The Utilitarianism Of Caiaphas And Others

Much later than its examples of relativism in the book of Judges, where almost everyone does what is right in the meaningless subjectivity of "their own eyes," the Bible gives an example of a prominent Jewish figure who endorsed utilitarianism in defiance of Mosaic Law.  Caiaphas, the same high priest who opposes Jesus in Matthew 26:57-68 before his crucifixion, states in John 11:49 that it is "better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."  Speaking of Jesus and the desire to eliminate him to prevent Roman interference with the Jews, he is willing to harm others as long as it contributes to safety.  Of course, the Romans were incredibly utilitarian as well; they practiced what is likely the most absolutely inhumane behaviors of the entire historical record in order to terrify opposition to Rome.

Caiaphas is notably not merely talking like a utilitarian without eventually acting on his erroneous philosophy.  He does later participate in the slander of Jesus, wanting him dead for claiming to be more than just a Jewish human.  Matthew 26:65-67 mentions that Caiaphas's companions begin beating Jesus after Caiaphas calls him a blasphemer, though the text does not specify if Caiaphas committed this physical assault.  For those who did so with his support, striking Jesus physically was in total defiance of the Mosaic Law the allegedly served, where beatings with fists are among the sins punished (in this case, monetarily as according to Exodus 21:18-19) and not the deserved punishment for any sin.  The utilitarianism Of Caiaphas and his kind is on display here, where they are willing to act this hypocritically, abusively, and emotionalistically for the sake of perceived order among the Jews.  The tragedy in this regard is not merely that they struck Jesus, but that they would mistreat any person in this manner.

While the fixed nature of Christianity's moral obligations excludes utilitarianism's situational flexibility and this can be known from logical deduction, Romans 3 does have Paul directly address a form of utilitarianism at a different point in the New Testament.  Divine grace is morally good, though not obligatory, and it can only be shown in a context of mercy, with mercy being impossible unless a genuine offense has been committed and justice has been suspended.  An irrationalist might think that if grace is good and can only be shown in response to sin, then sin is trivial or mandatory because it precedes that grace and sets the stage for it.  Paul does not hesitate to condemn such fools in Romans 3:8: "Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--'Let us do evil so that good may result'?  Their condemnation is deserved."

It seems that there were people claiming Christians live in utilitarian delusion (and less rational, sincere Christians might).  Romans 6:1-2 further rebukes this error of sinning for the sake of receiving more grace, for if something is morally wrong, tied to the nature of a deity whose character does not change (Malachi 3:6), then there is no such thing as being justified in committing evil for the sake of a real or supposed good that will come about.  That which is evil by nature should never be done.  There are very precise, avoidable situations where any course of action is immoral, like the dilemma facing Jephthah in Judges 11 where he has to choose between breaking a vow to God and human sacrifice--but in these scenarios, the right thing is avoiding the objectively greater evil instead of seeking a good outcome through evil things.  Even here, utilitarianism is invalid within Christian philosophy and, more foundationally, is logically invalid in itself.

Utilitarianism is logically impossible in itself beyond what the Bible does or does not say.  If something is morally good, it is good because of its nature as it relates to the nature of the uncaused cause.  If something is immoral, it is contrary to moral obligation or value and thus the deed, belief, or desire in question should not be indulged in.  The Bible just addresses utilitarianism on occasion with a very blatant directness.  It is clear in Mosaic Law that God is revealing obligations that do not shift with preferences, circumstances, or outcomes, but the Torah says more what the obligations are rather than what they are not.  With Caiaphas, though, the New Testament provides an example of a hypocrite who believes in and practices utilitarianism while supposedly adhering to Mosaic Law, and Paul points out how utilitarianism contradicts even the Biblical doctrines of divine mercy and salvation that the Old Testament had already introduced.