialism often seem to end up producing better consequentialist outcomes?

The data suggests that the optimal number of past sexual partners to have had in the last year is (on average)one, followed by zero – that these are the numbers most likely to be correlated with happiness and wellbeing. It’s perfectly possible, in theory, that someone might adopt something very like Christian sexual ethics out of pure pragmatism.

But almost no one actually thinks like this. Nobody embraces a monogamy-and-commitment sexual ethic to stay on the right side of a long-term-happiness statistical distribution.

Part of this is just because of those words “on average” or their regular companions “in the aggregate”. Humans are very good at assuming that they will be the ones to defy probability – that they will be in the lucky half of smokers who don’t die of a smoking-related illness; that they won’t crash while driving drunk, (they, after all, can hold a drink); that they will be able to sleep around and be mature/liberated/considerate enough not to be hurt – or to hurt anyone else.

And, you know, some of them will be right. We all know that old woman who smoked five a day from the age of 18 and is currently a fairly well-preserved 90. If every intoxicated driver crashed, our road death figures would be a lot higher; and, yes, there are people who have casual sex and report little to no long-term emotional damage.

But even assuming someone was intellectually persuaded by the probabilistic case, the likelihood of this changing their behaviour would be (for most people pretty) low. People live by myths, and statistical averages just aren’t very strong ones.

In practice, people change their behaviour because of stories they tell themselves, and these stories usually involve moral absolutes.

The overwhelming majority of people who abstain from sex before marriage do so because they believe it’s intrinsically wrong. And the successful slogans and campaigns against drink-driving and cigarettes try to create the illusion of an absolute cause/effect relationship: “Never, ever drink and drive”; “smoking kills”. Humans usually get good at risk assessment, not by more rationally assessing aggregate risk, but by tricking the non-rational bit of themselves by mimicking absolutism.

But why is this? Why do we seem so inclined to think in absolutes? And why does embracing them often seem to just work?

I’ll regularly get to a certain point in debates with consistent consequentialists (often people who are quite socially liberal) where I’ll have demonstrated that a certain position leads to bad aggregate outcomes (say, “allowing divorce in some circumstances ends up with lots of people getting divorced and not being any happier for it”). But they’ll usually respond that you don’t need to adopt a morally absolute position to solve this – instead, just fix whatever is wrong with the relationships that break down, while still allowing for the existence of “moral divorces” as a category.

This is a really hard case to answer on consequentialist grounds, which is why I usually shrug, kick the absolute question forward to a future metaphysical argument, and start wrangling about things we could do to make it a bit easier to stay married.

But it’s still… striking that in a lot of cases, embracing the absolute as an ideal seems to be the best way of getting the best aggregate outcome.

Thus we have a “Catholic difference” in divorce rates: yes, practising Catholics get civilly divorced, but considerably fewer of them than in Protestant denominations where divorce is seen as possible (if only as a last resort). And there’s no evidence to suggest that practising Catholics are, on average, any less happy with their marriages than anyone else.

The absolutist opposition to all prostitution from Swedish feminists has lead to far less human trafficking than have attempts to tackle only the kinds of prostitution that involve human trafficking; a commitment to sexual monogamy and fidelity as being good in themselves seems to lead to greater overall well-being than an ethic that simply aims to cut out the directly harmful kinds of casual sex. (Obviously each of these examples is disputed, but that’s beside the point – we can all think of examples where absolutism leads to better outcomes than consequentialism. If one doesn’t work for you, think of another).

This isn’t, it’s important to note, an argument for always trying to enforce absolute morality through the law of the state. Embedding moral absolutes in the criminal code can just as often do more harm than good: the law is a blunt instrument, and trying to nudge people in the vague direction of the common good without trampling on anyone’s intrinsic dignity is sometimes the best one can hope for (this is why I’m not trying to roll back civil divorce, which in Ireland has been around for less time than I have).

But the fact that there are any cases at all in which embracing absolute morality leads to better consequentialist outcomes than embracing consequentialism… Well, it’s a bit weird. It makes you pause for thought.

It might even make an open-minded consequentialist wonder, just a little bit, if there might indeed be such a thing as intrinsic good and evil.

