• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ethics AS OCR
 

Ethics AS OCR

on

  • 17,449 views

A large powerpoint with all of the work needed for AS level ethics for OCR Religious Studies

A large powerpoint with all of the work needed for AS level ethics for OCR Religious Studies

Statistics

Views

Total Views
17,449
Views on SlideShare
16,475
Embed Views
974

Actions

Likes
16
Downloads
583
Comments
0

5 Embeds 974

http://mrlivermore.wordpress.com 923
http://www.slideshare.net 25
https://twitter.com 16
http://www.edmodo.com 7
https://si0.twimg.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ethics AS OCR Ethics AS OCR Presentation Transcript

  • o.C.R Ethics
  • Absolutist Theories Kant A moral law that is Strong Utilitarianism universal and applies in Natural Law all circumstances Deontological - concerned with the actions and also whether an act is intrinsically good or bad Natural Moral Law for example is absolutist as it is only concerned with using reason to discern the most moral option, thus the action can be good in itself, regardless of the consequences
  • Relative Theories Situation Ethics A moral law that Act utilitarianism changes and adapts to its circumstances and weak rule utilitarianism situations Consequentialist/Teleological - concerned with the result and consequences of an action, not the action itself Utilitarianism for example is teleological and relative because it does not have any categorical rules or standards, it is purely consequentialist.
  • Ethical theories Explain terms like intrinsically in the exam. Just give a brief explanation!! Absolute morality Absolutists hold that things are wrong from an objective point of view, not just from one’s perspective Right and Wrong cannot change. They aren’t affected by mitigated circumstances. E.g cold blooded murder and crime of passion are exactly the same Immoral acts are intrinsically wrong. Consequence is irrelevant Plato is an absolutist as there are immutable forms
  • Ethical theories When in Rome... Relative morality People don’t always agree what is right and wrong Different cultures express different moral codes of conduct Protagoras said “Man is the measure of all things” Aristotle is a relativist. He said the forms are in the world and are thus relative Not possible to have a general rule to cover ever situation.
  • Strengths/Weaknesses Ethical theories Relative Advantages Absolutist Advantages • Encourages cultural • Fixed ethical code to diversity measure actions • Prohibits a dominant • Universal and equal view of culture ethics. E.g Human Rights • Flexible Act is absolutist Relative Weaknesses Absolutist Weaknesses • Existence of different beliefs • Doesn’t take circumstances doesn’t mean they are all into account equal • Intolerant of cultural • Cultural or moral relativists diversity cannot criticise another’s morals. E.g it is dangerous to • Doesn’t allow for a lesser evil say that the Nazi ethic was • E.g Hiroshima and Nagasaki. right for them Absolutist says 100% wrong. However war would have • Paradox - If the universal gone on for another 18 belief was relatavism, then it months with more deaths would become an absolute
  • Natural Moral Law
  • Aquinas’ Moral Law Stoics: Started the scholastic movement in ethics. Believed that reason is the way to discern morality Aquinas/Aristotle: Aquinas built on Aristotle’s belief of Euidaimonia (Flourishing). He believed that 1. God instilled rational nature into humans hearts 2. We can flourish by using our nature to discern natural moral laws without God 3. These rules should be universal and absolutist Aquinas thought that humans could never knowingly pursue evil. We followed apparent goods. The way to see what was real or apparent goods was through reason and natural moral law
  • Aquinas’ Moral Law Telos is the end purpose in all Man, “Imago Dei” to perfect in us the image of God God is the final cause that we all strive towards 1. To preserve life & the innocent 5 Precepts: 2. Live in an ordered society uti st 3. To acquire knowledge Ab sol 4. to Reproduce 5. To worship God Secondary precepts could be said to be Relativist Both the intention and the act are important. It is possible to have a good/bad interior act and a good/bad exteripr act St Thomas believed that God created us Good and wanted us to be with him, but also gave us free will. Therefore there must have been a set of rules that led us to the path with God
  • Aquinas’ Moral Law Is not based purely on the bible’s teachings, instead builds on Aristotle’s belief that everything has purpose, apparent in its design. Aquinas believed that reason should be the starting point for any moral decision, as God instilled reason within us. Aquinas said that we should use reason to discern the precepts already apparent to us through revelation and that the bible merely supplements this reason Building on Aristotle’s principle that everything has a final cause, i.e a purpose, he believed that God had a purpose for the earth and that humans are continually striving for that perfection of the image of god Imago Dei
  • Aquinas’ Moral Law An Example Sexual Reproduction 1. Sex leads to pregnancy and child birth 2. The way that pregnancy happens...the actual sex...is all part of the design and thus purpose 3. Sex can be broken down into causes: • Material Cause - the man & woman • Efficient Cause - The method • Formal Cause - The actual process. (From attraction to cuddling) • Final Cause - The creation of a new human being 4. Therefore we can see that as Natural Law (Catholics) are concerned with the final cause. All the other causes are good as long as they permit the final cause. Hence why contraception or genetic engineering is wrong.
