Ethics Theme 3 - Teleological Ethics

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - higher/lower pleasures

Higher/lower pleasures - nuclear weapon development could be seen as a higher pleasure, however if they are used we won't be able to access this higher pleasures.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - conclusion

Conclusion - no clear view but consequentialist so would have to focus on the consequences of using experimenting on animals for medical research deterrent before the theory were to access its morality.

"Pleasure is the only intrinsic good." Evaluate this view. Hedonism/SE, Pragmatic/moral responsibility, Compatible/Uncompatible

History of hedonism - Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Eudaimonia; ethical/psychological egoism; intuitive empirical 'fact' that everybody wants to maximise pleasure and minimise pain o Fletcher's SE would disagree - agape is the sole intrinsic good - e.g parable of the GS, which has become secularised, shows we need to consider love before pleasure • "Pragmatic" (Tyler); "straightforward" to pursue pleasure (Thompson), and if we are following AU, then all pleasures are the same (e.g. Bentham's gin and the opera), therefore is in the spirit of egalitarianism; brings more pleasure to the community if we follow rules based on pleasure (e.g. 'do not lie') o Williams' example of Jim and the 'Indians' - we all have moral responsibility and obligation to others that forces us to consider beyond our own pleasure • Compatible with Christianity but also secular - e.g. Mill's Golder Rule, or it could simply be maximising our own happiness - leads to a better life/improved mental health if we do things for pleasure rather than pain. o Christians would disagree: Kierkegaard/Hick's Vale of Soul-making - suffering helps us to grown; Swinburne - wouldn't develop in "paradise"; in the secular modern world we often do painful/non-pleasurable acts for happiness, e.g. Vardy's example that some choose to starve themselves to wear jeans "one size smaller"

What did Fletcher believe about the conscience?

Most people believed the conscience to be an innate concept which guides people to decisions -God working within them However Fletcher rejected this - he believed that the conscience was a process, not a noun; we do not 'use' our conscience to make a decision, rather it describes that very process

Why did Fletcher feel Christian ethics needed updating?

Social changes: Civil Rights Movement; women's rights; protests against the Vietnam war Society was moving towards equality which was at odds with traditional, deontological Catholic morality, which was based on NL

The 4 working principles (using the example of Mrs X)

o Pragmatism: making sure one's decision is practical; e.g. it is more practical that the young daughter uses contraception than have more children o Relativism: no universal moral rules - words such as 'absolute' and 'never' are rejected; e.g. prohibiting the use of contraception would lead to more harm than good o Positivism: starting with a positive choice and wanting to do good; e.g. wanting the help the girl instead of hurting her by enforcing the moral rule o Personalism: putting the person before the decision as people are more important than rules; e.g. the girl is more important than the moral rule "do not use contraception"

"Utilitarianism works in contemporary society." Evaluate this view. Pragmatic/Moral responsibility, Soical reform/minority, Compatible/uncompatible

• "Pragmatic"/"consequences have real effects on people" (Tyler) - flexibility allows for decisions on modern issues, e.g. animal experimentation/nuclear weapons/abortion etc., which archaic ethical systems such as NL wouldn't be able to decide on/has archaic views on o Too much responsibility for the moral agent - Williams' Jim and the 'Indians' example - have to consider moral obligation, not just pleasure • Led to social reform/justice: Clarke - the "impetus" for the Divorce and Abortion Acts of 1969; promotes the GGftGN - democracy o AU - results in the suffering for the minority; e.g. Mill's town scapegoat example - contemporary society strives for equality - does the HP fix this? Promotes inequality for animals; problems with consequentialism (Cooke - Hiroshima) • Compatible with Christianity but also secular - e.g. Mill's Golder Rule, or it could simply be maximising our own happiness - leads to a better life/improved mental health if we do things for pleasure rather than pain. o Christians would disagree: Kierkegaard/Hick's Vale of Soul-making - suffering helps us to grown; Swinburne - wouldn't develop in "paradise"; in the secular modern world we often do painful/non-pleasurable acts for happiness, e.g. Vardy's example that some choose to starve themselves to wear jeans "one size smaller"

"Utilitarianism promotes immoral behaviour/injustice." Evaluate this view. Minorities/HP, Consequentialism/Hedonism, Moral responsibility/social reform

