The dignity of the human person can rightly be traced to the Catholic intellectual tradition and has long provided a firm foundation for human rights and the concept of human and collective flourishing. Along with the common good, the dignity of the human person is a meta principle of Catholic social teaching (CST) and works along with the other CST principles to foster a more just and humane social order.

The dignity of the human person asserts that all human persons are made in the image and likeness of God and thus have an inherent and inviolable dignity which attends human nature. To transgress this dignity in action, law or policy is an offense against justice and the common good. Others have arrived at the truth of human dignity from a more secular and non-theistic foundation – for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized human dignity as a foundation for the human rights expressed in the international charter.

Utilitarianism is a product of the Enlightenment and was born of the thought of the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism asserts that in social policy and law it is necessary in all cases to maximize pleasure and minimize pain – social utility is measured according to this principle. Many of the Enlightenment philosophers and scientists were people of good will who sought the betterment of society and human flourishing.

However, their error, in my opinion, was in moving away from anthropological foundations and principles of natural law and Catholic moral thought. Utilitarian thought inevitably leads to a conclusion that desired ends – justify any means to accomplish the goal, whether these means are morally licit or not.

Positivism was also a product of the Enlightenment and asserted that, in science and other academic disciplines, it is imperative to focus on what can be verifiable and provable. Thus, ethics, which cannot be verified and exists outside of the discipline of science and law, should have no bearing on how we examine the later. Legal positivists believe that law is meritorious because the law giver promulgated it – apart from any ethical considerations. Unfortunately, both utilitarianism and positivism have held sway on science, law, and policy since the Enlightenment and have have shown themselves particularly influential and pernicious of late. Below, I list a number of examples of their modern influence and conclude with a call to Catholics and people of good will to embrace a more robust ethical foundation for the common good.

First, before the Catholic Church can righty opine on the need for ethical foundations rooted in the dignity of the human person, it must acknowledge and confront its own deep failures regarding the clergy abuse epidemic and the treatment of survivor-victims. In a classic case of protecting the institution over adherence to the teachings of Christ and the protection and care of survivors, the Church perpetuated the “ends justify the means” trap – thus greatly harming many in the process and inhibiting its own moral voice in the process. There is much need for reform and repair in this regard.

Second, the case of abortion is another example of utilitarianism run amok. There are legitimate concerns about women in poverty who often face, what Charlie Camosy describes as the “un-choice.” Attention to human dignity requires societies that truly embrace human life to foster social conditions which allow the reception of life to be possible and desirable. Still, there are too many places where abortion on demand is the result of utilitarian influences – the thing, even a life, must be eliminated to maximize utility and minimize inconvenience. Mother Teresa and Pope Francis have spoke out forcefully against this utilitarian bargain when it comes to the dignity of life in the womb. I was not surprised, then, that reversal of Roe resulted in backlash, as the last thing Americans will countenance is the inhibition of their “rights” – perceived or real.

Religious freedom is another example where utilitarianism and positivism ultimately corrode this fundamental right. The pandemic was a compelling example of this dynamic. Public health was a legitimate and pressing concern in the midst of a global pandemic, and is itself consistent with Catholic social teaching. However, far too often states were very ready to shutter church services while placing priority on commercial activity. In Minnesota, where I currently reside, it took the real threat of a lawsuit from the Minnesota and Lutheran bishops to get the Walz’ administration to back off and reconsider its proposed policy.

Fourth, the approach of some political leaders to migration also expresses utilitarian tendencies. There is no doubt that American immigration policy is a mess and has been untenable for years. There has been a privation of political will toward common sense and comprehensive immigration reform for decades. The harm of this privation is evident to many. Concerns about security and the regulation of our boarder are legitimate. However, some believe that any and all means necessary to secure our broader are legitimate. This is wrong. Acceptance of inhumane policies results in the degradation of our society and our moral voice. Concern for human dignity requires us to accompany our migrant bothers and sisters with compassion and care.

Lastly, for years, character mattered in electing politicians and in the appointment of public officials to serve us. These days, and no doubt influenced by utilitarian thought, the only question to be answered is who can get the job done to maximize our utility. If you think I am choosing sides, there are plenty of examples on both sides of the aisle that prove the point. Jimmy Carter was not a good president by all objective standards but he was a good, honest, and Godly man. Is it too much to wish for leaders who are ethical, competent, and inspiring.

Catholics have often played an outsized role in the selection of our leaders in the United States – the data backs this up. This is true, in part, because we are not tied to either party or ideology and thus free to move according to desired goals. My hope, in the coming months and years, is that the desired goals and choices of Catholics will be more influenced by the dignity of the human person and the common good than the scourge or utilitarianism. In this way, we can serve as a light and leaven in a society which values the gift of freedom – consistent with human dignity.