  • Aquinas’ Moral Law en gt hs • Is easy to understand and • S tr on human Concentrates provides a basis for structure characteristic of essential of society goodness instead of rights • Primary precepts apply to all and wrongs cultures (except God) • Applies to everyday life and • Concerned with both is a practical ethic intention and act • Does not solely dictate rules. • Is based on the use of reason Allows for practical wisdom and emotion • Can be both flexible and inflexible because of • Gives a reason and purpose primary/secondary to be moral
  • Aquinas’ Moral Law es ses • Is there a one size fits all akn Weinstilled reason, then why nature that can be summarised • If God in the primary precepts? would he instil homosexuality • Humans purpose is not into people so as to contradict necessarily to flourish and reason? become like God. Could be • The secondary precepts are survival and evolution, in which teleological and could thus case the primary precepts do not contradict the primary precepts work. • Reason can be corrupted and • As Hume said. What happens maybe the ethics in the Bible in reality is not always what should be followed... ought to happen. Makes an illogical jump between ought • Jesus opposed legalistic morality and is.
  • Utilitarianism
  • Utilitarianism Producing the greatest amount of pleasure/happiness for the greatest number of people Teleological/Consequentialist Three different types of Utilitarianism Act Weak/Strong rule Preference Not religious at all, believed that God didn’t even enter the equation
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Society is a conglomeration of many individuals, if you please the individuals and treat them equally then society will be happy Hedonic Calculus measure happiness this way: It’s duration It’s intensity how near, immediate, and certain it is How free from pain and whether it will lead to further pleasures Is Quantitative (whatever gives the most happiness is the best option) and laws were irrelevant Strictly relative. Every situation is different. Injustice can be acceptable if the majority benefits
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Qualitative not Quantitative. The happiness resultant of reading a book is not the same as going to a club Happiness not Pleasure. Happiness results from the use of reason and advancement of virtues “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” Rule utilitarianism still takes the individual into account, but frames general rules that will benefit society as a whole. Eg if society knows justice is upheld ... it will he happier Strong Rule does not allow for exceptions or situations Weak Rule has a general set of guidelines however certain circumstances may allow variations Past Cases should be taken into consideration.
  • Preference UtilitarianismPeter Singer Believed that neither pleasure nor happiness should be the basis of utilitarianism. Instead the Best Interests of the individual should be taken into account “My interests cannot, simply because they are my own, count more than the interests of anyone else” Peter Singer Believed that in any situation the interests of all concerned should be evaluated E.g Someone who doesn’t want to die but is killed is wrong (Involuntary Euthanasia). But at the same time someone who wants to die but isn’t allowed to is also wrong (voluntary euthanasia) If i wanted to go to the pub, but my girlfriend wanted to stay at home, neither of us would have the right to assert our preferences
  • Strengths Easy to understand Important to think of other’s preferences (Preference Pragmatic and useful in real life Utilitarianism) We naturally deduce consequences Is flexible and allows for exceptional of actions and happiness/pain circumstances (weak/act Util) Weaknesses Consequences are v.difficult to Hedonic Calculus cannot be predict effectively used in day to day life Injustice is not upheld as not all No respect for duty. E.g promises treated fairly. Evil majority rule cease to hold any value Not possible qualify pleasures Naturalistic Fallacy. Ought doesn’t Rights can be abused for the lead to is. Desire is not always good ‘greater good’. e.g removal of By focusing on the greater good all liberties individual interests are removed
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Singer says that Act Utilitarianism defeats itself
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of promise keeping. Singer says that Act Utilitarianism defeats itself
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of promise keeping. Singer says that Act Promises are made on the understanding Utilitarianism that they will be kept, something the rule defeats itself utilitarian recognises as promoting happiness.
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of promise keeping. Singer says that Act Promises are made on the understanding Utilitarianism that they will be kept, something the rule defeats itself utilitarian recognises as promoting happiness. However, whilst Act utilitarians may make a promise in a particular situation there can be no guarantee that they will always uphold promise keeping; and so one could never trust them– as there is no confidence they will keep their promise!
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Society functions by people recognising their obligations once they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patient’s medical confidentiality.
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Society functions by people recognising their obligations once they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patient’s medical confidentiality. An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce the greatest happiness) might report her patient’s condition (e.g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girl’s parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking the trust and code of the medical profession.)
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Society functions by people recognising their obligations once they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patient’s medical confidentiality. An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce the greatest happiness) might report her patient’s condition (e.g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girl’s parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking the trust and code of the medical profession.) Rule utilitarians however recommend following the professional code of patient confidentiality as in the past such a code has promoted the greatest happiness; i.e. teenagers are happy to go to doctors for help and support as opposed to dealing with the situation on their own.
  • Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Act Utilitarians think that justice is only important if it serves the principle of utility. Justice has no intrinsic value. Tom, a black If the racist, white, jury adopted an farm-hand, is act-utilitarian approach it would be made a scapegoat justified in finding Tom guilty of a and is unjustly crime he did not commit, on the accused of having grounds that the predominantly white townsfolk would have justice “seen to raped a young, be done” and so the majority of white woman. people would be happy.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired. People may desire something that they ought not to desire, something which is not really desirable.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired. People may desire something that they ought not to desire, something which is not really desirable. e.g People may desire to take hard drugs as it produces pleasure. But is taking hard drugs good?