• AU - no protection for the minorities, e.g. gang rape/Mill's town scapegoat example - not moral/just as allows sadist pleasures/people to intentionally suffer o HP - stops this? Compatible with the golden rule of the Bible - Matthew 7:12 • Cooke - problems with consequentialist theories, e.g. Thompson's bus example, or Vardy's car crash example - when do we stop measuring the consequences? Immoral/unjust as it could lead to consequences that are "unintended, unforeseen, or both" (Rolleston) o Can striving for happiness be morally justified? E.g. hedonism has existed for centuries - Aristotle's Eudamonia/psychological egoism; Tyler - consequences have "real effects" on people - motive isn't important, so much as the repercussions of an action • Doesn't take into account moral obligation/responsibility - Williams' Jim and the "Indians" example - allows immoral behaviour on Jim's part, and injustice to the Indians - we have to think beyond our own pleasure o Led to social reform/justice: Clarke - the "impetus" for the Divorce and Abortion Acts of 1969 - moral as it leads to more social inequality, unlike NL/other ethical systems

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - hedonic calculus

• AU¬/quantitative happiness - as millions of animals suffer, it can't be morally right to experiment on them, even if it does result in new medicines for humanity; Bentham himself supported animal rights so he would probably not approve of this • Hedonic Calculus: fecundity - the pain of the animals would probably lead to more pain (esp those who were genetically modified, or like the aforementioned monkeys who were given a degenerative disease); extent - over 4 million animals were experimented on in 2016; duration - studies can last months. However, if the studies are short, and are relatively pain free, and the researchers are certain that medicine will benefit from their experiment, and there are no alternatives, perhaps it is morally right?

"Situation Ethics promotes moral behaviour/justice." Evaluate this view. Biblical / Unbiblical, Relativism / Problems w/ consequentialism / Grounded in love / Overestimates

• Agape is a biblical teaching, e.g. 1 Cor 13 - love is the most important rule/teaching, therefore if love is always at the heart of our decisions, they can never be immoral/unjust, e.g. parable of the Good Samaritan o Pope Pius XII: SE is "immoral" as it can be used to justify any act, e.g. euthanasia (Himself His Quietus Make) - NL is more moral and just • Allows for relativism and consequentialism, and enables us to carry out the action which best serves love: Mrs X/Sacrificial Adultery examples o Cooke - when do we stop measuring the consequences? Rolleston - consequences may be "unintended, unforeseen, or both", e.g. Hiroshima - how can this be seen as moral/just? • Following any other ethic than love is the "immorality of morality" (Miller); like Virtue Ethics, SE promotes the responsibility of the moral agent to make the choice which best serves agape, but above all is grounded in an authentic love of one's neighbour - how can this be anything but moral and just? • Barclay: Fletcher "overestimates" the value of being free from rules - laws help society function; humans have favourites, therefore are always biased - this isn't moral or just.

""Situation Ethics provides a practical basis for decision-making for both believers and non-believers." Evaluate this view. Relativism / Problems w/ consequentialism, Simple / Christian OR Pope Pius XII, Modern / Favourites

• Allows for relativism and consequentialism, and enables us to carry out the action which best serves love: Himself His Quietus Make/Sacrificial Adultery examples; NL would favour the archaic precepts over the most loving action o Cooke - when do we stop measuring the consequences? Rolleston - consequences may be "unintended, unforeseen, or both", e.g. Hiroshima. Deontological theories like NL are better? • Simple - one boss principle: agape - always do what best serves love; can be easily applied to many complex moral issues, e.g. homosexual/polyamorous relationships; love is universal and is secular o However, Fletcher proclaimed it a Christian ethic - agapeic love is in fact a Christian principle, and SE is based on two specific biblical passages: Luke 10:25-37 and 1 Cor 13. Secularists may not understand agape?; just on Christians - Pope Pius XII • Works in the modern world with contentious moral dilemmas - e.g. polyamorous/homosexual relationships; some Christians may feel troubled by strict, deontological morality o Barclay: the ethic isn't fair, as everyone has "favourites", therefore the action that has the most "agapeic consequences" may change depending on the relationship of the moral agent to the person affected, e.g. Mrs X.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - background

• Animal experimentation for nuclear research: the process of operation on live animals in order to develop new medicines, e.g. Uni of Cambridge monkeys with Parkinson's study • History of animal experimentation - Galen in the 2nd century and Harvey in the 17th century • Contentious issue - Understanding Animal Research believes in its importance if there are no other alternatives; Animal Aid relentlessly campaigns against it, citing how it is cruel and obsolete in the modern day world

Why did Fletcher reject antinomianism?

