LBEC

12

OCR AS Ethics[Type the document subtitle]S Diaz

OCR AS EthicsSyllabus Checklist

Topic Details Done RevisedEthical theories Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:

The concepts of absolutist and relativist morality;What it means to call an ethical theory absolutist and objective;What it means to call an ethical theory relativist and subjective;The terms deontological and teleological.Candidates should be able discuss critically these concepts and their strengths and weaknesses.

Natural Law Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:The origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law in Aristotle’s idea of purposeAquinas’ ideas of purpose and perfection;The use of reason to discover Natural Law;The primary and secondary precepts.Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and weaknesses.

Kantian ethics Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding ofThe difference between the Categorical and the Hypothetical Imperatives;The various formulations of the Categorical Imperative;Kant’s understanding of the universalisation of maxims;Kant’s theory of duty;Kant’s ideas of the moral law, good will and the summum bonum.Candidates should be able to discuss critically these theories and their strengths and weaknesses.

Utilitarianism Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:The classical forms of Utilitarianism from Bentham and Mill;The principle of Utility;The differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and of Mill;The Hedonic Calculus, higher and lower pleasures, quantity v. quality, and Act and Rule Utilitarianism;The Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer.Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Religious ethics – a study of the ethics of the religion chosen by the candidate

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:The main ethical principles of the religion studied and how the followers of the religion make ethical decisions;The ways in which religion and morality mayseem to be linked or be seen as separate from each other;How far morality may be seen as dependant on God (Divine Command theory)How far religious ethics may be seen as absolutist or relativistHow ethical theories may be considered religiousCandidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Topic Details Done RevisedAbortion; the right to a child ofTopicTopicTopicTopicTopic

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understandingThe concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to abortion

Done Revised

The concept of personhood as applied to abortion Done RevisedD• the right to life as applied to abortion and therights of all those involved

Done Revised

The issues of infertility and the right to a child Done Revised

TopicTopicTopic

The status of the embryo Done RevisedWhether a child is a gift or a right Done RevisedThe application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to abortion and the right to a child

Done Revised

Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Done Revised

EuthanasiaTopicTopicTopicTopicTopic

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding ofsedThe concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia ails

Done Revised

The concept of the ‘Quality of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia

Done Revised

The right to life as applied to euthanasia Done RevisedThe application and the different approaches of the ethical theories to euthanasia.

Done Revised

Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Done Revised

Genetic engineeringTopicTopicTopic

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understandingThe ethical questions raised by the different types of genetic engineering to humans, animals and plants; human embryo research

Done Revised

The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories to genetic engineering.

Done Revised

Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Done Revised

War and peace TopicTopicTopicTopic

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:edThe principles of ‘Just War’ and its application; Done RevisedThe theories of ethical and religious pacifism; Done RevisedThe application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to war and peace.

Done Revised

Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Done Revised

Glossary of Technical Terms

Word Meaning

Absolute

Abortion

Act utilitarianism

Analytic

A priori

A posteriori

Artificial Insemination

Assisted dying

Autonomy

Categorical imperative

Cloning

Conscience

Consequentialism

Cultural relativism

Deontological

Descriptive statement

Divine command theory

Double effect

Duty

Embryo

Empirical knowledgeEuthanasia

Euthyro dilemma

Foetus

Final Cause

Five primary

preceptsGenetic engineering

Hedonic calculus

Hedonism

Higher pleasures

Hippocratic oath

Holy war

Hypothetical imperative

In vitro fertilisation

Just war theory

Kingdom of ends

Lower pleasures

Maxims

Pacifism

Personhood

Principle of utility

Prima facie duties

Purpose

Relativism

Rule utilitarianism

Sanctity of life

Secondary precepts

Summun Bonum

Synthetic statement

Teleological

Universalisability

Absolutist Theories

Relativist Theories

Key Terms:Absolutist – an action is always right or always wrong without hesitations or exceptions.Relativist – the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on the circumstances.

Kantian EthicsKant says that we should act according to maxims that we would want to see as universal laws. These laws are absolutist - we can work them out logically prior to experience; they are not verified through experience (they are known 'a priori').

Natural LawNatural Law described as deontological because it leads to a set of rules that people have a duty to follow. These rules are absolutist, because they know of no exception. The primary precepts are also absolutist - Aquinas believed we were all made by God with a shared human purpose.

Situation EthicsSituation Ethics says that what is right and wrong is relative to the situation. In other words, if you asked "Is it wrong to abort a foetus?" I would ask "Under what circumstances?" Clearly the outcome of my actions is of central importance here. Rules may be useful, but you may need to ignore the rules in order to do the right (loving) thing - the thing that is in the best interests of the people affected.

UtilitarianismAllows you to work out what was right or wrong in any given situation. Euthanasia might lead to the greatest happiness for one person and yet lead to greater unhappiness in another situation. What is right or wrong is relative to the situation.BUTMill, adapted Bentham's 'act' utilitarianism, claiming that we need to make laws based on the principle of utility (choose the laws that lead to the greater good) and then follow those laws. It can be seen as absolutist because there are no exceptions to the rules (if you were allowed to break the rules, this would be act utilitarianism).

Ethical theoryThe concepts of absolutist and relativist morality;• What it means to call an ethical theory absolutist and objective; What it means to call an ethical theory relativist and subjective:• The terms deontological and teleological. Candidates should be able discuss critically these concepts and their strengths and weaknesses

Absolutists:

Believe in moral truths that are fixed for all time and people Believe that moral actions are right or wrong in themselves, irrespective of circumstance, culture

or opinion. Deontological thinkers are concerned with acts, not ends. ‘Follow the good and avoid evil’ (a saying from the Middle Ages)

Examples of ethical absolutists:

Plato, believing that goodness itself really exists beyond this world St Thomas Aquinas, believing in a fixed divine law. F.H. Bradley believing morals are fixed, part of a concrete universe.

Relativists:

Believes that moral truth varies depending on culture, time, place and religion. Believe there is no fixed objective moral reality – or if there is, that it cannot be discovered. Believe that morals are subjective – subject to culture, religion, time and place

Examples of ethical relativists:

Aristotle believed that forms were in the world and therefore not absolute. Differing human circumstances mean we cannot have a general rule of all situations.

Protagoras: ‘ man is the measure of all things’ (attributed) William Graham Sumner: ‘The right way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been

handed down.’ Sumner was an anthropologist who investigated and appreciated cultural diversity.

J.L. Mackie: ‘ there are no objective values’- different culture’s ethics are evidence against the existence of moral absolutes, and people participate against the existence of moral absolutes, and people participate in different ways of living, or codes.

EvaluateEvaluate Absolutism

Absolutism provides a fixed ethical code to measure actions

Absolutism gives clear guidelines of behaviour

The UN declaration of Human Rights suggests a set of absolutes that apply to all people, no matter where they live.

However

Absolutism cant take into account the circumstances of the situation

It puts rules before people Following absolutist rules doesn't

necessarily lead to a better society Sometimes the end does justify the

means It is elitist and intolerant of other cultures

and societies Absolutist ethics are inflexible Absolutism can seem intolerant to cultural

diversity in the way European nations were in the past.

Evaluate Relativism

Relativism explains the existence of the different values that people hold

Relativism supports diverse cultural expressions

Relativism prohibits the dominance of a single culture.

Relativism is a flexible ethical system that can accommodate the wide diversity of lifestyles found in the modern world.

However

Relativism makes it hard to criticise horrific acts like those of the Nazis

People need rules and society cannot function without laws

It is much harder to apply relativist theories

What do you do if two relativists disagree?

The existence of different views doesn’t mean they are all equal.

Cultural relativists are unable to criticise a different culture

Cultural relativists can’t condemn any cultural practices – if a culture endorses wife beating, then wife beating is morally acceptable.

If the relative belief that different moral codes should all be supported was adopted universally, relativism itself would become an absolute moral code.

Primary Precepts:Desired by reasonable people

Worship God Ordered society Reproduce Educate children Preserve life

Secondary Precepts:Rules that help fulfil the primary precepts.E.g. Murder is wrong because it breaks ‘preserve life’.

Real and apparent goods:Sometimes we do the wrong thing because we confuse real goods and apparent goods.Real goods unity with God.We are misguided by sin or by emotions and choose the wrong thing.

The Theory is...Deontological – concerned with the intrinsic worth of an action and not with the consequences.Absolutist – actions are always right or wrong with no hesitations or exceptions.