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work When making decisions in the heat of the moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical to apply the felicific calculus to moral dilemmas.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work When making decisions in the heat of the moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical to apply the felicific calculus to moral dilemmas. Adding up `pleasure units’ is a dubious exercise and is difficult to measure accurately.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work When making decisions in the heat of the moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical to apply the felicific calculus to moral dilemmas. Adding up `pleasure units’ is a dubious exercise and is difficult to measure accurately. The whole idea of assessing different varieties and intensities of pleasures is too subjective.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Egotistical Hedonism to include the welfare of others lacks support.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Each person desires his / her own happiness. Egotistical Hedonism to include the welfare of others lacks support.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Each person desires his / her own happiness. Egotistical Hedonism to include the Therefore each person ought to aim for his or welfare of others her own happiness. lacks support.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Each person desires his / her own happiness. Egotistical Hedonism to include the Therefore each person ought to aim for his or welfare of others her own happiness. lacks support. Therefore everyone ought to aim at the happiness of everyone
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction between public and private acts.
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction between public and private acts. He famously remarked, “Your freedom to punch me ends where my nose begins.”
  • Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction between public and private acts. He famously remarked, “Your freedom to punch me ends where my nose begins.” Any law which has a serious detrimental effect on the qualitative well being of others is wrong.
  • Kant
  • Kant The Good Will - What you should do! We can exercise our will, but all human beings should want to do the right thing. The Categorical Imperative - We have a moral obligation to do the right thing in every circumstance. The categorical imperative to protect life The Hypothetical Imperative - If we want to achieve something, then we should do this thing. e.g If i want to get money, i should work Duty - Our actions should be entirely free from self interest. Never use a human as a means to an end A PURELY MORAL PERSON IS SOMEONE WHO THINKS NOTHING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS AND DOES THEM PURELY BECAUSE IT IS GOOD AND NO OTHER REASON.
  • Kantian ethics The Good Will Only the will is 100% in our control. Therefore only this can be fundamentally good and can exercise reason A good will’s only motive would be to act out of a sense of duty Duty doesn’t involve self interest, consequences or any kind of emotion, generosity or love The Hypothetical Imperative The idea of “ought” has nothing to do with morality. If i want to be a painter, I ought to take lessons The Categorical Imperative Moral requirements are categorical. i.e you ought to do such and such regardless of your own thoughts/interests Universalisation Apply maxims to one’s actions and then ask whether that particular action
  • Kantian ethics 3 Motives that shouldn’t be Doing something as you will immediately benefit from it... Acting out of self interest, even if it appears that it is to help others. e.g shopkeeper lowering prices (it would seem that it is helping customers, but really it is to attract more customers) Doing something out of natural interest ... Acting in a moral way for our own self interest is not moral. e.g being fascinated in surgery and doing an experimental operation out of interest which saves a life. It is for our own gain that we did this. Doing something because someone in authority tells you to ... This is not done out of a sense of intrinsic duty and there is no free will involved, and is thus not moral.
  • Kant Duty/Categorical imperative The highest good is to perform ones duty (Summum Bonnum) We have an obligation to do this, free from self interest This is called the Categorical Imperative This is only for categorical decisions, for hypothetical decisions, we have no obligation. Called the Hypothetical Imperative We should do things that can be universalised. This is similar to Natural Moral law as we use reason to discern Act only by the maxim by which at the same time will that it should become a universal law categorical imperative noun Philosophy (in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.
  • Kant Duty/Categorical imperative Contradiction in Nature Where doing this thing would lead to a contradiction in the laws of nature. Such as the law that everyone should kill the person next to them, as everyone would die Contradiction in Will Where if you chose not to use your talents/skills, then you cannot logically expect others to use theirs to help you. Where a woman does not use her talents (sowing) to help others. She cannot expect a doctor to help her when she needs it
  • Kant - The postulates of morality Heteronomy & autonomy of the will Our reason must not be subservient to anything else, even if this is the happiness of the majority. The only motive you must have must be free from self interest and from the consequences heteronomous adjective subject to a law or standard external to itself. • (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's desires rather than reason or moral duty. Compare with autonomous autonomous adjective • (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's desires. Act only by the maxim by which at the same time will that it should become a universal law
  • Strengths & Weaknesses Kant Strengths • Straight forward and based on reason • Clear criteria to what is moral • Deontological • Categorical Imperative is a rule that applies to everyone • Commands respect for human life • Justice - Corrects utilitarianism which says that injustice can be justified by majority benefit • Kant distinguishes between duty and inclination. Stops the idea that was is pleasurable and what is good.