Previous Post

August 6, 2014

"My people are being slaughtered!" ISIS = Genocide with impunity UPDATE: And now, the Satanists

Next Post

August 7, 2014 Ann Coulter's Strange God Renders Her Blind

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "Remaking" Ourselves 'Remaking' America 9/10 Mindset 9/11 trials Abortion ACORN Adoration Advent Advent 2008 Advent 2009 Advent 2010 Alternative Energy Alternative Media America American Catholic Church American Church American Genius Ameridolatry ANCHORESS BOOKSHELF Anglican-Roman Reconciliation Answers & Questions Anti_Semitism Archbishop Hilarion Ayn Rand Bad Mass Barack Obama Baseball Benedict Benedict & Islam Benedict in UK Benedict XVI Benedictine Bill Whittle Birth Control Blogs and Blogging Blogs and Blogging Bloodless Coup Bobby Jindal Bookchat Breitbart Bride at every wedding... Bride at every wedding... Buckley Bullies Bush Bad? Bush Good Buster Capitalism Catholic Fiction Catholic Vocations Catholicism Celibacy Chaput Charitable Stuff Chesterton Chile Chris Christie Christians in Exile Christine O' Donnell Christmas Christmas Gift Ideas Church Hates Science? Church hates women Communion of Saints Compline Conclave 2013 Confession Constitutional Stuff Conversion Crisis & Opportunity Critical Thinking Crooks and Liars Crucible of Faith Cuba Culture of Life Culture of Life/Death Culture of Treason? Dancing Death Dialogue re Islam Dick Meyer Divorce and Remarriage DOJ Domestic Terrorism Dominican Order Don't try me too high Dowd Dumb Democrat moves Dumb GOP moves Economic woe Education Egregious Harry Reid Elder Son Elder Son's Sweet Girlfriend Elderly Election '10 Election '12 Election '16 Election 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Election 2016 Elena Kagan Elitism Embryonic Stem Cell Research End Times? English language Enhanced Interrogation Erosion of Rights Eucharist Euthanasia Exorcism Extraordinary Synod Facebook Faith Faith and Reason Faith Friday Faith Perspective Faithful Friday Fascism Again Fascism in America Fatima FCC Feminism Film First Things Forgiveness Fr. James Martin Francis and Islam Francis in America Frassati Fred Thompson Free Speech? Freedom of Worship FutureChurch Global Pandemic GOP Congress Haiti Head Covering Health Care Here and Queer Hermits Heroes Hitchens Holy Spirit Holy Week '09 Holy Week '10 Hoo-Hah & BS Hoo-Hah & BS Icons Illegal Immigration In The Arena Interviews Interwebz Iran Uprising Iraqi Christians ISIL ISIS Islamic State Islamification/Islamofascism Islamification/Islamofascism Isra-El It's all about me! Me! ME! James Burke Jerry Lewis Jesus Christ Joblessness John Boehner John McCain John Paul II John XXIII Juan Williams Just Words Katrina/Rita King is a Fink Latin Mass Leadership Lectio Divina Lent Lent '08 Lent '09 Lent 2010 Lent 2011 Limbaugh Listen to Lizzie Litigious Society Liturgy Liturgy of the Hours Mainstream Media Manliness Marriage Mary Media Excess Medical Merton Michelle Obama Mighty John O' Connor Misc. Miss Ella Missionaries Mitt Romney Monasticism My brother S My Irish Aunties Mystic Monks Nanny Statism Nature NEA Neri New Media Newman Noonan Notre Dame NPR Stuff Nun News Obama Bad? Obama Good? Obama White House Oil Spill Online Retreat '08 Online Retreat Days Oratory Orthodoxy Our Hillary! Parenting Passionists Patheos Patheos Book Club Patrons Paul Ryan Penance Penn Jillette Philosophy PJTV Podcasts Poetry Politics-free zone Pop Culture Pope Emeritus Pope Francis Prayer Predictions Priesthood Pro-Life Public Sector Unions Purgatory Questions about Catholicism Quotes of the Day Quoting the News Race in America rants Recipes Remarried Catholics Reposts by request Retreat thoughts Rome Rudy Giuliani Russia Saints Sarah Palin Scandal Scott Brown SCOTUS Scriptural stuff Secularism Send in the clowns Serving up hot links Sexuality Sherrod Shroud of Turin Sisters and Nuns Social Entrepreneurship Social Media Social Security Socialism doesn't work Sports and Faith Stem Cells Strange Gods Suffering Synod Tea Parties Tea Party Terri Schiavo The 9/11 Commission The Catholic Answer The Constitution The Desert The Fourth Estate The Pelosi The Perpetual Adolescents The Rosary Third Party? Timothy Dolan Touch of evil TSA Tsunami TV/Pop Culture/Music TV/Pop Culture/Music Twitter Uncategorized Unemployment Unintended Consequences US Military Vaginal Musings Vatican Vespers video faves Vile Joe Biden Voter Fraud War by Litigation War on Terror War, What it good for? Why can't weeee be ... World Youth Days Year of Faith Year of the Priest

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which chapter in Proverbs describes detailed work habits of the ant?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Proverbs 2 Proverbs 24 Proverbs 6 Proverbs 31