Daily Verse | Isaiah 20:25
The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.”

Happy Thursday, Broadsiders! Tapioca is the best kept secret of this generation.

I do a lot of reading across a variety of topics: American history, biography, cultural issues, apologetics, Christian living, marketing, creativity, branding, political thrillers and popular novels. I was flipping through a used book on social influence yesterday and found this inscribed on the endpaper:

“The needs of the one must be sacrificed [for] the the (sic) needs of the many.”

I think this is probably a reference to the scene in The Wrath of Khan, when Commander Spock says to Captain Kirk, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Kirk answers, “Or the one.” This foreshadows a climatic scene near the end of the movie when Spock enters a highly radioactive chamber in order to fix the ship’s warp drive so the crew can escape a mortal threat. As a result of his heroic actions, Spock dies for the good of the many.

Spock’s logical conclusion is called Utilitarianism, which is based on the premise that “we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number.'” In other words, consideration of what is good for the collective outweighs consideration of what is good for the individual.

Even though it sounds logical, impartial and idyllic—and it is hard to argue with the claim that the morally right action is the one that produces the most good—the utilitarian worldview leaves us with several questions.

• Who is given the power to determine what is morally “good”?
• How does that person or group of people determine what is “good”?
• If people should act for the “good” of the group but don’t, are they free to act immorally (ie. not doing what brings the most good to the greatest number of people)?
• As people grow and mature, their ideas of what is “good” can change. What happens in a society with different generations who define “good” differently?
• Who is going to enforce the principle that whatever you do, you do for the greater good?

That last question leads to perhaps the greatest problem with utilitarianism: it leads naturally to a totalitarian political state.

On the utilitarian moral ideal, however, individuals are not seen as responsible for their own lives, health, and happiness; rather, they are regarded as responsible for everyone’s life, health, and happiness. To be moral, according to utilitarianism, people must act so as to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number—and they must sacrifice their personal goals and values to achieve that end. This collectivist moral framework necessitates a collectivist political program. If the collective or the “moral experts” decide it is best for the individual to be forbidden from smoking—or forbidden from doing anything else, or required to do anything else—then the individual morally must obey. (My emphasis.)

Of course, the “collective” is nothing other than Marxism, which divides society into warring tribes. In this case, it’s those who “know” what the good is versus those who don’t. Our current political situation, while not fully Marxist (yet), is certainly showcasing it’s utilitarian chops.

• You need to wear a mask to protect yourself and others. If you don’t, you’re literally killing people.
• Joe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square. If you don’t believe that, you’re the greatest threat to our republic.
• We must increase taxes to provide “free” college to everyone who wants it. You’re selfish for wanting to keep your money so that our young people remain uneducated.

But, in our case, the utilitarian philosophy is also twisted back on itself, so that the premise becomes, increasingly, “we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good’ for the few or the one.” The collective should sacrifice its “greatest good” for the “good” of the few.

• Give up your power to marginalized brown and black people. Otherwise you’re a racist.
• My pronouns are ze, zim and zher. The public must use them when addressing me or they are causing me great emotional harm.
• Biological men who believe they are women must be treated as women. To deny their claim is to deny their personal identity.

You can see how easy it is to require external enforcement for the “greater good” because there are many citizens who don’t agree that these things are “good,” much less “good for all.” But once someone has such power, they don’t want to let go. And that’s the real threat of where utilitarianism and Marxism eventually lead — to absolute power.

“As Roger Scruton observed, our intellectuals were not attracted to Marxism because of the compelling truth that it outlined, but rather our intellectuals were attracted to Marxism because of the power that intellectuals like themselves would have under such a system. What we are dealing with is a raw and swollen case of libido dominandi, a lust for power. The licenses they grant and the laws they decree are simply the bit and bridle that they want you to put on, and they are standing off to the side, booted, spurred, and ready to ride.”

Marxism and Utilitarianism are incompatible with individual rights, such as those granted by the U.S. Constitution, which is why the progressive Left and the cultural Marxists are so dangerous. If you don’t want to live under an oligarchy or dictatorship, which is the destination of the road we’re currently on, you (and I) had better be paying attention and taking action to defend our rights.

They are also incompatible with biblical guidance, which lays out God’s moral code: to love God with your whole being, and to love others as you’d love yourself. Our referent is God’s definition of what is good, not an appointed bureaucrat’s.

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
— Micah 6:8

The book in which I found Spock’s quote was about why certain ideas or products go viral and others don’t. Why did the previous owner of this book choose to write his maxim in the book, which is otherwise free of markings (no highlighting, no underlining, no notes in the margins)?

Because the quote went viral. And as we’re seeing and experiencing, so did Marxism.