  • Strengths & Weaknesses Kant Criticisms • Can be cold and inhuman. E.g the Eichmann case • The result of an action is vital to decision making • It is impossible to make a decision free from emotion & feelings. It’s not pragmatic • The ability of a rule to be universalised does not guarantee that is will be a moral action or rule • Contradiction in the will - Kant states that by rejecting universalised rules, all will find the same things objectionable. But not all people have the same morals. Some may be happy to say that if they don’t help others, others wont help them. • Contradictions in nature - Doesn’t allow any exceptions to the rule. Many would argue that absolute moral objectives are right, as in pacifism. However exceptions are vital. E.g the Axe Murderer demanding to know where your friend is hiding. • Not allowing consequences, yet trying to universalise decisions is a contradiction
  • Christian
  • Christian Ethics A strict christian bases his morality on either The Bible, Christian Tradition or Situation Ethics Christian ethics is based on a principle of religious authority and does not rely on reason. it focuses on Inspiration, Tradition and scripture Morality is Theonomous as God is the ultimate cause for all morality The Bible All Christians would argue that the bible is the word of God, however there are different views as to how to follow the Bible: It is the word of God (literalism) and is to be 100% obeyed It has lost some of its meaning in trnaslation and needs to be interpreted It is a historical document documenting ethics of the time, but is irrelevant now (liberals) It is a source of guidance but requires reason to discern its real meaning
  • Ethics found in the bible The world has purpose and meaning Morality is an objective reality which is part of the nature of things and comes from God We have been given a conscience which provides us with an intuitive sense of right and wrong (Moral Law) ‘The Fall’ led to a break up of the harmony in the world and replaced it with disharmony, death, chaos and conflict. This can be overcome by entering a covenant with God The 10 commandments are the moral rules that are absolute Jesus’ Ethical Show concern for poor and weak of - - Very rarely gave direct moral society – community ethic teaching commands – overall principles in ones - ‘do unto others as you would have them life. do to you’ Universalising - Basis of his teaching is love – agape - Special relationship with God – (unconditional love for others) – no boundaries – enemy’s kingdom of god – a desire to follow God’s will – the love commandment
  • Ethics found in the bible St Paul “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” St Paul St Paul also taught that love was the most important thing. If you act in a loving way then all the other moral rules will be upheld. Tradition The Catholic Church places a great emphasis on tradition and teaching of the church. Mainly seen through announcements and records from the pope Protestants tend to rely much more heavily on the teachings of the Bible and from Jesus Catholics tend to feel that where issues are not addressed directly in the Bible, they need to be interpreted by the Church. E.g Abortion
  • Ethics found in the bible Divine Command Theory God’s will is taken arbitrarily – no satisfactory explanation for why anyone is bound to follow it. If God commands something for good reasons, then it is these reasons which are the source of moral obligations, regardless of God or any other religious law We make judgements about what is right and wrong without seeing any involvement from God – Does he give people a reason to be moral? Euthyphro dilemma – problem of doing something because Gods commands it. Moral rules are true because God commands them – DC Laws of the OT can be seen as a good example of this theory. If we do good acts simply out of obedience to God – are we being good for the right reasons? God commands things which are right and wrong in themselves – murder is intrinsically wrong and his is why god forbids it. This seems that there is a standard of right and wrong which is independent of God. Unqualified obedience to god abandons personal autonomy – the rightness of an action must come from the fact that an action is right in itself.
  • Situation Ethics hat you and do w Love like ust ine ) (st Aug
  • Situation Ethics Created by Joseph who was suspicious of an absolute bases of morality He felt that “Loving your neighbour” is the most important thing and created an Agapeistic moral code This was entirely relativist as although he said you should always act in the most loving way. No advice was given on how to do this He believed that every situation should be taken as new and unique. And that as God is personal, compassion for people should be the most important thing Involved the following 2 principles: Only one thing is intrinsically good. Love. Actions are good if they help human beings. and Bad if they do not. Justice is simply love universalised. If you have love for all your neighbours unconditionally, then you will always do the right thing towards them. Every decision should be made situationally
  • Situation Ethics Fletcher rejected the other 2 main principles of morality as being too extreme: 1. Antinomianism completely situationalist without any guiding principles to live by. Every situation is completely unique and will resolve itself with the best possible unique outcome 2. Legalistic the belief that absolutism is the only way to ensure that morality is upheld. By creating binding systems it means that future generations are safeguarded and have a system on which to build its own morals on Fletcher felt that Antinomianism left people in a state of immorality as they had nothing on which to base their ethics on. However at the same time he thought that legalistic morality bound people to outdated ideas. How could the Bible know and teach about gene therapy? He believed that the only principle is love. Essentially the same as utilitarianism, except replacing pleasure and happiness with Love
  • Situation Ethics AGAPE A correct moral action is the one that produces the most loving result Positivism Personism Pragmatism Asserts Ethics centered love as around people A Ethic should that over rid ing prin the should be followed ciple and not on ly if it can work & impersonal at all p roduce good results Relativism ount of a huge am ethics has s the rule of love Situation bviously till accept O wever it s rela tivism, ho
  • Situation Ethics AGAPE A correct moral action is the one that produces the most loving result Ethics centered Kant - people around people should be treated as and Personalism ends never as means How can you love God who you cannot see if you cannot love your neighbour who you can see
  • Situation Ethics AGAPE Joseph Fletchers 6 Precepts only one thing is intrinsically Good ; namely Love The ruling of Xianity is to put love first Love and justice is the same, for justice is love distributed Love wills the neighbours good, whether we like them or not Only the end justifies the means, nothing else Loves decisions are made situationally
  • Situation Ethics AGAPE There are no universal moral rules or rights, each case is unique and deserves a unique solution It rejects “Prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules” Moral judgements are decisions not conclusions nothing is inherently good or bad, except love and its opposite The opposite of the impersonal detached universal other moral laws
  • Situation Ethics AGAPE ge va nta Ad Easy to understand as follow a single principle Flexible as everyone can do what they feel is right, irrelevant of other’s decision and opinions Enables an emotional and rational response and means one never has to do anything that conflicts with deepest sense of morality Based on love, which is a key feature of all moral systems
  • Situation Ethics AGAPE e ega tiv N It excludes most universal moral truths - destroys universal human rights The concept of love is vague and not defined and thus following it is confusing It’s difficult to implement - totally consequentialism - the person has to consider every consequence and how everyone is affected to make a right decision it cant produce consistent results - what might be the right thing one time and is done may not be done the next time... It could allow evil decisions if the outcome is good...
  • App lied Et hics
  • Medical Ethics
  • The 3 cores of medical ethics The issue of rights The issue of sanctity of life Does a person get more sacred as they get older? To be alive means to be The issue of conscious. Some kind of socio-economic life form. personhood Is a foetus a person?
