 |
| The Last Judgment, fresco in the Old Cathedral of Salamanca, image by Richard Stracke |
Here we are in the month of judgment. That sounds like no fun at all, but really, isn’t it better to spend some time every year thinking about judgment than to spend all eternity wishing we had? Because all this month, in the Gospel readings at Mass, we will be hearing Jesus draw our attention to judgment, and remind us that it is real, and our time to be judged will come.
Does he want to scare us? Not so much, I do not think, as he does want to remind us of our power and freedom. We are able now to choose the good and avoid what is evil; that is an awesome power and a glorious freedom. Should we not decide how best to use it?
There is a theory out there, not new but neither has it passed out of currency, that the key to making a good judgment is to choose whatever accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This theory is called utilitarianism, and it sounds awfully good up front, but has been flagged by the Church as very, very dangerous and false. The shepherding rod-and-staff warns us who know Jesus to avoid falling into this trap precisely because it can make doing evil seem to be doing good.
Now it is rare for a moral theory to display its inherent weakness in such a way that even the casual observer can see it. But lucky us! The sinister side of this siren’s song is revealed for all to see even now.
The fraud trial of Sam Bankman-Fried is an object lesson in the defectiveness of this attractive theory, and it is clear to all because the scale on which he applied it in his own undertakings is so huge that it is impossible to deny the devastating consequences.
Now, the trial is still ongoing, and I make no claim to know whether the young man committed the crimes of which he is accused. That is not necessary to judge. However, simply on the basis of the motives and methods to which he himself has testified and even broadcast to the world, he has acknowledged himself to be a utilitarianist on the grandest of scales.
In the category of financial instrument known as “crypto” he attracted huge amounts of money from investors. The explicit and promised return for that investment was profit, though there was the acknowledged risk of some loss, as with any investment. At the same time, he freely announced that his goal in garnering profit to himself was to give it away; to use his resources for good.
As a recent article in Forbes magazine explained, Effective altruism–known as EA—helped to facilitate Bankman-Fried’s rapid rise as someone with a vision beyond simply making money. Unlike other crypto moguls who praised decentralization and libertarian ideals, Bankman-Fried professed a plain old desire to do good with his lucre. His crypto (companies) were, in Bankman-Fried’s telling, nothing more than a way to make as much money as possible so that he could give it all away… Practically overnight, he made himself into effective altruism’s most famous proponent and one of its biggest financial contributors, …. “In the end, my goal is to do as much good as I can for the world,” Bankman-Fried explained to Forbes earlier this year. “I’m part of the effective altruism community.”
The accusations against him are that the money he used was not his own to spend; that the resources were not even his, to use as he saw fit. There are many experts trying now to determine to what extent this is the case. Because it was his announced intention so to do, did the investors consent to his use of their funds for this purpose? Did he break any laws in reporting, management of resources, designation of funds, and so on?
But before that question is even asked, there is clearly a problem. He gathered resources from other people in order to garner growth for them, and instead deployed that wealth toward some other purpose. There are many, many unhappy people who will not receive their desired return, nor, conceivably, even the return of their original investment.
Mr. Bankman-Fried’s situation is even more complicated because much, maybe even most, of his “effective altruism” was in the form of political contributions. This is complicated because, first, it may be seen as a way to obtain influence with the politicians to whom he contributed, and status among the governing classes if his favored causes and candidates were to win; and second, because it reveals an underlying presumption to know which politicians and policies will accomplish “good.” Without checking which politicians or parties or proposals he supported, you and I both, as seasoned observers of the world, can raise a hand of caution about trusting any politician to seek, much less to accomplish, anything good.
One of the keys to understanding how he got himself into this position is to know something about his parents, both professors at Stanford Law School. Academically, they share an interest in using tax law as an instrument of social fairness, and they describe themselves as “utilitarian-minded.” (from a recent New Yorker article). They raised the kids, Sam and his brothers, according to their moral vision – a utilitarian moral vision.
So this very bright, talented, charismatic, and motivated young man suddenly finds himself on trial for enormous crimes committed while he assured himself and everybody who was watching him that he was doing good.
Without knowing how that civil judgment will fall for him, it is not hard to look at the wreckage of his life and the fiscal situations of many, many people to realize that what he was doing was not good. Even if his goals were virtuous, his methods were harmful. There were also serious flaws in his evaluation of which goals would be virtuous, and he clearly failed to ascertain which methods and instruments were virtuous.
Parents, teach your children well. God has given us knowledge of the truth, the treasury of the Church’s moral reasoning and instruction, and the ability to discern good from evil. No human enterprise or calculation can improve upon nor escape the reality of divine truth. Ill-intentioned or even ill-considered actions on your part or mine will not play out on a scale as vast and as public as this unfortunate young man’s have; yet even if they remain hidden, the devastation wrought by our self-delusion will cry out to God for vengeance. Far better to consider such things now, in the month we have set aside for such reflection, than to regret them later, possibly forever.
Monsignor Smith
