Does Fighting Blight Pass the John Stuart Mill Test?

[Anonymous]

In order to focus the morality question on fighting local blight, I would like to discuss the Utilitarian approach of John Stuart Mills. He said the morality of an action can be assessed by determining whether it produces the greatest good for the greatest number compared to other alternatives.

In this case, the greatest good could be defined within the overall vision and mission of the church (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man) and to Proclaim the Gospel, Redeem the Dead, Perfect the Saints, Help the Poor and Needy. So I would like to ask:

Quote:

On a dollar for dollar basis, does an large investment in a blighted area like City Creek produce the greatest good for the greatest number, compared to other projects, such as expanding members’ access to social services like personal and family counseling?

[Anonymous]

Extremely loaded question, and, as worded, hard to have a balanced discussion. I mean that. When you pit commercial building against “helping people”, it automatically condemns the commercial building regardless of the reasons for it – even if they are compelling on their own. With that reasoning, why build even meetinghouses – or athletic facilities – or recreational parks – or mid-high price restaurants – or excessively large houses – ad infinitum. I would have no problem if many of those things didn’t exist, but where would we draw the line?

There already is another current thread about, essentially, this exact same topic (fighting urban blight relatively to the LDS Church). Let’s focus the discussion there.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

With that reasoning, why build even meetinghouses – or athletic facilities – or recreational parks – or mid-high price restaurants – or excessively large houses – ad infinitum. I would have no problem if many of those things didn’t exist, but where would we draw the line?

This is what the Snuffer people are moving towards. All tithing gets spent helping the poor. There are no church buildings, people meet in homes. Overhead is zero. All donations (100%) go to the needy. Good in principle, but is it sustainable?

[Anonymous]

Ray — If you’re referring to Roy’s thread that is already running — I thought it was a great thread, but it had so many different issues in it, I found it hard to discuss it in any focused way. I’d forgotten about the City Creek thread we shut down, thanks for the reminder.

I personally don’t see this as necessarily loaded question — there are times when commercial enterprises may eclipse social types of programs that help people. We see governments shut down social programs all the time in hard economic times. And, you could justify a commercial enterprise like City Creek by indicating the spiritual link between temporal job creation and the spirituality — people with jobs have less stress, are able to contribute to their local community better than when they are worrying where the next meal will come from, etcetera. In this sense, it Helps the Poor and Needyu. The people who recieved jobs from the City Creek initiative may also pay fast offerings. It would be a matter of determining the number of people this project employs. And then comparing that to the benefits of an equivalent amount spent on expanding access to social services -as it relates to the four-fold mission..

You could also try to justify City Creek from a Proclaim the Gospel perspective — an attractive downtown provides a more attractive destination location for visitors, who then see Temple Square and learn about our religion.

One would have to look at the numbers to determine the economic impact, and its impact on the fourfold mission of the church. According to Mill, the investment that produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people is the more ethical course of action.

[Anonymous]

SD, I was referring to your other thread about the Church and fighting blight. It seems like the title question of this post would be a perfect part of the overall question of that post. It’s just hard to sustain two posts about, essentially, the exact same question – even if they are different in scope.

[Anonymous]

I’d have to look and see which threads we’re talking about. My mistake — sorry.

[Author]

Posts