ReasonAquinas placed emphasis on reason:“To disparage the dictate of reason is to condemn the command of God”.Everyone has practical reason. This means I can:

Know the right thing to do Determine the telos.

We can use our reason to know the right thing because we are naturally inclined towards good.

The TelosThrough God given reason I can determine the telos of an action.E.g. The telos of sex is procreation.Any action which prevents this telos is wrong, e.g. contraception.

Aristotle and Aquinas: Aristotle – the way to be happy is to live a

virtuous life (eudaimonia). Aquinas – being virtuous union with God (the beatific vision).

Aristotle – virtues include courage and patience. Aquinas added Christian virtues such as love and charity.

Aristotle – everything has an end/purpose (telos) and an efficient cause (how to achieve the telos). Aquinas – the telos is God’s intention so the right thing is to achieve the telos.

Aquinas and LawFour types of law:Eternal law – the mind of God, ‘God’s plan (only partially knowable to humans).Divine law – the Scriptures. Knowable to reason but to teach us with certainty on matters.Natural law – how the rational creature participates in the eternal law of God. (Conscience – reasoning and observing nature we can know what is right).Civil law – put in place to order society – if reasoned properly they will be in keeping with Natural law.

The main exponent of Natural Law is St Thomas Aquinas. He based much of his thinking on the thinking of Aristotle.

Natural LawCandidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:• The origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law in Aristotle’s idea of purpose; Aquinas’ ideas of purpose and perfection; The use of reason to discover Natural Law; the primary and secondary precepts. Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and weaknessesBackground:

Aristotle wrote ‘the natural is that which everywhere is equally valid.’ Stoics emphasised Logos, or rationality, which governs the world. St Paul wrote about law that is ‘written in the hearts’ of Gentiles The Roman lawyer Cicero wrote ‘True law is reason in agreement with nature.’

St Thomas Aquinas’ theory of moral law (13C)

His ethical theory is absolutist and deontological, which means that it is focused on the ethicacy of actions

Natural law exists to assist humans: ‘… man needs to be directed to his supernatural end in a higher way.’

There was a basic law ‘… that good is done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided Eternal law was perceived through revelation, in the form of the Word of God (the Bible) and

human reason. ‘To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God.’ The primary precepts are concerned with self preservation, the continuation of the specials

through reproduction, the education of children, living in society and worshipping God. The secondary precepts are deduced from the primary ones When humans do bad ‘things’ or ‘acts’ they are pursuing apparent goods, falsely believing them

to be really good. For Aquinas, both the intention and the act are important. To act in a good way for the wrong

reason is to perform a good exterior act but a bad interior act. Acts are intrinsically good or bad (good or bad in themselves) because when human beings act in

accordance with their ultimate purpose, God is glorified.

Natural Law – Strengths and WeaknessesStrengths Weaknesses

There is no moral confusion – absolutist theory so the action is either right or wrong.

Natural moral law enables people to establish common rules to structure communities

Differing cultures can be seen to have basic principles of preserving life, continuing the species, education and building society, so natural law seems reasonable.

Natural moral law gives guidance on day-to-day questions of how to live and links them to the fundamental principles of life

It is right to not base moral judgements on consequences. We can never truly be certain of the consequences of our actions – therefore basing moral decisions on possible consequences is foolish.

Natural Law can be accessed by everyone (even if they don’t believe in God) as their reason can lead them to conclude the right course of action.

It combines faith in God and the use of reason, appreciating that we are reasonable and can make rational and moral decisions though still from a Christian perspective.

Natural law wants all humans to be fulfilled. This is a positive target.

Natural law is not as rigid as it may first seem. The flexibility comes in the application of secondary principles.

The inflexibility is unhelpful as there are always exceptions to the rule.

Some dispute the presence of a common natural moral law and whether humans have a single nature

Humans may have different or changeable natures, as indicated by the different sexual orientations in society.

Aquinas could be wrong about his primary precepts, his definition of human purpose.

Natural moral law is a Christian ethic and yet Jesus’ opposition to legalistic morality is apparent in the New Testament. Some, such as Joseph Fletcher, argues that Jesus rejected that approach.

Natural moral law may not be as rigid as it first appears, as secondary precepts may change in some particular aspects. If applied rigidly injustices arise e.g. no IVF ever? No divorce ever?

We should take consequences into consideration as in reality that is how we judge others and ourselves.

It might be wrong to base our actions on reason as some people have obviously more limited practical reason than others.

The theory is based on the belief that we are naturally inclined to do good. Whereas other Christian beliefs teach we are sinful – therefore following our nature may lead to sin.

It is wrong to conclude that the world is as God intended and is therefore a point of reference for what is good as the world is always changing if you believe in evolution etc.

The universe may not have a purpose. No purpose then there are no grounds for right or wrong based on nature.

Interior and exterior acts:Interior act: the intention or motive behind the action.Exterior act: the act itself.Both must be good for the act to be good.

Kantian Ethics

The Categorical ImperativeThe universal law – All moral statements should be general laws, which apply to everyone under and circumstances. There should be no occasion under which an exception is made. Treat humans as ends in themselves – Kant argues that you should never treat people as a means to some end. People should always be treated as ends in themselves. This promotes equality.  Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends – Kant assumed that all rational agents were able to deduce whether an argument was moral or not through reason alone and so, all rational humans should be able to conclude the same moral laws.

ImperativesHypothetical - a command that you obey because of what it will achieve e.g. John must revise in order to pass FrenchCategorical - a command that is to be obeyed because it is good in itself e.g. Revise!

The Universability Test1. Find the agent's maxim (a principle from which rules are made) 2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. 3. Decide whether any contradictions, or irrationalities, arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. 4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. 5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.

Two types of contradiction:• Contradiction in Conception (law of

nature): the maxim contradicts itself or an existing Law of nature.

• Contradiction in Volition: the maxim can logically be applied, but as a rational human being, it makes no sense to!

The theory is...• deontological – concerned with inherent worth of

the action.• absolute – it does not allow any exceptions to it’s

rule and can be applied universally.

Four examples: Suicide: "...from self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life when its longer duration

threatens more troubles than it promises pleasure." False promises: "...when I believe myself to be in need of money I shall borrow money and promise

to repay it, even though I know that this will never happen." Wasting talents: “I will neglect the development of my natural talents and instead devote myself to

idleness and pleasure.” Refusing aid: "...let each be as happy as heaven wills or as he can make himself; I shall take

nothing from him nor even envy him; only I do not care to contribute to his welfare or to his assistance in need!"

Kantian EthicsCandidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:• The difference between the Categorical and the Hypothetical Imperatives; The various formulations of the Categorical Imperative, Kant’s understanding of the universalisation of maxims; Kant’s theory of duty; Kant’s ideas of the moral law, good will and the summum bonum.Candidates should be able to discuss critically these theories and their strengths and weaknesses

Deontological theories are concerned with actions, not consequences Kant’s theory is deontological because it’s based on duty. To act morally is to one’s duty,

and one’s duty is to obey the moral law ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’. If I say ‘I ought to do x’, it means ‘I can do x’. Humans seek an ultimate end called the supreme good, the summum bonum, so, for Kant,

morality led to God ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe… the starry

heavens above me and the moral law within me.’ Moral statements are ‘a priori synthetic’ (reason, not sense experience). ‘Good will shines forth like a precious jewel’ – the highest form of good is good will. To have

a good will is to do one’s duty To do one’s duty is to perform actions that are morally required We should act out of duty, and not emotion; Kant’s ethic is reason-based, not intuitive Moral statements are categorical – they prescribe irrespective of the result Universal law: ‘Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will

that it should become a universal law.’ Treat humans as ends in themselves. Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends

Humans are free to make rational choices. If people were not free, the possibility of making moral choices would be denied

Kantian Ethics (Continued)

Reason, Good will and DutyGood will – concerned with the interests of others not our own. Acting out of good will = acting out of duty. Reason will lead us to know what our duty is, and to do our duty is to do good. If Kant were asked ‘why must I do my duty’ he would say ‘because it is your duty’.Doing the right thing for the wrong reason goes against the duty principle on the grounds that you are driven by something other than duty. This is immoral as you act hypothetically and fail to realise that duty is good in itself. Kant teaches that when we are aware moral obligation in the form of a Categorical imperative we have a duty to obey it. –‘ought implies can’

Reason Kant believes that as Human beings we possess innate reason. Reason alone therefore will

lead us to solutions to moral dilemmas. A priori statements are those that come from reason and not our sense experience. Moral

statements are a priori. They are fact and need no verification (or they would be hypothetical imperatives!)