• Antinomianism: the opposite of legalism - an ethical system in which there are no moral laws whatsoever. o Fletcher rejected this as he thought the lack of laws created moral chaos and no way of choosing between two courses of action.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - utilitarianism background

• Background on utilitarianism: AU is an ethical theory based on the POU - most moral action are the ones that follow this; pleasure is quantitative • RU - an action is morally right if it follows rules based upon the POU; pleasure is qualitative • However, as both forms of utilitarianism are relativist, there is no one clear decision on whether under utilitarianism this issue would be morally right or not.

"Agape is the only intrinsic good." Evaluate this view. Biblical / Unbiblical, Relative / Not intrinsic, Modern / Fallible humans

• Biblical - e.g. 1 Cor 13/Luke 10:25-37; Jesus disregarded legalistic morality and distanced himself from those who placed a considerable amount of emphasis on it (Bultmann) and focused upon agape o However, it is also unbiblical: e.g. clear emphasis on legalism in the Bible (10 Commandments); Pope Pius XII: said that Christians should follow Natural Law, and that SE leads to "immorality" - more to Christianity than agape? Jesus practised other virtues in the Beatitudes, e.g. "blessed are the meek." • Allows for relativism and consequentialism, and enables us to carry out the action which best serves love: Himself His Quietus Make/Sacrificial Adultery examples o However, perhaps agape isn't intrinsic - love is subjective (Barclay)? Cooke - surely acts such as murder are intrinsically bad and giving to charity are intrinsically good. • Works in the modern world with contentious moral dilemmas - e.g. Mrs X/homosexual relationships; the parable of the Good Samaritan has been secularised o Barclay: Fletcher "overestimates" the value of a society without rules - they force humans into the decision-making process; humans are also fallible, and may often do what best serves their pleasure (e.g. utilitarianism) rather than agape.

"Agape should replace religious rules." Evaluate this view. Biblical / Unbiblical, Relativism / Overestimates, Personalism / Justifies horrific acts

• Biblical - e.g. 1 Cor 13/Luke 10:25-37; Jesus disregarded legalistic morality and distanced himself from those who placed a considerable amount of emphasis on it (Bultmann) and focused upon agape o However, it is also unbiblical: e.g. clear emphasis on legalism in the Bible (10 Commandments); Pope Pius XII: said that Christians should follow Natural Law, and that SE leads to "immorality" - more to Christianity than agape? Jesus practised other virtues in the Beatitudes, e.g. "blessed are the meek." • Allows for relativism and consequentialism, and enables us to carry out the action which best serves love: Himself His Quietus Make/Sacrificial Adultery examples wouldn't normally be allowed under NL/other religious rules (e.g. the 6th Commandment of "do not kill" and Hebrews 13 speaks of how the marriage bed should be kept "pure"). o Barclay: Fletcher "overestimates" the value of being free from rules; religious rules help humans to maintain their morality much better than simply agape does, e.g. the 10 Commandments. • Agape has a focus on personalism - puts people before the rules, e.g. situations such as Mrs X. Also more applicable to the modern world, e.g. homosexual relationships - Leviticus 18:22 outdated? o Can be used to justify horrific acts, e.g. Fletcher's example of Hiroshima, whereas religious rules could not do this. Cooke - when do we stop measuring the consequences?

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - conclusion

• Conclusion - no clear view but consequentialist so would have to focus on the consequences of using nuclear weapons as a deterrent before the theory were to access its morality.

