“The good of the many outweighs the good of the few (or the one).” – Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
On March 26, 2026, the Spanish Government put to death a young woman by the name of Noelia Castillo Ramos. Ms. Ramos was not a criminal – she had committed no crime. Rather, Ms. Ramos was voluntarily “euthanized” because she suffered from chronic pain and mental illness. She was twenty-five years old.
Even given the distance time affords, this event was tragic. While Ms. Ramos’s death involves political machinations (of course), it is not the intention of this article to discuss them. Instead, this essay will contrast euthanasia and utilitarianism with Catholicism by couching them in the greater horizon of human dignity and value.
Secular Utilitarianism
The quotation at the beginning of this paper encapsulates the utilitarian philosophical position. Utilitarianism is a secular ethical theory that seeks as its goal the establishment of the “greatest happiness principle.”
In following philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain, whereas unhappiness is pain and the lack of pleasure.
At first glance, the principle seems reasonable and even wise. However, when this aspect of utilitarianism is contrasted with Catholic ethics, it becomes evident that not only is utilitarianism incompatible with Catholicism, but also contrary to the true happiness of the human person.
For now, however, it should suffice to show the connection between utilitarianism and euthanasia.
On Death And Happiness
Euthanasia (literally good death in Greek) is the intentional bringing about the death of an individual to prevent continued or further suffering. If utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing happiness and eliminating pain, then euthanasia can be seen as a means to achieve those goals.
If we follow the thinking of utilitarians such as Peter Singer, euthanasia will increase happiness and decrease pain at the same time. The argument being that euthanasia is less painful than allowing “nature to take its course.” By dying, the individual foregoes the pain he might otherwise endure.
From the perspective of utilitarianism, euthanasia promotes utility and, therefore, happiness by eliminating the pain from the patient, their family, and society. Moreover, causing the individual’s death promotes utility, which is defined (by utilitarianism) as the measure of the overall good, happiness, or pleasure produced by an action. One may ask how the greater society benefits from euthanasia.
The utilitarian would argue that the family of the euthanized person has obtained the psychological state of closure, which allows them to return to their daily work. In turn, this promotes the good of society.
Furthermore, if a patient’s illness affects their ability to work, then their utility ends. The patient can no longer contribute to society’s overall happiness. Additionally, by keeping a suffering patient alive, the money going toward maintaining their life is wasted. That money could be redirected toward infrastructure or research for a cure, both of which would benefit others.
It must be admitted that utilitarianism views euthanasia as an act of “mercy” for the individual first, which then ripples out to benefit the family and state. It certainly seems that such an ethical position is logical (as Spock would say). But is it Catholic?
The Catholic Response
There are, to my mind, moral and anthropological aspects of utilitarianism in general and euthanasia specifically, which stand in direct conflict with Catholic teaching.
To appreciate the basis for the Catholic objection to utilitarianism as applied to morality, it is necessary to understand the three components of Catholic moral theology that determine an action’s moral standing.
First, the specific act itself must be considered objectively good. Second, the subjective motive, end, or purpose behind the act must be evaluated, and finally, the context surrounding the act must be considered.
Catholic moral theology teaches that all three components must be good. Utilitarianism, as a form of consequentialism, judges acts only by their outcomes, thereby justifying immoral actions (like killing or lying) to achieve a “greater good”.
In contrast, the Catholic Church maintains that certain acts are intrinsically wrong regardless of the consequences. Utilitarianism rejects this, holding that any action can be labeled “good” if it maximizes pleasure.
Here, too, Catholicism and utilitarianism part ways. Catholicism holds that true happiness lies in virtue, grace, and ultimate union with God, not merely in the maximization of physical or intellectual pleasure.
At the anthropological (and theological) level, the fundamental Catholic argument against utilitarianism is that it violates human dignity.
Utilitarianism often views people as tools or “means” to a pleasurable end, whereas Catholic teaching requires treating people as subjects with free will. In line with classical philosophy, Catholicism asserts that people must be treated as ends, not as means. This is so because Catholicism holds that God creates every human person in the divine image (imago dei). It follows, therefore, that every human person possesses inherent dignity as a child of God.
Utilitarianism inverts this basic belief by allowing for the sacrifice of individuals if it benefits the majority. The biblical parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-13) directly conflicts with the utilitarian principle.
Moreover, by failing to view the human being as possessing the divine spark of his Creator, the individual becomes a commodity to be used by those in power. Such a position makes the person a means to an end. and lends itself to the totalitarian abuses so prevalent in the twentieth century.
Finally, there is the ubiquitous problem of suffering. Rather than merely avoiding or minimizing pain, as utilitarianism suggests, Catholic theology often views suffering as an opportunity to reflect the divine love. This concept is impossible within a purely hedonistic (i.e., utilitarian) framework. This is a significant point. Note that such suffering does not necessarily mean that the individual is going to die. Rather, euthanasia can be used as a way to stop pain and suffering.
In returning to the case of Noelia Castillo Ramos, it must be observed that she was not in danger of dying. If utilitarianism, as a tool of secularism, determines that a young person who is not terminally ill and who has not committed a crime is a candidate for euthanasia, then it suggests that other members of society who do not fit the definition of utility can also be euthanized.
To place the contrast of utilitarianism and Catholicism in stark relief, consider that Catholicism asserts that the human person is a teleological being, which is to say a being made by and for God alone. Alternatively, utilitarianism views the human being as a functional unit whose purpose is productivity and pleasure.
Conclusion
In this essay, I have endeavored to show the incompatibility of utilitarianism and Catholicism. I have suggested that there are two fundamental grounds for this conflict: one moral and the other regarding the nature of human beings.
However, perhaps the basis for the incompatibility of Catholicism and utilitarianism is this: utilitarianism is a secular system that separates morality from God’s commandments and relies on subjective, inconsistent calculations of pleasure and pain. Ultimately, if euthanasia kills the body, utilitarianism kills what it means to be human.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In