By emphasising reason alone as the key to moral behaviour Kant emphasises Autonomy – self Law, and no obligation to any outside authority.

Kant believes that looking to consequences of actions, the person making the decision is in danger of giving in to emotions or ‘inclinations’ and this is never an acceptable position to take.

Three postulates of practical reason:Postulate: a necessary assumption especially as a basis of an argument. E.g. England will always be rubbish at games it invented. We can POSTULATE the existence of God and the belief in immortality because despite

being inclined towards good and doing one’s duty, this does not always lead to happiness in this world.

We can POSTULATE our freedom as we are aware of having to make a moral decision and if we were not free to make that decision there would be no decision to make.

We can POSTULATE that there is an afterlife (immortality) where the Summum Bonum is achieved.

Kantian Ethics – Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths WeaknessesUniversal Law By acting according to this

principle people are encouraged to be less selfish.

This principle does not permit lying but sometimes it may seem tempting to lie - e.g. to a murderer about the whereabouts of his potential victim.

This can be interpreted, as everyone should act the same in a given situation. Too inflexible?

Using the categorical imperative in all situations will lead us to making absurd rules into rules of nature just because it can be universalised.

Treat people as ends By acting according to this principle the person accepts freely that they are an autonomous agent acting according to duty. They are not influenced by any outside agencies (e.g. the Church).

This can be interpreted (though Kant would say wrongly) as it being wrong to use the services of a GP or of a hairdresser etc.

Kingdom of ends By acting according to this principle the person accepts freely that they are an autonomous agent acting according to duty. They are not influenced by any outside agencies (Church, Authority) .

Are we all really in possession of reason that makes us capable of being completely autonomous moral agents?

Other Every human being is of equal worth - as every human being

possesses reason. (Kant also ensures this through the formula of ends)

Demands that everyone is treated with respect.

It provides a basis for morality independent of religion.

It acknowledges the danger of allowing emotions to determine what is right or wrong.

It champions justice (unlike utilitarianism) as the individual is protected even if it doesn’t suit the majority to do so!

Gives no place to consequences. They do (and should?) effect our moral decisions.

It is ‘Cold and unattractive’ therefore not practical (no emotion etc..)

Some argue that a conflict of duties may arise e.g. never lie and always keep a promise at the same time- example.

Don’t human beings have prima facie duties (that will come first) e.g. family before strangers?

Acting out of good will may lead to disaster.

Bentham

The theory is...Teleological – it is aiming towards a maximisation of pleasure for the majority. It has an end aim or goal. Relative – no notion of absolute right/wrong, no external source of truth. Nothing in itself is right or wrong. Consequential – the consequences of an act alone determine its rightness/wrongness. Hedonistic – it is concerned with the pursuit of pleasure

Principle of UtilityThe greatest good for the greatest number. The most useful course of action if trying to maximise pleasure and minimize pain. In a given situation, one must examine the consequential pain/pleasure resultant for all concerned. Bentham’s approach is therefore quantitative.

“Nature has placed mankind under the goverence of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we shall do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

UtilitarianismCandidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:• The classical forms of Utilitarianism from Bentham and Mill;• The principle of Utility; The differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and of Mill; The Hedonic Calculus, higher and lower pleasures, quantity v. quality, and Act and Rule Utilitarianism; The Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer. Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Jeremy Bentham: Jeremy Bentham devised the utilitarian theory. Human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain

(hedonism) and all humans pursue pleasure, which is good, and seek to avoid pain, which is bad The utility principle: the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its ‘utility’, or

usefulness Usefulness refers to the amount pleasure or happiness caused by the action ‘An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’. The hedonic calculus: this weighs up pain and pleasure based on intensity, duration, certainty or

uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent

John Stuart Mill: The well-being of the individual is of greatest importance, and that happiness is most effectively

gained when individuals are free to pursue their own ends, subject to rules that protect the common good of all

Focused on qualitative pleasures – some pleasures are higher (mind) and others lower (body) ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied

than a fool satisfied.’

Act and rule utilitarianism: Act utilitarian’s maintain that the good action is the one that leads to the greatest good in a

particular situation Act utilitarianism is flexible, being able to take into account individual situations at a given

moment However, it has the potential to justify virtually any act It may be impractical to suggest that we should measure each moral choice every time Rule utilitarian’s establish the best overall rule by determining the course of action which, when

pursued by the whole community, leads to the greatest result Rule utilitarianism overcomes some of the difficulties encountered in act utilitarianism However, it may still permit certain practices, such as slavery, that appear to be morally

unacceptable, because minority interests are not protected

Mill

Singer

Utilitarianism – Strengths and WeaknessesBentham

Strengths Weaknesses It is Egalitarian - the moral

view that everyone should be treated equally. No one person’s pleasure is more valued than any others.

It provides people with a decision making procedure- how do they know what is right in any given situation? Seek to maximise happiness.

Focuses on the well being of Human beings – encouraging people to be kind to others

It emphasises Happiness – which according to many ethicists is common sense.

It recognises the importance of consequence in moral decisions and responsibility

He implies all forms of pleasure or happiness are equal. (A problem later tackled by mill). Please gained by sadistic torture is as desirable as pleasure gained by friendship and knowledge according to Bentham.

It is not really possible to know the consequences of our actions – so it is foolish to base our decisions on assumptions and uncertainties.

When do the consequences cease to be the consequences of your action?

Motive has no importance in utilitarianism so it doesn’t matter at all why you do something therefore actions that promote happiness are GOOD no matter what! Therefore my motive for my action might be greed or lust but as long as pleasure is the consequence the action is good.

Anything is permitted as long as it promotes happiness – even blatantly unjust actions, therefore violating the principle of Justice. This permits obviously immoral actions such as gang rape and murder if people find them pleasurable.

Although he provides the hedonic calculus many would argue that you cannot measure pleasure.

Nothing has intrinsic worth – pleasure makes things acceptable therefore breaking the golden rule from natural law and Kant that evil may not be done so that good may come.

Mill

Strengths Weaknesses

The Hedonic CalculusWeighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It considers several factors: REMOTENESS – near?PURITY – free from pain?RICHNESS –other pleasures?INTENSITY – powerful?CERTAINTY – likely?EXTENT –affect others?DURATION – long‐lasting?

Act UtilitarianismAct utilitarianism uses the outcome of an action to asses whether it is right or wrong. Thus, there are no necessary moral rules except one, that we should always seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number in all situations.

Qualitative“It is better to be a human being satisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

Higher and lower pleasuresQuality is more important than quantity when it came to pleasure. The pleasures of the mind are far superior to the gratification of the body’s desires.

Rule UtilitarianismRules should be formed using utilitarian principles for the benefit of society. Strong utilitarians believe that these derived rules should never be disobeyed. However, weak utilitarians say that although there should be generally accepted rules or guidelines, they should not always be adhered to indefinitely.

Singer’s utilitarianism is known as PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM. For Singer the right moral action is the one which satisfies the most peoples’ preferences. It is important that one person’s preferences are not more important than others. All preferences are to be considered and all those capable of preferences including animals.

It is Egalitarian - the moral view that everyone should be treated equally.

It provides people with a decision making procedure- how do they know what is right in any given situation? Seek to maximise happiness.

Focuses on the well being of Human beings – encouraging people to be kind to others

It emphasises Happiness – which according to many ethicists is common sense. It recognises the importance of consequence in moral decisions and responsibility

Mill attempts to address the problem of Justice evident in Bentham’s theory. It is possible to eradicate some of the injustices on the grounds that Rules will norm decisions and there is a distinction made between higher and lower pleasures.

It avoids the time consuming calculations required by the hedonic calculus

Is it really possible to know the consequences of our actions?

When do the consequences cease to be the consequences of your action?

Motive has no importance in utilitarianism so it doesn’t matter at all why you do something therefore actions that promote happiness are GOOD no matter what!

Because of its emphasis on pleasures of the mind Mill’s utilitarianism is often criticised for being INTELLECTUALLY ELITIST and SNOBBISH. It implies that those who are satisfied with their life that is filled with ‘lower pleasures’ are living the life of an animal. according to the criterion of competent judges they have an ‘infirm character’

It is not always easy to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures. Getting drunk may be a lower pleasure but what if my pleasure comes from drinking wine that I have spent years learning about and share my knowledge with others etc…

Sex may also be considered a lower pleasure but surely sex in a loving, committed relationship is a pleasure of the spirit?