Act utilitarianim - HC application (Vardy)

• Example application of the HC - Vardy's car crash problem: o P: the pain of the woman losing her husband would be followed by the joy of the child being born o R: the pain will happen soon to the woman (as her husband will probably die) o F: the pain of losing her husband may be followed by more pain as her child grows up without a father o I: grief - will be quite strong (as for the relatives of the elderly man) o C: pain will definitely occur, no matter who dies o E: will extend to more people if the woman dies; unsure about the elderly man o D: could last a long time, however may lessen when the woman's child is born • Conclusion: pleasure would be maximised if the young woman is saved over her husband and the elderly man

Why did Fletcher reject legalism?

• Fletcher: outlined his ethical theory in his book Situation Ethics (1966) • Rejected two other ethical theories (legalism and antinomianism) in favour of agape • Legalism: a set of "prefabricated moral rules and regulations" (Fletcher) - an ethical system consisting of objective moral laws that cannot be broken, such as the 10 Commandments/Aquinas' Natural Law in Christian legalism, or the 613 commandments in the Torah o Fletcher rejected this as he found it too complicated ("pilpul") and contradictory (e.g. concepts such as casuistry and double effect in NL), as well as how it offers an ambiguous stance on modern ethical issues such as nuclear weapons or euthanasia

Fundamental principles applied to homosexual relationships

• Fundamental Principles: o 2 - Jesus often regarded legalistic morality therefore perhaps we could disregard this particular moral rule; on the other hand, some may argue that only in exceptional situations we could allow homosexual relationships o 4 - love has no favourites and is "non-preferential" (Kierkegaard), therefore all people deserve to love, no matter whom they direct their emotions towards o 5 - creating agapeic consequences (the end) could be seen to justify the means (the homosexual relationship) by which it is achieved. • Conclusion: in the end, perhaps it is best to use the 6th FP of "love decides situationally" and make a specific judgement of what action results in the most agapeic consequences each time

Fundamental principles applied to polyamorous relationships

• Fundamental Principles: o 2: Love is the ruling norm of Christianity; Jesus often disregarded legalistic morality in favour of agape - we can do the same and put love first? o 4: Love has no favourites - love should be for all people, even those who prefer polyamory to monogamy. o 5: loving ends justify the means - the agapeic consequences (the ends) are justified by the means (a polyamorous relationship) • Conclusion: as it is a consequentialist theory, it matters most what consequences are created by the polyamorous relationship: if they are agapeic, then it is morally right; if they are not, then the relationship is immoral.

Act utilitarianism - hedonic calculus

• Furthermore, in order for humans to work out which action best maximises pleasure and minimises pain, Bentham devised the hedonic calculus, which could be used to work out quantitatively and objectively how much pleasure/pain an action causes. • The seven factors of the HC are: o Purity - the chances of pleasure being followed by pain (and vice versa) o Remoteness - how soon the pleasure/pain will occur o Fecundity - the chances of the pleasure being followed by pleasure (or pain by pain) o Intensity - the strength of the pleasure/pain o Certainty - how likely the pleasure/pain is to occur o Extent - how many people are affected by the pleasure/pain o Duration - how long the pain/pleasure will last

Rule utilitarianism - Harm Principle

• Furthermore, to solve the other problem created by AU, that it offered no protection for the minorities (e.g. Mill's town scapegoat), he developed the Harm Principle, which states that humans beings are free to act as they wish as long as they do not hurt or cause harm to others, which thereby allows society to strive for happiness and eliminates the possibility of sadistic pleasure thriving and harming others.

"Rule utilitarianism is a more practical basis for moral-decision making that act utilitarianism." Evaluate this view. HP/Animals, Rules/Consequentialism, Qualifies/Inqualities

• HP - protection for the minorities, unlike AU because of how it believes happiness is quantifiable (e.g. Mill's town scapegoat) o HP doesn't provide protection for animals - dilemma of animal testing for medical experimentation; Singer: concerns with speciesism • We need rules - Barclay; humans need these - e.g. if we didn't have them everything would be legal therefore people would commit immoralities all the time, such as stealing; Nietzsche - "herd mentality" o Cooke - problems with consequentialism - e.g. Hiroshima - when do we stop measuring the consequences? Fletcher - agape is better. • Qualifies pleasure - a more thoughtful, measured approach to utilitarianism; ethic focused on self-improvement; e.g. Mill - educate the flower seller to enjoy gin and the opera, not just gin o Could create inequalities - e.g. what about the uneducated who cannot access the higher pleasures? Are they not as worthy? Hedonic Calculus manages to quantify pleasure - Rachels - who decides who are competent judges?

