By Eric Corson
An evangelistic charity, an entity focussed on the twin goals of meeting spiritual and physical needs of those in poor areas around the world-- often primarily within the so-called 10-40 window, a block of the globe ranging between 10 and 40 degrees north in the eastern hemisphere that contains nearly 70% of the world's economically marginalized people, can easily be defended under the above conditions as a Utilitarian group. The charity intends to bring happiness to those who are less happy, and does so in a corporate manner, minimizing transmission losses to the greatest extent possible in many cases.
One point that could stand some discussion to defend this hypothesis however, is what is appropriate measurement for happiness. Certainly, it can be argued, there are some minimum requirements for happiness-- these coinciding with the minimum requirements for life. Under that assumption, food, water, shelter, and some level of medical care are certainly prerequisites for happiness that need to be available. Under Utilitarian views, anyone attempting to embrace their doctrine must consider provisions for such things when initiating an action to provide happiness to another. In the case of evangelistic missions, providing for basic necessities is usually a key factor in their activities. Certainly in this area there appears to be no dichotomy between Utilitarianism and the actions of mission charities.
However, it must also be considered that while basic life support is a necessary condition for happiness, it is not necessarily a sufficient condition. So, while evangelistic outreaches may supply physical needs, they may not actually promote worldly happiness in this way, unless they have provisions to supply further material needs, if one decides that material wealth beyond the basic survival necessities is needed for happiness. However, even under this stipulation, many mission organizations continue to fulfill the Utilitarian ideal. For instance, Operation Christmas Child is a program that creates gift boxes of toys, clothes, and other fun items for children in refugee camps and starving areas of the Third World. This program certainly increases happiness, for these kids are often very pleased with the gift of a toy or similar thing, while those who give to the program are usually happier for giving than if they had not chosen to. So, even when happiness is measured by distribution of material wealth, many evangelistic charities can still be defended as Utilitarian entities.
Finally, the last argument to be here examined for the Utilitarianism of evangelistic charities is one based on a premise that is not formally accepted in Utilitarian belief, but which is not inherently contradictory to the principles of Utilitarianism either. This premise is the concept that the Judeo-Christian God exists, and takes the form that Christians consider Him to. Under Utilitarian ideals, this concept is tangential to their conception of moral action- irrelevant. This means that either the truth or falsity of such a premise has little or no effect on the Utilitarian theory. However, when one considers or believes such a premise to be true, and synthesizes the Christian idea of salvation and eternal paradisical existence with the Utilitarian ideal of spreading long-term happiness to as many as possible, one finds that they complement each other quite well. If both premises are accepted- the truth of the one, and the morality of the other, then one finds it not unreasonable that long-term happiness to as many as possible could certainly take the form of eternal (long-term) life in paradise (happiness) for any who can be taught the Christian salvation message. This 'spreading of the word' is the primary reason for the existence of many evangelistic outreach missions, despite their efforts toward providing for material needs. Therefore, it would seem that yet again, missions could be defended as Utilitarian for their devotion to providing information that has the potential to result in the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible amount of time for anyone who hears it.
Despite my defense of missionary outreach organizations as Utilitarian, I remain unconvinced about the actual value of the theory itself however. It seems to me unnecessarily unsure to judge the moral correctness of one's actions by the eventual end result. In a world of clear causes and effects, with predictable inhabitants, and mechanically perfect domino-like chains of events, this could perhaps be a valuable gauge. However, our world is not so neat, and therefore the value as a gauge of action of Utilitarian theory wanes. In addition, I also remain unconvinced that the true highest purpose of human existence is either personal or corporate happiness. Too many great works of human hands and minds have either been built in response to or through the misery of people. Everything from the Great pyramids, which are mortared with the tears, sweat, and blood of slave laborers to the Shakespearean classics, inspired by and written about some of the most difficult and unhappy times in life of their characters. If one were to succeed in creating the Utilitarian utopia of perfect eternal unmarred happiness for all, I believe that a significant portion of human creative spirit would be lost as well.
<< Back to the Library