Strong rule utilitarianism is not based on pleasure (or they would break the rule if more pleasure was produced by doing so) therefore what else does it take into consideration? Is it only part utilitarian and part deontological? Hamilton argues that the rule utilitarian ‘ should just admit that he or she cares about things other than happiness’ (Hamilton)

Singer

Strengths WeaknessesConsidering the preferences of people removes some of the injustices of ACT utilitarianism.

Majority are satisfied.

Included non human animals.

MANY OF THE ABOVE STRENGTHS APPLY

Impossible to know everyone’s preferences.

Preference satisfaction and happiness – there is no difference? Singer himself conceded this may be the case

What about the minority’s preferences.

How far is morality dependent on God?

The Euthyphro Dilemma"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Divine Command Theory - EntirelyThe DCT states that because of GOD’s omnipotence, benevolence and omniscience, whatever GOD commands is good and whatever God prohibits is bad.

Sources of authorityScripture: The Bible, New and Old Testament (though some Christian traditions place emphasis on New Testament scripture – some exclusively) Church Authority: Particularly Characteristic of the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Conscience: Again, particularly characteristic of Roman Catholic Christianity with some scholars referring to conscience as the ‘voice of God’. The Holy Spirit: God inspiring and guiding Christians through prayer.

The Old TestamentTwo types of commands:Apodictic – direct affirmative or negative commands setting the boundaries for appropriate behaviour.Casuistic – cast in a conditional if…then…. format, making reference to a specific hypothetical legal situation.Basic Old Testament Principles: The intrinsic value of human beings as a result

of being made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) Affirmation of the goodness of life in this world. The importance of viability for all members of

society. The priority of good relationships. The preference for prudence and moderation.The Ten Commandments:Basic rules for living for any peaceful society.Important because they are the actual words of God.The Ten Commandments state what is required in the love of God and love of neighbour.

The New TestamentLove - Jesus teaches that love of God backed up by love of neighbour is essential. Love is not restricted – it should be shown to all (The Good Samaritan).ForgivenessCommanded to forgive those who have done wrong. Forgiveness is fundamental to our relationship with God and others. If we do not forgive, we will be separated from God (The Unmerciful Servant).We must welcome back those who have sought forgiveness (The Prodigal Son).The Sermon on the MountThe Beatitudes: emulate the poor in spirit; be merciful; be peacemakers; recognise the heroism of those who are persecuted.Don’t place too much emphasis on material wealth.The Golden Rule the innate dignity of all humans.The Kingdom of GodWe must seek to build the KOG. To do this we must:Shun material wealth; give to those in need; be merciful; be peaceful (The Sermon).Be humble and be servants to others (Request of James and John)Remember that all are welcome, even outcasts (Mark 2:13-17)

ConscienceConscience is “reason making right moral decisions” (Aquinas).Particularly important in Catholicism.A moral agent must educate their conscience and act according to its imperatives.

Holy SpiritSt Paul referred repeatedly to the power of the spirit in guiding our actions towards the will of God. The Holy Spirit, most particularly for evangelical expressions of Christianity, is another source of guidance for ethical decision-making, and He is usually ‘experienced’ in the context of praying about some moral dilemma or other (in any given situation, ‘should one divorce one’s partner?’, for example). Church AuthorityParticularly characteristic of Catholicism. Moral agents can turn to the teaching of the Church to decide how to act. The Catholic Church usually adopts the position of Natural Law theory.

The New Testament (Cont)St. PaulLove is the fulfilment of the law.Law for law’s sake is not an option. Human life is transformed by the Spirit and freed from the law. (Galatians 5:16-26).Seek to emulate Christ (Philippians 2:1-5)

Religious Ethics – Christian EthicsCandidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:• The main ethical principles of the religion studied and how the followers of the religion make ethical decisions;The ways in which religion and morality may seem to be linked or be seen as separate from each other; How far morality may be seen as dependant on God (Divine Command theory); How far religious ethics may be seen as absolutist or relativist; How ethical theories may be considered religious.Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

How far are ethical theories religious?

Situation EthicsJoseph Fletcher’s Situation ethics is dependent firstly on freely accepting GOD as love – (the principle of positivism). Once the individual freely accepts this faith claim, they have a foundation for their belief that the most loving thing (agape) is the right thing to do. Agape is the love that is the foundation of our relationship with GOD and is how we are supposed to treat each other if we follow the example of JESUS. Fletcher argued JESUS was a situationist.

Natural LawHuman beings are in possession of GOD GIVEN reason that enables us to access GOD’S plan for the universe revealed through HIS creation. When something is used for it’s GOD given purpose it is good and vice versa. Greater responsibility is to be taken by human beings who are able to take this responsibility because of the reason given to them by GOD. Human nature is believed to be inclined towards good.

Humanism – Not at allHumanists believe that moral values are not dependent on religion and that it is untrue, unfair to non-religious people and a damaging idea in an increasingly secular society to assert otherwise. Humanists believe that moral values evolved, and continue to evolve, along with human nature and society and are indeed based on human nature, experience and society.Humanists believe the reason for acting morally is to live together ‘harmoniously and cooperatively’ not to please God (as they don’t believe in God). Rules about how to behave morally come from human being’s desire to live together in society and make life better for themselves and one another.

ScriptureMany Christians (To differing extents - Catholics included!) refer to the Bible as a source of moral teachings, specifically the example of Jesus who, as God incarnate, can be considered the perfect moral example. Therefore as the Bible is considered to be the Word of GOD morality revealed through the Bible is dependent on God.

Holy SpiritThere are also those Christians (who can be described as antinomian) who believe that through prayer the right thing to do in any situation is revealed to them by the HOLY SPIRIT.

Natural LawAlthough it’s foundations are a secular theory founded in ancient Greece, and it can be followed in this way, in it’s most popular form it is dependent on the existence of God and can be considered a religious ethic. At it’s centre is a creation that was ordered by God It is most closely linked to Catholic Christianity, which is obvious in it’s judgments on several ethical issues e.g., genetic engineering and contraception. It is not as similar to other forms of Christian ethics e.g. the protestant emphasis on scripture and Joseph Fletcher’s emphasis on relativism and Love.

The Catholic ChurchThe Roman Catholics follow a Religious Ethic that is dependent on the will of GOD as revealed through the teachings of the Church as taught by the Magesterium (the official teachings of the Pope and the Cardinals) and our conscience. The Catholic Church is CHRIST’s representative on earth and therefore by following the moral teachings of the Church, a Catholic follows the will of GOD.

Christian

Kantian EthicsHis theory is not a religious ethic though it has much in common with Christian Ethics. It emphasises on justice and not treating people as means to an end – recognising the intrinsic value of all human beings encouraging us to treat each other with dignity and respect. Kant’s command about universalisability is also similar (NOT the same!) as Jesus’ ‘golden rule’ – to treat people as you would have them treat you. As Kant’s theory is deontological it has more in common with Catholic Christianity than other approaches for example Situation ethics, which opposes all rule based ethical system.Kant argued that a truly moral action is done out of a sense of duty from within – not imposed from any outside authority (God, Church..) . So in this way it is not at all compatible with religious ethics. However Kant himself conceded in notes published after his death that in order for his theory to completely make sense it is necessary to postulate the existence of God. This would address issues such as - Where does our sense of duty come from?, The summum bonum (heaven!) …Therefore while Kant’s theory is not a religious ethic there are elements of it that make more sense if God is included as a ‘necessary postulate’

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism is not a religious ethic insofar as it does not rely on a belief in God to operate. It is not compatible with a Roman Catholic / Natural Law approach to Christian ethics due to it’s relativist and teleological nature. John Stuart Mill thought the GHP could be likened to Jesus Golden Rule- to treat people as you would have them treat you, because it encourages us to do good to others at the expense of our own needs. Jeremy Bentham believed that utilitarianism would be acceptable to Christians because he said it encouraged benevolence and God is Benevolent.Utilitarianism can be criticised as omitting justice from moral decision-making that is so central to Christian ethics. Also because utilitarianism only seeks to maximise happiness immoral actions can be permitted. It does not recognise anything valuable and precious about human life (e.g. that we are made in the image of God) the only thing of intrinsic value is pleasure/ happiness.