  • Abortion In the UK it is permissible to have a social abortion up to 24 weeks. However if there is a serious medical issue, it can go right up until Birth. The most recent amendment to this law was in 1991. Needs 2 doctors to ok it! Pro-Choice Pro-Life Women are perfectly capable of The life of the foetus is sacred and making the decision. Doesn’t need more important than the wishes of the approval of two doctors and the mother. Some mitigating this should be changed circumstances may be allowed Doctors in the UK can refuse to provide abortion referral or care, and can refer the case to a colleague Where a woman is aged over 35 and there is family history of genetic diseases, the foetus can be tested in the womb, and if serious faults are found, it can be aborted up until Birth. Many fear this is the first step to genetic selection and the disability movement campaigns against this.
  • When does life begin? Catholics Life begins at conception. Ensoulment! Everyone else Life begins sometime after conception. Law says that foetus becomes a viable life at 24 weeks. Not part of woman’s body Part of Woman’s Body Is the • Although completely reliant, the baby is separate • Some would argue that a foetus is part of a woman’s body until it is woma born, they share everything • Even from the very first cell, the baby is biologically baby p • Therefore the baby is essentially different n’s bod the same as any other human organ or tissue up until 24 weeks art of • As seen through IVF, the and can be treated as such baby does not need to be • But the HFEA has stated that y? inside the biological mother Any handling of tissue should be to survive. Similar to the treated with sensitivity dependence once born
  • Xian responses to Abortion Catholics/ Natural law St. Thomas Aquinas taught in absolutes and that acts can be intrinsically wrong. Abortion seems to conflict with the 5 primary precepts: 1. Preserve life Abortion, if personhood happens at conception, directly contradicts this 2. Reproduce This again contradicts this God liven law. Catholics are also against masturbation, anal/oral sex etc. 3. Educate Children You cannot educate a dead foetus 4. To live in society Laws in society legally allow abortion, and thus this does not contradict this precept 5. Worship God Love of God would mean following the primary precepts and would outlaw abortion The law of Double Effect dictates that if your primary intent is to save the life of the mother, and the foetus dies as a result, this is not immoral as the intent was never to kill the foetus.
  • C of E/ Xian responses to Abortion Protestant Abortion is evil, but in an imperfect world, it may be the lesser of two evils the mother has sanctity of life also Abortion is acceptable in exceptional circumstances Rape, disabilities and harm to the mother are all situations where it may be acceptable If the baby is causing harm to the baby then it is seen as an aggressor, and abortion may be seen as acceptable Abortion can never be seen as a commodity and freely available
  • Xian responses to Abortion Situation Ethics Believe that an embryo is not a person until further on in the pregnancy In the case of rape situation ethics would favour abortion due to sake of victims respect, reputation, happiness No unwanted or unintended baby should ever be born In the case of rape there would be 2 aggressors, the baby and the rapist, and it would be merely self defence
  • responses to Abortion Utilitarianism At a basic level, the happiness and security of a mother & family should be protected Would argue that the Autonomy of the mother is vital and that she has the right to choose “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” J.S Mill Mill’s feelings on higher pleasures would dictate that the adults and parents’ desires and pleasures outweigh the foetuses The suffering of an unwanted baby would justify abortion The foetus has no real interests and is unaware of happiness The ability of the foetus to feel pain is a large factor in the utilitarian approach (Sentience) Abortion may mean less child poverty, fewer teenage mothers, less strain upon the state and family, and ultimately freedom
  • responses to Abortion Utilitarianism Sentience is extremely important to utilitarians Act Utilitarianism sees pain as intrinsically bad and pleasure as intrinsically good It is morally worse to kill a sentient being than to kill a non-sentient being If a baby is killed before it is a sentient being (16 weeks) then it is of little moral value Peter Singer says that by killing a foetus before 16 weeks you are not killing anything of any intrinsic morality. Animals should hold more moral value than foetus’s We are hypocritical by not caring about animals, but lots about foetus’s
  • responses to Abortion Disability It is cruel to bring a life into the world which has extreme suffering Utilitarianism says that for humans to live only with suffering is a great evil Xianity states that by looking at Jesus’ inclusion of the weak/sick and the marginalised shows that all are welcome in God’s eyes and that none should be killed Similarly Kant states that no human life should ever be used as a means to an end and that
  • responses to Abortion Kant No human life should ever be used as a means to and end. The categorical imperative never to kill shows that abortion should never take place completely deontological and thus not concerned with the consequences or outcomes of the abortion and its problems It can never ever be universalised as we cannot say that killing children should be held as a good thing. It would both be a contradiction in nature and a contradiction of the will If we are rational agents capable of thought, which we are, then we cannot universalise any maxim that would have prevented our existence as it would be a contradiction in the will! It cannot be Good Will as it would not be performed out of disinterested duty Practical Imperative never use a human life as a means to an end, this is achieving relative happiness by killing a human life
  • Embryo Research
  • Embryo Research The Catholics All life is sacred Life begins at conception - ensoulment Use of embryos and treating of life as disposable is God’s decision and we should not play God Killing embryos is the same as murder Even if great good will come of it, it does not justify taking innocent life Embryos must be treated like any other person as they have a right to life
  • Embryo Research M y View The Catholics There is a balance between those which need to be protected, and what is right in terms of society and mankind as a whole It purely depends on your view at which life starts; for if you believe that before 14 days they are not human, conscious and most importantly have no rights, then there is no issue. I think the Catholic church can be blinded by ideals and traditions that mean that they never fully evaluate a situation or ethic and merely rely on a convoluted textbook of faith which they mindlessly adhere to
  • Embryo Research Utilitarianism Utilitarianism weighs up the overall gains and pleasures against the pains and suffering Bentham’s hedonic calculus says that all count for one and all pleasures are equal The issue arises as to whether an embryo should count for one and whether their feelings should be taken into account John Stewart Mill said that children and savages did not count, therefore one could assume embryos don’t either Therefore utilitarians would either have to weigh the pleasures against the pains of the embryo, or they would see no wrong whatsoever.