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - harm principle

• HP: could state that the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is in fact immoral for it could easily bring harm and pain to others if they are misused, or a conflict escalates, therefore not contributing to the overall good of society.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - Harm Principle

• Harm Principle: probably does not extend to animals; researchers indirectly harming humanity if they do no conduct experiments on animals?

Act utilitarianism - principle of utility

• His ethical theory is based on the principle of utility, which is the principle which "approves or disapproves every action", also often expressed as the "greatest good for the greatest number". An action is morally right if it causes more pleasure than pain, and is morally wrong if the opposite happens. Therefore his theory is teleological, consequentialist and relativistic.

Homosexual relationships - background

• Homosexual relationships: relationships involving two members of the same biological sex • Homosexuality was legalised in the UK in 1967; however, when Fletcher published his book in America the year before, it was still illegal • Traditional Christian morality has always deemed homosexuality to be morally wrong; e.g. Leviticus 18:22 states that it is "abominable" for a man to have sexual relationships with another man • Although SE is based upon certain biblical teachings, it could be argued that it supports homosexual relationships o However, it is a relativist theory, therefore can never offer a definitive stance on the matter

Rule utilitarianism - rules

• In addition, Mill's utilitarianism allowed for the formation of rules based upon utilitarian principles (unlike Bentham's whose only rule was the POU), which led to his theory in later years becoming known as rule utilitarianism (also the deontological aspect of the theory). o These rules promote the POU, and are a general means of securing the greater good for the community. Not all rules need to be morally assessed if they conform to a historical rule that has demonstrated it conforms to the POU. o An example could be the principle of 'do not lie': whilst lying, in some situations, may have good reasons behind it, it would not contribute to the overall GG of society as it would mean that we'd never be able to trust each other. o Following these rules means that everybody is both aiming to increase the GG of the community and their own individual happiness - unlike Bentham's AU, which was focused on individual pleasure, Mill's RU stresses the importance of the overall happiness of society. o Weak rule utilitarianism - if the opposite to a rule leads to the GG, then it can be broken.

Rule utilitarianism - background

• J.S. Mill was Bentham's godson, and shared many of his ideas about the importance of equality within society. • He also agreed with the principle of utility, and that all humans strive to maximise happiness (the term he used, as opposed to pleasure) and minimise pleasure • However, he recognised significant problems with how act utilitarianism believes that all happiness is equal - e.g. to use Bentham's example, the flower seller enjoying her gin is equal to an upper class couple going to the opera.

Act utilitarianism - background

• Jeremy Bentham was a prominent Enlightenment philosopher who sought a way to define right/wrong. • Desired social equality and criticised the church for its role in maintaining the detrimental social hierarchy that prevent the poor from accessing basic education and rights. • Bentham believed all humans were motivated solely by efforts to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.

"Utilitarianism provides a practical basis for moral-decision making for religious/non-religious believers." Jesus/Caiaphas, Golden rule/Unbiblical, Social reform/DCT

• Jesus' death could be seen as an example of the POU; the GGftGN - the minority died to save the majority, and to increase happiness and pleasure o Caiaphas was the one that promoted this, not Jesus - he died out of love and to save humanity's sins, not for pleasure; Kierkegaard/Hick's Vale of Soul-making - suffering helps us to grown; Swinburne - wouldn't develop in "paradise" • Mill's RU could be seen as compatible with the golden rule of Christianity - Matthew 7:12 - "do unto others..."; this is compatible with the Harm Principle, which ensures that society is not harmed by the minority o However, depends which form of utilitarianism one was following, e.g. with AU Christians would never accept the suffering of the minority - e.g. Jesus helped everybody, such as healing the sick man on the Sabbath; AU is too concerned with individual happiness rather than charity ("agape" the most important); Mill's town scapegoat example • Perhaps favoured by modern Christians who are troubled by archaic, deontological morality such as NL - Thompson calls it "straightforward" and "clear" - led to social reform/justice: Clarke - the "impetus" for the Divorce and Abortion Acts of 1969 (which NL opposed) o Christians' ultimate source of moral obligation is to God, not to their own selfish pleasure - e.g. 10 Commandments details this; DCT - God is the origin and regulator of morality, which is objective; pleasure is too subjective (Rachels?) and could lead to immorality