Ethics – Absolutist or Relativist?ABSOLUTIST RELATIVIST

Natural Law / Catholic Approach – certain actions are always intrinsically wrong.

Ten Commandments are absolute rules with no exceptions that came from the mouth of God.

Those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible emphasis the absolute authority of commands in the Bible with no exception.

The divine command theory emphasises the goodness of God’s commands - this is an absolutist position as the commands are taken as good without interpretation or questioning.

Conscience shouldn’t go against the teaching of the Church if it has been properly educated so it is not relative as the laws that inform it are absolute.

Situation ethics is a relativist Christian theory based only on the principle of Love.

Many Christians argue Jesus had a relativist approach to the Law – he was prepared to put it aside if the situation required. e.g. adulterous women / woman at the well Cornfields on the Sabbath.

Christians that use the Holy Spirit as a guide can be argued to have a relativist approach to Ethics as the Holy spirit will guide them relative to that given situation.

The emphasis on conscience as supreme by the Catholic Church can be seen to allow certain rules to be broken according to our own conscience.

St Paul recognised that if you are guided by the spirit there is no need for the law. This seems in agreement with a Situation ethics/ holy spirit approach.

Religious Ethics – Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths Weaknesses Unchanging – like God Based in a being that is perfectly

good. Ethics based in society (cultural

relativism) lead to no moral consensus and has the problem of Chang quote.

Relativism can quickly become antinomianism if there is no foundation but our own perception.

Emphasis on love (agape) is self giving and non preferential.

Rules like Ten Commandments are agreed upon by most reasonable secular and religious societies.

Conscience – allows individuals to make choice in opposition to rules in carefully considered and individual circumstances.

Encourages moral responsibility to all human beings who have intrinsic worth as they are made in God’s image.

Encourages us to value all member s of society paying particular attention to those in need – outcast /sick/ oppressed.

Natural Law – available to all through reason and conscience – do not have to be Christian just human to know right form wrong.

Individuals are guided by churches / bible/ past wisdom/ saints etc in moral decision making not alone.

Situation ethics is a flexible Christian ethic.

Natural law is a clear and fixed Christian ethic.

Promotes justice in this life and the next.

Makes no sense without a (collective?) belief in God – since enlightenment people have moved towards rationalist/ reason based beliefs that now dominate society. ‘Because God said’ is not enough….

Problems of the Euthyphro dilemma.

What of other faiths – are they wrong?

There are contradictions in teachings in the Bible and among denomination – unhelpful.

Too fixed – natural law. Too flexible – situation ethics. Falls apart if there is no God Useful only for believers. Emphasis on conscience is

relativism / antinomianism – too vague.

Natural law claims the world id fixed as god intends and therefore everything has a set telos but the world is evolving so this is a false belief.

Sanctity of Life

The Image of GodBelief in the sanctity of life is based on the belief that all humans are made in the ‘Imago Dei’“God created man in his image, man and woman he created them.” Genesis 1:27

The Divine SparkThe Image of God means that human beings are set apart and are different from all other creatures. They possess the spark of divinity. They act on earth as God’s stewards. (Genesis 1:28)

The IncarnationThe notion of sanctity is revealed in the Incarnation.God loved this world so much that he was ready to take on human form and die upon a cross for us.

Only God has the rightGod saw all he had made and indeed it was good. (Genesis 1:31)As the author of creation only God has the right to decide when life should end.Furthermore we read in Job:“Naked I came from my mothers womb and naked I shall return again, the Lord Gave and the lord has taken away.”Job 1:21

Secular UnderstandingSanctity can have nothing to do with God. Human life possesses intrinsic value in its own right.Kant’s categorical imperative is an example of this. Human beings are valued because they are human. Kant says, “Never treat a person as a means to an end but instead as an end in themselves.”Quality of LifeSet in opposition to sanctity. It’s quality of life that’s important.It is not true that all life is precious.There are some instances when life ceases to be worth living and protecting.

Definition:Literally means ‘a life set aside’All human life is due a special reverence. Due to the fact that life is a gift from God it possesses intrinsic worth and value.

Christians and the sanctity of life:

Abortion intentionally destroys a foetus in the womb, and biblical texts provide a framework for prohibiting abortion

Christianity holds all human life to be sacred – deserving of reverence and respect The act of killing ends the life, the autonomy of the person and any possible future

contributions that life could have made Religious organisations argue that humans don’t have authority over the taking of life as God

is the life-creator and giver Christianity rejects the taking of innocent life and so abortion is considered a grave sin –

intrinsically evil, and condemned absolutely by the Roman Catholic Church, as it goes against natural law and the Word of God

God alone is Lord of life and death, and humans have no right to take life Human life begins at conception and so abortion at any stage is the murder of an innocent Liberal Protestant Christians oppose abortion in principle, and advocate the preservation of

life, but allow for abortion in certain situations (where the mother’s life is threatened, in the case of rape or incest, and when the mother’s mental or physical health is endangered).

The ‘double effect’ principle may be applied to allow for an abortion to save the life of a mother when otherwise neither the mother nor the foetus would live (for example, an ectopic pregnancy).

Abortion and Right to a Child

Methods of Abortion 1 – 9 Weeks: Early Medical Abortion 5 – 15 Weeks: Vacuum Aspiration 15 – 20 Weeks: Surgical – Dilation and Evacuation 15 – 24 Weeks: Medical Induction 20 – 24 Weeks: Two Stage ProcedureIssuesThe Law – Abortion is legal up until 24 weeks. It is legal up until full term if the mother’s life is at risk or if a serious abnormality is detected in the foetus. The foetus is given legal protection if it is viable outside the womb.Rights - Opinions on abortion can be divided into two: those opposed to abortion - the foetus is a person therefore worthy of rights and protection by law and those who believe a woman has the right to choose whether she terminates the pregnancy or not.Status of the foetus – Pro Life: full status should be given to the foetus usually from conception though others argue from different points (e.g. beginning of heart beat).Discrimination – Is the law saying that the life of an unborn disabled is not of the same value as that of an unborn able child? Personhood – AgainstMary Ann WarrenThe criteria for personhood are: Consciousness The ability to feel pain Exercise the use of reason Demonstrate self-awareness.The foetus does not meet these criteria and so is not worthy of legal rights.Virginia Mollenkott A person can be defined as a living being with feelings, awareness, and interactive experience. An unborn entity does not possess the characteristics of a person. Therefore, an unborn entity does not possess personhood. Therefore, killing an unborn entity is not seriously wrong.Jane EnglishEven if the foetus is not ‘person’ it does deserve some recognition in our moral code.Even animals get this much though their interests may be overridden by the interests of persons. We accept that we have some moral responsibility towards it.

knowledge and understanding of: the concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to abortion; the concept of personhood as applied to abortion; the right to life as applied to abortion and the rights of all those involved; the issues of infertility and the right to a child; the status of the embryo; • whether a child is a gift or a right; the application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to abortion and the right to a child. Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Abortion (Continued)

Grounds for Abortion

The Rights of the Foetus

Personhood – For“the unborn child is already a human being, a person, a bearer of rights...abortion is therefore murder.” (James Mackie)“From the time that the ovum is fertilised, a life is begun which is neither that of the father or that of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being, with its own growth.” (The Catholic Church)

Conception Rape (continuing the pregnancy is a

continuation of the assault or ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’)

The pregnancy was not intended (contraception was used)

Situation of the Woman Domestic or financial situation. Health of the woman (mother’s life should

take precedence over the foetus. Principle of double effect

The Embryo Disability detected in the foetus – can society permit this and treat as equals those who have

the condition? What should be considered ‘serious’? Slippery slope to eugenics?

Sanctity vs. Quality Sanctity: the foetus has rights just like any other person from the moment of conception. In the case of a disabled foetus ‘quality of life’ supporters argue that life may not be worth

protecting as it not of the quality required- for the sake of the foetus and the mothers.

DefinitionEuthanasia literally means ‘a good death’. In the words of Pope John Paul II “Euthanasia here means an action or omission that by its nature or by intention causes death with the purpose of putting an end to all suffering. Euthanasia is therefore a matter of intention and method”.

Views on PregnancyJudith Jarvis ThompsonImagine that you have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers. You wake up and find you have been attached to an unconscious violinist who needs to be hooked up to your kidneys for the next nine months or else he will die.His right to life does not oblige you to provide the necessary bodily support to maintain life in a way that overrides your right to bodily independence.

EuthanasiaCandidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: the concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia; the concept of the ‘Quality of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia; the right to life as applied to euthanasia; the application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to euthanasia.Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

Personhood and the status of the foetus: While some form of life is clearly present at conception, whether that form of life should get the

full protection of the law is disputed Should status increase incrementally as the foetus becomes more like a born human being, or

should it be bound to the point of conception or the point of birth? Opponents of abortion argue that to kill a foetus is to murder a human person – the foetus

contains the necessary genetic material Others argue that the fertilised egg is too different from anything that we normally recognise as

a person to be called the same thing Personhood may be given when the foetus is viable, when it can survive a birth – although

people who are dependant on continual medical assistance are considered to be persons despite their medical conditions

The following are suggested as defining as aspects of personhood: consciousness, rationality, self-awareness, and our ability to develop complex language and make complex tools

Is a foetus a person or a potential person? The definition of personhood is unresolved, as is agreement over the point at which a potential

human being becomes a full human being

Iss

Key Terms and the LawInvoluntary euthanasia: patient does not wish to die.Non- voluntary euthanasia: patient cannot choose either way (e.g. is in a coma).Voluntary euthanasia: patient freely chooses to die.Active Euthanasia: to intentionally kill the patient. This is illegal in Britain. It is legal in Holland.Passive Euthanasia: withdrawal of life prolonging treatment. This can be legal in Britain.Killing and Letting DieThere is a difference between killing a patient and letting them die. Letting a patient die is not illegal.A patient is not obliged to do all they can to stay alive. For example, they can choose to not continue with treatment for cancer.It is also legal to switch off life support machines.

The Principle of Double EffectAdministering drugs

e.g. Morphine

Ease patient’s Shorten patient’spain life

This is what the nurse This is a by- intended, therefore product of easing it is acceptable to their pain with administer the drugs drugs even though they will shorten the patient’s life according to the principle of double effect.

Slippery Slope"Those who promote this last, fatal escape as a "right" should remember that such a "right" may quickly become an expectation and, finally, even a "duty" to die. We fear eventually some individuals and families will be forced to put financial concerns above the needs of loved ones." Statement against assisted suicide by members of Michigan's Religious Leaders Forum.

RightsSome argue that we have a ‘right to die’.Controversial for three reasons:1. You are not autonomous – your decision

effects family and friends. Your decision also effects society as a whole (see slippery slope).

2. Your life belongs to God (see religious view).3. Do we then have a right to expect someone to

help us to die?

What is voluntary euthanasia? Should we have the ability to control our own destinies, by being offered assistance to take

our own lives when we judge that the quality of our lives has deteriorated to the point at which they are no longer worth living?

Euthanasia is a criminal offence in virtually all countries, and it’s strongly opposed by most governments and religious organisations

In Holland, about a thousand assisted deaths to take place each year ‘I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his

death.’ (Hippocrates) Physicians are ‘not only to restore the health, but to mitigate the pain and dolours; and not

only when such mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage’. (Francis Bacon)

Euthanasia (Continued)

Strengths WeaknessesArguments for voluntary euthanasia:

Voluntary euthanasia is not murder, as killing humans who don’t want to live isn’t wrong

It shows mercy to those suffering with intolerable pain from an incurable disease

It gives people autonomy – the right to choose their destiny, including how they live and die

Voluntary euthanasia should be an option for a competent adult who is able and willing to make such a decision

Euthanasia goes on already, in an uncontrolled and therefore unsafe way

It allows human beings to live dignified lives – the ends of their lives should be dignified

Evaluating voluntary euthanasia: Some argue that there’s no moral difference

between the withdrawal of treatment and the active killing of a patient by lethal injection

The theological traditions that underpin the religious arguments have been challenged, as there are no exceptions for the no-killing rule in the case of self-defence and war

The consequences of legalised euthanasia are uncertain

Religious arguments against voluntary euthanasia: Life is a sacred gift from God, and humans are called

upon to preserve it and make it fruitful Killing is forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures For Christians, suffering has a special place in God’s

plan, because Jesus died in pain on the Cross, and human suffering can have meaning in the context of a life lived in faith

Other arguments against euthanasia: Motives may be questionable – we may ask in moments

of despair, or out of misplaced fears of the future Mistakes could be made through faulty diagnosis The system might be subject to abuse in the case of

elderly relatives Euthanasia might have a negative impact on the

community by reducing the importance of care of patients who are dying, or by preventing people from going to hospital for fear of the possible consequences

Acceptance of the practice of killing in hospitals could reduce the respect for life that civilizations uphold

There would be flaws in the systems that might regulate the practice. Could they ever be foolproof?

We can’t predict the impact that ‘voluntary euthanasia might have on peoples’ perceptions of hospitals, or how it might affect an elderly person’s perception of whether she is a burden

The potential social dangers stand against the restrictions of individual autonomy that result from prohibiting voluntary euthanasia

The Religious ViewA man, even if seriously sick or prevented in the exercise of its higher functions, is and will be always a man ... [he] will never become a 'vegetable' or an 'animal,‘…The intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being does not change depending on their circumstances.“ Pope John Paul II, 2004.Dying with DignityOne of the major arguments for Euthanasia is the claim that it helps people to die with dignity.Those who are anti-Euthanasia point to the Hospice movement in response to this.They do this by providing excellent medical care and also spiritual and emotional support for the patient and their family. They are helped to face death and receive services that show they are valued until the last moments of their life. “You matter because you are you.You matter to the last moment of your life, and we will do all we can, not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.” Dame Cicely SaundersFounder of the Hospice Movement

Sanctity vs. QualityLife never ceases to be sacred. They are not of any less value because of the ‘quality of life’ they possess.Voluntary euthanasia is playing God and the danger exists that people may be forced to ‘choose’ euthanasia. Those taking the quality of life position would argue that there may be times that it is better to end a life –for the good of the person, their loved ones society in general.

Right to a Child

Artificial Reproductive TechniquesArtificial Insemination: problem with conceiving is with the sperm and not the egg or the woman. The sperm is inseminated into the woman and she conceives. More complicated if donor sperm is used. Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT): the sperm and egg are mixed together in a laboratory before being inserted into the woman’s fallopian tube before conception. In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF): eggs are fertilised by sperm (from the biological parents or donors) in the laboratory and at embryonic stage are inserted into the womb for implantation. It could cost anywhere between £2, 000 to £7,000 per cycle depending on which clinic you go to.

Status of the EmbryoDuring IVF a number of embryos are inserted to give the parents more chance of conceiving one. This suggests that it’s worth risking the ‘lives’ of the other embryos for the chance of conceiving one.Parents will often create ‘spare’ embryos. These will be frozen, donated to others, destroyed or experimented on.The Catholic Church: life begins from conception and should be valued.Positives

IVF helps childless couples to conceive and is commonplace.

Children will be born to people committed to becoming parents.

IssuesGamete donation:Egg collection from women is invasive and unpopular. This has meant many women pay for eggs in order to convince someone to donate – is this morally acceptable?Egg sharing: childless couples may be exploited. Ovaries are stimulated to produce eggs. If they can’t afford the procedure, a woman may double this stimulation and donate half to someone else in return for reduced price IVF. This can have medical side effects and they will be ‘forced’ to give away their eggs to someone else.Financial: it is expensive. Couples may be financially exploited. If unsuccessful couples may feel they should continue (and spend more money) as they have invested so much already.Embryo selection: doctors select which embryos to implant. This means that some embryos that are deemed as unsuitable or weaker would be destroyed.Who has the right: ‘Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.’ (UN Declaration 1948)No one judges in advance whether a woman has a right to the child or a father figure or a suitable lifestyle or criminal record. However these are all suggestions on the restriction of IVF. Should all people be entitled to a child?The Roman Catholic Church:

The Church opposes IVF, as many embryos are created and then destroyed in the process: the Church considers embryos to have a full human rights status from conception

The Church is also concerned that the involvement of donors and doctors impairs the conjugal act of lovemaking

Natural moral law underpins this belief in the protection of life, as does the belief that marriage is a sacrament and therefore has particular sanctity and holiness