  • Embryo Research Kant Kantians would argue that embryos below 14 days are not rational and thus have no intrinsic worth however they could also argue that an embryo is a human being, and by using that embryo for research, you are using another human being as a means to an end, which contradicts the practical imperative We cannot universalise the taking of innocent life, and therefore it is wrong The deontological approach would say that it is either always wrong, regardless of the positive it could produce, or always right.
  • Embryo Research Justified Embryo testing can be justified in some circumstances...depending on the severity of the case If the rules of only under 14 days are kept to, when it is still just a blastocyst, then it is difficult to find moral problems with embryo testing However there is the fundamental problem of whether that embryo constitutes a human life or not, and if the answer is that it is, then we either have to say that we find murder abhorrent whatever the situation, or we take the stance that in most circumstances we do not agree with it, but if it is for the good of humanity and the future, then perhaps it is the lesser of two evils?
  • The Right to a child
  • The Right to a child 1. John Locke said that ethics should not be based on divine law, but on what we can see from humans in themselves. Natural Rights. a) The Government should respect these rights and thus all should have fundamental 2. Jeremy Bentham said that fundamental rights was nonsense on stilts. In Utilitarianism there are no absolutes or rights. • Part of being a human means that we have a right to a fulfilled life. If you do not have an opportunity to have a child, then you are being denied a fundamental nature of human rights. Motherhood or Fatherhood • Society has a right to provide you with the means to a child
  • The Right to a child The Christians • Christianity and the Bible has taught that fertility is either a reward or punishment from God. For example the Bible says that “God closed up Hannah’s womb” yet was rewarded by being allowed to conceive by God • However the bible also says things like “Go forth and multiply” which would suggest that all have a right and duty to reproduce Natural Moral Law • No procreation without sex, and no sex without procreation! (Catechism) • IVF therefore would not be allowed as it is artificial conception • Similarly there is an issue regarding spare and wasted embryo’s, for if life begins at conception, then that is lives which are not being protected. Contradicts one of the primary precepts • Surrogacy is not allowed as it would count as adultery with the woman being inseminated by another man or vice versa.
  • The Right to a child Kant • Kant’s categorical imperative dictates that every action or should be universalised so that it is true for all people for all situations • It is impossible to argue that every single person has the right to a child, it is a contradiction of the will. • Similarly he feels that all actions and moral decisions should be purely objective and free from self interests, and it is impossible to say that the desire for a child is free from self interest • Also could be argued that it is using a human life (the child) as a means to an end, happiness. • IVF treatment is a contradiction in the will as although it may seem acceptable that the maxim spare embryos are destroyed, if we were one of those embryos we would not want this to happen!
  • The Right to a child ism U tili ta rian • Jeremy Bentham & Act Utilitarianism Would need to use the Hedonic calculus to decide whether the pleasure that would be achieved through IVF would outweigh the pain caused through the failed and wasted embryos. No issue in terms of rights or sanctity • J.S Mill & Weak Rule Utilitarianism It is possible that a natural birth may be seen as a higher pleasure than that of an artificial one. Surrogacy may lead to pain and loneliness from the surrogate mother. • All proponents of Utilitarianism would argue that there are no inherent rights or sanctity issues. Purely consequentialist and the issue of spare embryos would not be taken into account
  • The Right to a child Eth ics Sit uat ion • Is the greatest agape reached given the situation? • It is possible that the Christian and situationalist would say that the most loving and compassionate thing to do in terms of IVF would be to give the desperate parents a child! • However Fletcher would still be opposed to the destruction and waste of embryos, as if they have personhood, as Christianity believes, then the most compassionate thing to do is not to kill them • Does not address people who should not have children morally. For example the 66 year old who got pregnant through IVF recently. The most compassionate thing for the child would not be for it to born to a family where they will die soon after its birth!
