Utilitarian is “what works is good”. The case is made that this or that lifestyle is okay because it has advantages. There doesn’t seem to be any harm done, and if the people choose that lifestyle, and if it works for them, then it is okay. The sentimental argument says, “Aww gee. Look at those nice folks. They mean well and they’re awfully good neighbors. Why should we be so mean and say what they’re doing is wrong?” The civil rights argument is the one that says that everyone pretty much has the freedom to do as they please as long as they harm no one.
There is no problem with making these three forms of argument, but there is a problem when these are the only forms of argument, and they have become the only forms of argument because of a deeper underlying problem in our society. This is the problem of relativism. If there is no objective natural law, and if there is no divine law giver, then these three forms of argument really are the only ones, and the person who wins the argument is the one who shows that a particular lifestyle choice works best, that the people are nice and that they should have the right to do what they want.
In other words, “If an idea works, its okay. If the people seem nice and kind who are we to judge? They have the right to do as they wish. This is America. We love our freedom!”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if these three arguments are all you have, then the gas chambers are only a short jump away.
Why? Because eliminating millions of undesirables is an idea that works. If it is done by nice professional, polite people then that makes it seem okay, and why should those who want to create a utopia not have the right to follow their beliefs?
You will say that the gas chambers harm others, but history has shown that if those “others” are deemed to be sub human then it doesn’t matter. The Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals and Communists were simply inferior–like the mentally retarded, disabled and insane who were the first ones to be weeded out. If those to be eliminated are also dangerous to the state and the security of others it is arguable that they should be first imprisoned and then eliminated.
The Federal judge in this case (and other current cases on similar matters show his opinions to be prevalent) is not so much opening the door to polygamy as he is admitting that American legal decisions are now based only on the unholy trinity of utilitarianism, sentimentality and civil rights. This is not so much a further erosion of the idea of Christian marriage (which is a cornerstone of a Christian civilization) as it is an attack on the whole idea of an objective law that is the foundation for civil law.
American legislative decisions are now decided according to utilitarianism, sentimentalism and civil rights. Therefore it is only a matter of time before the logic is followed and the ideologues start weeding the garden.