The different approaches of Protestant Christian churches: All consider human embryos as needing respect Some churches do not afford the embryo the same status as a born human being An emphasis on personal conscience leaves individual Christians to make their own moral

decisions Paul Ramsey opposed artificial insemination by donor, as it denies the unity of love between

husband and wife Joseph Fletcher argued that the relationship was more important in the decision about the

morality of AI The diversity of approaches in Protestant ethics results from the different approaches to using

the Bible in ethical decision-making

Other ethical views:

In Kantian ethics, the categorical imperative requires that people are treated as ends in themselves, and perhaps embryos are persons

Utilitarians need to consider whether the happiness of the individual embryos created and not used is significant, and measure that against the happiness of the couple and the created child

A utilitarian might also be concerned about the low success rate, the cost of treatment set against other more reliable treatments, and the chance of disappointment caused by unsuccessful attempts

Rights theories must contend with the different groups claiming priority consideration, such as the couple, embryos created, donors, the child created and society at large

In a consumer culture, there is a danger that children can be seen as simply another desired product, and this becomes more acute when particular features are requested

Embryo research:

Embryo experimentation has the potential to find cures for serious illnesses using tissue or cells from embryos

UK politicians have voted to extend the research done on human embryos to allow stem cells to be taken from embryos at a very early stage of development, in the hope that this may lead to radical improvements in the treatment of a number of degenerative diseases

There are utilitarian arguments for embryo experimentation research for the greater good for the populace

Important in this discussion is the nature of the embryo and whether it is a person, a potential person or something else, and whether – and to what degree – rights are granted

Singer argues that up to 14 days after fertilisation, an embryo is not a human being The British Humanist Association note that before 14 days an embryo has few of the

characteristics that we associate with a person Some argue that by day seven there are observable features of differentiation Some Christian absolutists argue for full rights from the point of conception, because any

interruption in the process of life interrupts God’s plan for life and undermines the idea that God’s image is reflected in each human being

Singer argues against potentiality as an argument, because sperm and eggs could be considered to be potentially human

Religious absolutists with strong pro-life beliefs see the use of embryos in this way as an indicator of a totalitarian society, one that thinks it can use and abuse individual humans for utilitarian reasons

Conclusions:

Some argue that embryo research helps to develop treatments for degenerative diseases Should embryos be used to help develop new treatments for degenerative diseases that

harm many people? Does this turn human embryos into a commodity for the greater good of born humans?

The question of whether or not an embryo is a person fundamentally affects the view of IVF and embryo research

Genetic Engineering

Embryo Research

Definitions:Genetic Engineering, genetic modification (GM), gene splicing: methods of manipulating genes. The aim is to introduce new characteristics.Gene Therapy: method for correcting defective genes. (Somatic – only alters that person’s genes; and germ line – characteristics would be passed on in reproduction).Cloning:

DNA cloning – to further understanding of the human genome. Therapeutic cloning – production of embryos for research. Reproductive cloning – technology to generate an animal (or human!).

Basic BiologyInside the nucleus of a cell are chromosomes. Chromosomes are long strands of DNA.DNA contains a code which act as a set of instructions to make all the molecules in your body.DNA is made up of 4 corresponding base pairs: A, T and G, C. The order of these bases provides the codes to make all the molecules needed in your body.

Make People BetterIf somatic cells are modified then those living with genetic diseases could be cured. Stem cell research may also lead to the ability to heal and replace parts of our body E.g. to repair a central nervous system or grow a lung for a transplant.If the germ cells of the person have been modified the defective gene will not be passed on to offspring. Do we have the right to modify future unborn generations - even with the best intention – particularly as we are so uncertain about the consequences? Germ cell therapy is currently forbidden on these grounds.Seeking to eradicate disease by either gene therapy or pre implantation diagnosis sends a mixed message to those born with genetic diseases. Is it possible both to seek to eliminate particular diseases from future generations by means of germ cell therapy and also to treat those who suffer from them as equal and valued members of society?

Make Better PeopleIs there a problem with modifying people for cosmetic reasons?It is feared by many that this will result in a re-emergence of eugenics.It is clear that these modifications will be expensive. Those that can afford to are more likely to ‘enhance’ themselves and their children and social inequalities will increase.

Genetically Modified Crops and AnimalsStrengths: Crops are cheaper to produce, higher resistance to pests and disease, increased yield, crops take less time, effort and money to produce, and enhanced taste and quality.Animals have increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency, better yields of meat, eggs, and milk and improved animal health.Increased food security for growing populations.Controversies: Uncertain about the long term effects on human beings and the environment. Any new advances will benefit the rich and powerful and not developing countries. What about the rights of the animals? Are we playing God?

Basic BiologyAn embryo is formed when the genetic material from a sperm and egg cell fuse (fertilisation). The cell begins to divide and after 3 days the embryo is 16 cells big. These cells are called stem cells and can go on to become any cell in the body. This property is what makes them of interest to researchers. In order for the embryo to develop further it must implant into the uterus which occurs after the 1st week. At day 14 the primitive streak forms which will go on to form the brain and spinal cord.

The LawUnder UK law embryos can be researched on for the following reasons: Promoting advances of in the treatment of

fertility Increasing knowledge about the causes of

miscarriages or congenital disease. Increasing knowledge about serious disease

or the development of embryos. Developing more effective contraception

techniques. Developing methods for detecting the

presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities before implantation.

Embryos can be researched on until they are 14 days old (when the primitive streak appears).Under UK law embryos are considered human enough to be deemed more valuable to be experimented on (over mice and rats) but not human enough to be given rights.

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: • the ethical questions raised by the different types of genetic engineering to humans, animals and plants; human embryo research; • the application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to genetic engineering. Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

PossibilitiesThe possibilities for medical progress are immense e.g. parts of the body could be grown making donors of organ unnecessary; spinal columns could be repaired meaning people could walk again.

ConsentAn embryo cannot give consent. Who will give it for them?As the embryos are created for the purpose of experimentation at no benefit to themselves it is harder to argue that if the embryo could consent itself that it would!

RightsAre embryos legitimate subjects of scientific experimentation? If life begins at conception they cannot be experimented on.

Why go to war?

Just War Theory

Conventional War is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons (missiles, tanks, guns) not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Nuclear War is battle in which nuclear weapons are used. Compared to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare is much more destructive in both range coverage and extent of damage, and has long-term, severe, damaging effects that can last decades, centuries, or even millennia after the initial attack.

Biological War also known as a germ warfare, biological weapons and bioweaponry — is the use of any pathogen (bacterium, virus or other disease-causing organism) as a weapon of war.

Chemical Warfare involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate an enemy.

Terrorism is the regular use of violence to achieve a (usually) political goal. Terrorist acts are intended to create fear (terror), and usually deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

“We make war that we may live in peace.”(Aristotle)

“In time of war the loudest patriots are the greatest

profiteers.”(August Bebel)

“I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of

mothers and wives. I hate war.”(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

War in the Old Testament‘ Evidence of God on the side of War in the OT. (only for ‘good’ ) we captured and destroyed every town and put every one to death – men women and children, we left no survivors’ (Deuteronomy 2:34). But also Ecclesiastes talks of a time for war/ peace. And a vision of swords into Ploughshares is in Micah.

War for the Early ChristiansSome thinkers that for 250 years after Jesus’ death the Christian community was pacifist even in the face of violent persecution. However it is unlikely that there was UNIFORM pacifism among the early Christians even if they did accept their persecutions.

Constantine converted - the political situation changed rapidly and the Roman Emperor Constantine began to use the Roman state to support the church. According to an influential bishop named Eusebius, Christian pacifism was from then on to be strictly for clergy, monks and nuns; lay Christians, however, were obliged to defend the country with force. The just war theory is a largely Christian

philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: Taking human life is seriously wrong States have a duty to defend their

citizens, and defend justice Protecting innocent human life and

defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence.

It is the belief that war is morally justified if it meets certain criteria.

OriginsDiscussions on this theory go back to philosophers such as Aristotle and Cicero, who wrote that a war in self defence was just.First significant development of its principles came from Ambrose of Milan and his student Augustine of Hippo. Both stipulated that war must only be waged by a legitimate governmental authority; it must be intended to restore peace and justice; it should be a last resort. There were limits on the conduct of war: reprisal killings and massacres were forbidden.

New Testament- It is often argued Jesus position in the New Testament is pacifist based on extracts such a ‘ those who live by the sword’ but Jesus in the Temple shows a different side. Also He tells his disciples to get a sword and they do carry them!