  • genetic engineering
  • gene therapy G ermline • Altering the genetic makeup of human beings in a way that the mutation/ change is heritable and thus the alteration will be passed down through the generations and will eventually spread • This is illegal under the Human Embryology and fertilisation act of 1990 • Leads to genetic selection, where children can be hand picked and molded. GATTACA Somatic • Used to treat somatic cells that are damaged or unhealthy • Not Heritable • Used already in the UK and is under trials to become more widespread • Stem cell treatment for example, by trying to battle Leukaemia with adult stem cells
  • gene therapy Christian Responses • Christians believe that human life is sacred and was created by god. We are created in God’s image. Imago Dei! • Human life should not be altered or tampered with for it was created by God and only God can change it. Many christians would consider genetics blasphemous • However it is also possible that christians would argue that if we have the ability to prolong life, make it more comfortable and remove suffering, then we have a duty due to agape to do it. Providing that it is not embryonic stem cell research and is therapeutic cloning • Natural Moral Law would be opposed to embryonic stem cell cloning because it would interfere with the natural law precept of natural reproduction and conception • However, it depends on the Christians view of when Sentience occurs. Many would say that it happens after 14 days, and thus before this it is acceptable to conduct embryonic research
  • gene therapy Kantian Response • Should always treat humanity as an end in itself, never as a means to an end. (2nd formulation of the categorical imperative) • Genetic engineering would be treating the embryo as a means to an end as it would treat it as a commodity, not as an end. • Negative gene therapy (Germline gene therapy/genetic selection) may be acceptable to Kant as it would be possible to universalise the maxim that all children should be given the best possible start to life and to have the best genes possible. However if it was born out of a desire to have the perfect child then it would not be acceptable. • Kant believed that children under the age of 14 days had no intrinsic worth and thus gene therapy would be acceptable in terms of rights and sanctity
  • gene therapy utilitarianism • The potential of removing genetic defects from the human genome and for curing serious genetic diseases by using a non sentient foetus leads to a great amount of pleasure for the human race. Bentham therefore would argue that not only is gene therapy acceptable but that it is preferable • J.S Mill however would take a slightly different line. He would argue that the potential of germ line therapy to damage the human genome and DNA would make it unacceptable. Future Generations may experience huge amounts of pain because of an individual desire. • Bentham considers all sentient creatures, and therefore may have problems with using animals for pharmaceuticals or to grow human organs. Singer would want to consider the interests of animals alongside humans. If it were simply a case of a single pig dying to save a human life, Singer is likely to value the human far more than the pig, as the human has far more and greater interests. However, many of these technologies involve harming a much larger number of animals, which would be a concern for Singer
  • War and
  • Key Terms Proportional Just War Realism Competent authority Jus Ad Bellem Jus in Bello Absolute Pacifism
  • Vocabulary of war & Peace • International Law The conduct of war. Jus In Bello. Found through the Geneva Conventions although mainly formed at the Hague. War Crimes has been seen as an example of international law. • Collateral Damage The unavoidable evils associated with war. E.g Dick Cheney stating that collateral damage was necessary with Guantánamo • Jus Ad Bello Just reasons for going to war Jus In Bellum The just way of conducting a way Jus post bellum restoring justice afterwards • Just War Is a just war righting a wrong or is it simply self defence? E.g Iraq War was intended to right a wrong • Proportionality • Ethics of the state vs Individual The state has the responsibility of all its citizens, an individual has the right and chance to take whatever stance they wish. Can the state inflict either extremes on their citizens • Pacifism
  • Just WarSttheory believed that Christians Mainly accredited to St Aquinas and Augustine. They should not love violence and should promote peace at all costs. However, it is necessary to fight evil and advance Good, and if this is the case then important guidelines need to be in place The conditions or principles of the just war theory: • The war must be started or controlled by a proper authority (e.g government or ruler) • There must be a just cause or sufficient reason • Must be intended to promote good and reduce evil. Peace and justice must be reinstated afterwards • The act of war must always be a last resort • Must be proportional, i.e civilians must not be killed with nuclear bombs if they only attack an air base • Must be a reasonable chance of success • Must be distinction between combatants and non combatants
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum  Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum  Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state  Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious “wrong”
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum  Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state  Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious “wrong”  Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the authority to fight other states; terrorists do not
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum  Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state  Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious “wrong”  Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the authority to fight other states; terrorists do not  Last resort – other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed before force is used
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum  Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state  Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious “wrong”  Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the authority to fight other states; terrorists do not  Last resort – other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed before force is used  Realistic chance of success – since was is “the lesser of two evils” and is, therefore, intended to cause less harm than doing nothing, a nation should not go to war if it is likely to fail as this would lead to more rather than less suffering
  • When to fight – Jus ad bellum  Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state  Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious “wrong”  Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the authority to fight other states; terrorists do not  Last resort – other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed before force is used  Realistic chance of success – since was is “the lesser of two evils” and is, therefore, intended to cause less harm than doing nothing, a nation should not go to war if it is likely to fail as this would lead to more rather than less suffering  Proportionality – there has to be a “cost benefit analysis”: the gains of war must exceed their likely cost in human life [this is very difficult to assess]
  • How to fight – Jus in bello
  • How to fight – Jus in bello  How to behave in war:
  • How to fight – Jus in bello  How to behave in war:  Discrimination – force should be used against the military not civilians
  • How to fight – Jus in bello  How to behave in war:  Discrimination – force should be used against the military not civilians  Proportionality – only “enough” force should be used; tactical use of chemical or biological weapons is ruled out (as, even more so, are nuclear weapons)
  • How to fight – Jus in bello  How to behave in war:  Discrimination – force should be used against the military not civilians  Proportionality – only “enough” force should be used; tactical use of chemical or biological weapons is ruled out (as, even more so, are nuclear weapons)  Weapons bad in themselves – mass rape, ethnic cleansing, torture, biological and chemical weapons (as they have incalculable – therefore, disproportionate, effects)
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum  What to do after the war. The original objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum  What to do after the war. The original objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.  There are “conditions for peace”:
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum  What to do after the war. The original objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.  There are “conditions for peace”:  Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic)
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum  What to do after the war. The original objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.  There are “conditions for peace”:  Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic)  Right intention – the victor must not pursue revenge
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum  What to do after the war. The original objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.  There are “conditions for peace”:  Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic)  Right intention – the victor must not pursue revenge  Discrimination – civilians must be treated differently from their leaders of those who committed atrocities
  • What to do after a war – Jus post bellum  What to do after the war. The original objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.  There are “conditions for peace”:  Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic)  Right intention – the victor must not pursue revenge  Discrimination – civilians must be treated differently from their leaders of those who committed atrocities  Proportionality – the defeated must not be humiliated
  • Realism - An Alternative to Just War Theory e.g a person would say “do not murder”, but a realist Some people thought that would say this doesn’t Just War Theory was too apply to the state in times idealistic; whereas realism of warfare is pragmatic The state should protect Morality of the state is its self interest at all costs separate from personal morality This is a moral Dualism approach In other words; the morality of the individual Realists would say that do not have to apply to you should still apply the state moral principles to warfare. e.g treatment of prisoners of war
  • Realism - An Alternative to Just War Theory Christian Realism 1960s Reinhold Niebuhr said that human beings are essentially sinful and concerned with self interests. War is inevitable considered this nature; however it may be the lesser of two evils to try and uphold justice He said that it was the lesser of two evils to fight Nazism Pacifism is wrong
  • Pacifism Was Jesus a Pacifist?!