Rule utilitarianism - higher and lower pleasures

• Mill strongly disagreed with this, believing that it is the quality of pleasure, rather than the quantity, that matters. He developed utilitarianism with the concept of higher and lower pleasures. o Lower pleasures are those that humans have in common with animals, and include base desires, such as hunger, thirst, and sexual desire. o Higher pleasures are those which elevate humanity above animals, such as philosophical debate, listening to classical music, reading poetry etc. • Mill argued that humans, in order to achieve their highest potential, need to aim for these higher pleasures, instead of reducing themselves to just those of animals - "better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; better a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." • However, he did recognise that we must ensure that our lower pleasures are fulfilled before we access higher pleasures, e.g. it would be difficult to enjoy reading if we have not eaten. • To distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, Mill suggested that we use competent judges - people that have experienced both types of pleasure therefore can distinguish accordingly.

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - background

• Nuclear weapons are those which harness nuclear energy, such as atomic bombs they can be extremely deadly, e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 • Many countries have and produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent (to discourage others from attacking them). • Contentious issue: there are groups (such as the CND) campaigning for all countries to disarm; however, some people, such as the former defence secretary Michael Fallon, believe them essential for a country's safety. • Relativistic theory; there is no clear view as to whether utilitarian principles would support or oppose this.

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - principle of utility

• POU - moral, since the country that has them could ensure it keeps its citizens safe. However, nuclear weapons would threaten many people, as even if they merely exist as deterrents, there would always be a concern that they could be used, perhaps leading to nuclear war and long-term damage.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - principle of utility

• POU: would result in less suffering for humans however it does cause in over 700,000 experiments moderate to severe suffering - is this morally right? Suffering extends beyond humans

Polyamorous relationships - background

• Polyamorous relationships: relationships which involve more than two people • Although traditional Christian morality does not necessarily prohibit polyamorous relationships, biblical passages such as Hebrews 13 reference the sanctity of marriage (the "marriage bed" should be kept "pure", and that God will judge the sexually immoral) • As with homosexual relationships, because SE is a relativist theory, it could be used to support polyamorous relationships.

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - hedonic calculus

• Quantitative/qualitative happiness: neither matters if people are dead/injured from the nuclear weapons? However RU may argue that we gain knowledge and access our higher pleasures through their development. • Hedonic Calculus: it can be seen that nuclear weapons, if used, could lead to a colossal extent and duration of suffering; there would also be no certainty over whether nuclear weapons are the most efficient deterrent, or whether there would be another way that would be more certain of maximising pleasure and minimising pain.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - rule utilitarianism - higher/lower pleasures

• RU/qualitative happiness/higher/lower pleasures - Mill's utilitarianism would perhaps favour animal testing as medical research is a higher pleasure as it allows humans to access knowledge and live longer/better lives, in which they can continue to access their higher pleasures, unlike animals, who would never have this opportunity. Humans' happiness more important than that of animals - Mill's quote.

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - rules

• RU: a rule such as only using nuclear weapons as a deterrent could be morally justified, since they give a country (and therefore its citizens) stability and independence - rule since 1945.

Application of utilitarianism - animal experimentation - rules

• Rules - the only rule that concerns animal testing are those that concern laboratory standards, therefore perhaps they are moral as not only do they support the GGftGG (for humanity), they ensure that the animals suffer as little as possible, and only when necessary. However this is routinely broken, e.g. in 2016 55% of experiments were done out of curiosity.