War and PeaceCandidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: the principles of ‘Just War’ and its application; the theories of ethical and religious pacifism; the application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to war and peace. Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

AquinasHe drew together the thinking on a Just War and listed:

Right Authority Right Cause Just Intention

as the most important aspects.

Fransico Suarez and Fransico de VitoriaIn the 16th and 17th centuries Fransico Suarez and Fransico de Vitoria added the extra conditions of proportionality, last resort and reasonable chance of success.

Catholic Bishops of America (1983)Just War theory can be divided into 3 parts:• Jus ad bellum – concerns the justice of resorting

to war in the first place.• Jus in bello – concerns the justice of conduct

within the war• Jus post bellum – concerns the justice of peace

agreements and the ending of the war.

Jus ad Bellum1. Just CauseThere must be a good reason to go to war.2. Legitimate AuthorityA war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority.3. Right IntentionA just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.4. Likelihood of SuccessA war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. 5. ProportionalityThe violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.6. Last ResortThe use of force can only be justified as a last resort, when all other means of resolving the conflict have been tried.

Jus in Bello1. ProportionalityThe violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity(these conditions includeThe weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Obeying all international laws on weapons. Fair treatment of prisoners of war. No Mala in se (actions that are evil in themselves not just evil because they are prohibited). No Reprisals.)

Jus post Bello1. ProportionalityPeace treaty should be reasonable and not seek to humiliate. It should not be a used as a source of revenge in the future. 2. DiscriminationA distinction must be made between leaders and soldiers and civilians in any treaties etc… made after the war. Civilians should be protected; this rules out economic sanctions for example. 3. Rights VindicationSettlements should secure the rights to liberty, territory and sovereignty. In particular, rights that were violated as a trigger for the war must be reinstated.4. PunishmentWhere necessary leaders of countries and soldiers who violated rights and broke rules should face tribunals charged with war crimes. 5. CompensationFinancial restitution may be necessary to repair the infrastructure, roads and transports, schools, hospitals etc… of the defeated country.6. RehabilitationThe post war environment is an ideal opportunity for rehabilitation. E.g. retraining of the police and the army, education and ensuring the new regime is ready to govern its own affairs when it is ready.

Just War Theory (Continued)Strengths Problems

• Just War theory defines the conditions under which violence may be used and it combines the wisdom of thinkers and philosophers from many centuries.

• It is a flexible theory, and grows and develops with the times.

• Sometimes war is unavoidable and regrettable but the Just war theory forces people to consider moral conduct even in the face of such a decision – War cannot be a ‘free for all’ where anything is permissible.

• Just War theory recognises the necessity of action against an aggressor.

• Just War theory allows defence of the defenceless.

• Just War theory does not allow acts of war simply because they are thought to be in the interest of one nation.

• Weapons of mass destruction may change the Just War theory, but we still need to consider their use within a moral framework.

• In spite of difficulties with the individual principles, Just War theory the remains a universal theory.

• It is applicable in religious and secular morality. Versions are accepted by the UN for example.

• Allowing war if it is just has ‘opened the floodgates’. It would be better that war was never morally acceptable at all.

• Just War theory says that violence is permitted, but morality must always oppose deliberate violence. Just war ideas tend to make violence acceptable, rather than restrain it.

• Just War theory is unrealistic, as the strong and powerful will always win.

• If God 'requires us to make war' it would be wrong to disobey him, regardless of the requirements of the Just War theory. In the Bible God is frequently on the side of those waging wars that don't conform to just war theory

• The conditions are too simplistic and ambiguous to apply in practice. E.g. What counts as a just cause?

• The overriding aim of war should be to achieve victory as quickly and cheaply as possible , if the cause is just, then no restrictions should be placed on achieving it

• The rules of conduct of war are mere camouflage because they are always over-ruled by 'military necessity'.

• Weapons of mass destruction demand a different approach, as they break all the basic rules (proportionality, discrimination). Since these weapons can't be uninvented they render just war theory pointless

• Terrorists are inherently uninterested in morality, so following any ethical theory of war handicaps those whom terrorists attack - thus a different approach is needed

• Many wars are only considered just in hindsight.Pacifism

Absolute PacifismIt is never right to kill another human being even of the consequence of not doing so is loss of life. Violence is always totally unacceptable.

Christian Pacifism – Life is SacredSanctity of Life - All human life is due a special reverence. Due to the fact that life is a gift from God it possesses intrinsic worth and value.Image of God - Belief in the sanctity of life is based on the belief that all humans are made in the ‘Imago Dei’“God created man in his image, man and woman he created them.” Genesis 1:27

Christian Pacifism – Teachings of Jesus"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matt 26:52) ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matt 5:9). Christian Pacifism – The Person of JesusHe suffered and died without resistance and forgave his enemies.

QuakersChristian Pacifist group in the UK .Violence only leads to more violence.Actively work to overcome anything which causes conflict between peoples. In 1660 the Quakers said"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world."

Martin Luther KingAdvocated non-violent direct action. This involved strikes, sit ins boycotts and civil disobedience but never violence even in the face of violence.

“We have learned through the grim realities of life and history that hate and violence solve nothing. Violence begets

violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets toughness. It is all a descending spiral, and the end is destruction — for

everybody.”

Thomas MertonThomas Merton was a Roman Catholic Monk. He converted to Catholicism in his 20’s. Taught that we have a responsibility for the world. We are not separated from it. He regarded war as one of the clearest examples of human estrangement from God.Merton established ties with several pacifist groups such as:

the Catholic Worker the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and, the Catholic Peace Fellowship.

He gave them critical support and encouragement through his letters, and helped them to develop their own pastoral role in society.

Pacifism (Continued)

Strengths Weaknesses It is clear – No war therefore no confusion. Follows the teachings of Jesus which pacifists

argue are ignored by the Just War theory. It promotes the absolute value of human life. It encourages others to change violent

behaviour and has worked for example the successes of Ghandi, MLK.

It is irresponsible as a national ethic as it leaves people vulnerable and can actually allow grave in justices to go unchecked. The pacifists' refusal to participate in war does not make them noble idealists, but people who are failing to carry out an important moral obligation.

The state has a duty to protect its citizens.

Preferential PacifismPacifism is to be seen as a preferential option over violence. Instead of seeking violence in war we must instead seek to address the issues that lead to war and importantly prevent peace.

Conscientious ObjectorsA conscientious objector is an individual who, on religious, moral or ethical grounds, refuses to participate as a combatant in war or, in some cases, to take any role that would support a combatant organisation armed forces.

The Catholic Workers MovementThe Catholic Worker Movement is grounded in a firm belief in the God-given dignity of every human person. Today over 185 Catholic Worker communities remain committed to non-violence, voluntary poverty, prayer, and hospitality for the homeless, exiled, hungry, and forsaken. Catholic Workers continue to protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms.

BonhoefferFor the Preferential pacifist, pacifism is about how to live life, but sometimes it is either impossible or immoral to maintain a pacifist stance.Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a pacifist. He tried to fight against the Nazi regime using non-violent means such as refusing to fly a swastika flag.He realised that this would never work. He was involved in a failed assassination attempt on Hitler’s life.He was executed just days before the war ended.Contingent Pacifism Rarely, if ever, is it morally permissible to

kill the innocent All wars involve killing, or the risk of

killing, the innocent. Rarely, if ever, are wars morally justified.

Protect the InnocentIn theory, wars can be justifiably waged, especially in cases of self-defence and defence of others. Wars cannot justifiably be initiated or waged if it is likely that doing so will result in serious violations of the rights of the innocent. Thus the objections to war are contingent rather than absolute.

Bertrand RussellWar can be the lesser of two evils. Bertrand Russell could be considered a Contingent pacifist, as he believed the Second World War to be a necessary evil to rid the world of Hitler and fascism.

Bertrand Russell – in the Times Literary Supplement (1941)We have discovered that there is something

more horrible than war - the killing of the spirit in the body, the Nazi contempt for the

individual man. The world reeks with the foulness of the crimes in occupied Europe,

where a Dark Age has begun anew.

True pacifism is not ‘doing nothing’ in the face of violence – it involves working for true peace and tackling the causes of conflict.

It is logical as it does not attempt to rid the world of violence by using violence.

It allows evil (who presumably are not pacifist) to dominate the good (who may choose pacifism).

The world is not perfect and so therefore war is not always wrong (the position of Christian realism).

Pacifism that will allow violence in some instances (contingent and preferential) is not pacifism.