  • pacifism Ethical ABSOLUTE Contingent selective
  • Ethical pacifism War is wrong on humanitarian grounds Is not dependent on religious beliefs at all Can oppose war and violence on humanitarian grounds Belief that there is a fundamental right to life and peace And a right to live in a world where conflicts are not solved with violence E.g the people who served in the medical sections of the army in the 2nd world war
  • Absolute pacifism It is never acceptable to use force under any circumstances “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword” (Jees Mouse) Tertullian - No person can take up arms... because of what Jesus said Absolute Pacifism does not mean doing nothing!! The most classic example of this is Martin Luther King who led an active campaign of pacifism Passive Resistance by Ghandi It is Never acceptable
  • conditional pacifism War is evil. But it is sometimes Neccesaary Defending the innocent is the most important War always involves killing the innocent and this is morally unjustifiable They accept war in some circumstances, such as self-defence and defence of others, but the innocent must always be protected. So war and violence is acceptable in theory, but not in practice Some wars may be seen to be the lesser of two evils e.g Bertrand Russel was a pacifist but felt WW2 was a necessary evil to remove Hitler
  • Selective pacifism Matter of degree of the war Depends on how serious and the scale of the war that is taking place A war that is disposing of an evil leader for example may be acceptable However a nuclear or chemical war would never ever be acceptable to a select pacifist Active pacifism Actively helping in the war effort but not thru violence.
  • Weaknesses/Strengths What are the strengths and weaknesses Promotes the ideas Pacifism is wrong that violence is never because it denies the the way to solve a dispute right of self defence Follows the teachings State has a duty to of Jesus protect its citizens Pacifists are less likely Allows evil to to provoke war dominate through Promotes absolute doing nothing to stop value of human life evil.
  • How do you think Utilitarianism approaches the subject of war and peace Rule Utilitarianism The general moral principle which will benefit society is that killing and war is wrong; however there is also the principle of the feelings of security and safety Looks at previous examples of similar warfare and see whether greater happiness resulted Difficult to judge the consequences; e.g USA should have won Vietnam War does not bring the higher pleasures and thus cannot be acceptable Act Utilitarianism Does the end justify the means Entirely done on the pleasure and pain that would result They can reassess situations as they change depending on the loss of life etc The pain suffered from the soldiers would far outweigh any pleasure the soldiers would have However the mass suffering of the people, if a just war, would in the long run outweigh this
  • How do you think Kant approaches the subject of war and peace K ant Act only by the maxim you can universalise You cannot universalise the right to kill others; as it is a contradiction of both nature and the will It is acceptable to use force as self defence It is a duty to protect the innocent; and some of the intentions in the just war theory would be acceptable by Kant Kant’s focus on the Good will has parallels to the Jus in Bello condition which requires there to be a right intention By killing people for the greater good of others we are treating people as means to an end, not an end in themselves The consequences of not going to war and the people’s suffering remaining are irrelevant. Kant is Deontological
  • How do you think a Christian approaches the subject of war and peace Image of God Human beings are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) We therefore should protect life. Does this mean not killing, or killing to protect? Shall not Murder The Bible clearly states “Thou Shalt Not Kill” Is killing in war murder? Some say it is exactly the same, others say it’s different Blessed are the peacemakers Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers”. Peace not war was his message UN security council think that they are peacemakers? still have soldiers in war Turn the other cheek “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind” Ghandi Was turning the other cheek meant as a public insult instead of an ethic?
  • How do you think a Christian approaches the subject of war and peace • All Christians tend to be one form of pacifists • Some believe that all violence is wrong on religious pacifist beliefs due to Jesus’ teachings of love and peace. These people are absolute pacifists and were called Conchies (conscientious objectors) • Some felt that although violence was wrong, mass evil such as the Nazi Regime must not be allowed to continue, therefore they got involved in the army. These people are conditional pacifists • Some Christians refused to fight and kill other human beings, but felt that the war was just and was the right thing to do in religious terms. Therefore they helped with the war effort by being front line priests, medical staff, weapons makers etc. These people are active pacifists • Some Christians feel that wars such as the 2nd world war are justified, but nuclear war is always wrong, such as N.Koreas attempts to engage the war in one. These people are called Selective pacifists