"Situation Ethics effectively deals with moral issues." Evaluate this statement. Simple / Complicated, Modern / Selfish, Relativism / Problems w/ consequentialism

• Simple - one boss principle: agape - always do what best serves love; can be easily applied to many complex moral issues, e.g. homosexual/polyamorous relationships o Complicated - 4 WP and 6 FP to remember; also, should principles such as pragmatism be applied when the theory is supposed to be about love, not practicality? • Works well in the modern world with contentious moral dilemmas - e.g. Mrs X/Himself His Quietus Make o Allows us to be selfish - Barclay: humans are also fallible, and may often do what best serves their pleasure (e.g. utilitarianism) rather than agape. • Allows for relativism and consequentialism, and enables us to carry out the action which best serves love: Himself His Quietus Make/Sacrificial Adultery examples; NL would favour the archaic precepts over the most loving action o Cooke - when do we stop measuring the consequences? Rolleston - consequences may be "unintended, unforeseen, or both". Deontological theories like NL are better? Pope Pius XII - SE is "immoral".

The 6 fundamental principles

• Six fundamental principles: o Agape is the only intrinsic good Love, or agape, is the only thing which has inherent value - nothing else is intrinsically right or wrong, e.g. lying or stealing are not intrinsically morally wrong, it depends whether the action had the most agapeic consequences o Love is the ruling norm of Christianity 1 Cor 13; Jesus distanced himself from those who followed legalist ethical systems and often broke the rules in favour of agape: e.g. broke the 4th Commandment by allowed his disciples to pick corn on the Sabbath/healing a man on the Sabbath ("Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath) o Love equals justice Justice is "love distributed"; love can never result in anything but justice o Love has no favourites Kierkegaard: love is "non-preferential"; it extends to all people equally o The loving ends justify the means As long as the action results in the most agapeic consequences, it can be justified, no matter if is wrong - e.g. Fletcher believed that the USA was justified dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he thought the war ended much more quickly than if they hadn't o Love decides situationally In SE every situation is different, and there are no absolutist moral rules that must be followed each time - what is morally right is the action which best serves love

Key terms and philosophers: Teleological Deontological Consequentialist Joseph Fletcher Jeremy Bentham J.S. Mill

• Teleological: morality is determined upon end, purpose or goal of something • Deontological: morality is determined by the action, rather than the consequences of said action • Consequentialist: morality depends upon the consequences, or outcome, of an action, rather than the action itself • Joseph Fletcher: 20th century American philosopher; developed Situation Ethics, one of the most influential teleological ethical theories in the history of ethical thought; published a book entitled Situation Ethics in 1996. A Christian priest who later renounced his faith. • Jeremy Bentham: an Enlightenment philosopher who was an advocate for social change and inequality, and a critic of religion. Developed classical utilitarianism (later known as act utilitarianism), another of the most influential teleological ethical theories in the history of ethical thought. • John Stuart Mill: Bentham's godson, and another campaigner for social equality, J.S. Mill developed his own form of utilitarianism to fix some of his perceived problems with classical utilitarianism. Later known as rule utilitarianism, his theory is a deontological/teleological hybrid.

Application of utilitarianism - nuclear weapons as a deterrent - weak rule utilitarianism

• Weak rule utilitarianism: an opposing rule to the aforementioned one could be broken if it led to the happiness of society.

Working principles applied to homosexual relationships

• Working Principles: o Pragmatism: if the relationship is practical, then it could be deemed morally right; however, if both people in the relationship were about to move a hundred miles from each other, then this most likely would not be pragmatic and therefore would not create the most agapeic consequences o Positivism: wanting to 'do good' may mean allowing a homosexual relationship; however, if one member is abusing/exploiting the other, then this wouldn't be best serving love o Personalism: if two members of the same sex genuinely love and care for one another, then this should be more important than rules - they should be put before them

Working principles applied to polyamorous relationships

• Working Principles: o Pragmatism: if the relationship is practical, then it should be allowed; however, if one person is being left out more than the others or it is just proving too impractical, then perhaps it isn't justified o Personalism: a happy, agapeic relationship is preferable to one that is monogamous but reluctant - we should put the people before the relationship

Why did Fletcher choose the middle path of agape?

•• Fletcher, instead, preferred situationism based on the concept of agape as the "middle path" between legalism and antinomianism. • Agape, from the Greek, translates as "love", used to refer to God's love for humanity, and the love humans should show each other o To support his view, Fletcher cites two specific Bible passages: the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), and 1 Corinthians 13 ("the greatest of these is love"). o Situationism: where one goes into a moral dilemma with the knowledge of their society's moral rules, yet will break them "if love is better served by it". o Always carry out the action that will have the most agapeic consequences.