AS and A2 Ethics RS AQA

Utilitarianism para 2

18th century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham held hat human nature can be descrbed in terms of psychological hedonsim. In other words humans pursue pleasure and avoid pain e.g. we do x because it will make us happy. In recongnition of our constant pursuit of happiness bentham concludes that happiness is our FINAL END, that which is good is what maximises pleasure and minimises pain and that which is bad causes pain. Indeed Bentham remarks 'nature has placed man under the governance of two masters, pleasure and pain, it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do'

What is the absolute good?

autonomous good will is he only thing that can considered good without qualification. 'the autonomy of the soul is the sole principle of all moral laws and how to adhere to them' Good will is what constitutes the indispensable condition of being worthy of happiness good will is a choice whilst being kind or helpful can just be a gift good will and good behavior are not the same e.g. shopkeeper can be nice to customers because he wants them to buy more or because he has the good will to be friendly

Bentham's utilitarianism incompatibility with christian ethics: the poor and vulnerable

bentham held that everyones happiness counts equally, there are no special circumstances christian ethics put a great emphasis on concern for the poor and vulnerable e.g. RCC preferential option for the poor

Bentham's utilitarianism compatibility with christian ethics: Natural Law, Naturalistic

benthams is based on assumption that moral values are an intrinsic part of our universe aquinas believes that god has a plan and will dor huamnity to lead moral lives but not all have access to the bible so he created them with human reason so that they could discern the natural moral law and how to adhere to it. both ethical theories believe that you can use human reason to observe the world around you to discern human purposes, they just come to different conclusions about what such purposes are

Kant's categorical imperative incompatibility with christian ethics: deontological

categorical imperatives are absolute and should be followed without exception but SE and proprtionalists hold that laws are not always absolute and divine command theorists have to pick out new testament teachings over old ones ue to conflicting instruction, aquinas allowed for rules to be broken in special cases e.g. desperate need a man steals a loaf of bread, jesus cast aside laws occasionally

weaknesses of aquinas' natural law

-makes assumptions fatal to its effectiveness in present day society. Maintains that all humans have a fixed purpose which they can discern using human reason to be to flourish--PP's. But these are ot felt by all e.g. if a human prupose is to reproduce why are there homosexuals and a sexuals? why are some people simply not interested in having children e.g. lucy worsely 'i am child free by choice'. he underlying assumption that god crated the universe and imprinted it with the natural law will come to be rejected by athiests who don't share feeling the purpose if knowing god. - in practice natural law entails an element of immorality, the primary precept of reproduction is a reaosn for which the RCC forbids the use of condoms- maintaining that you should never but a barrier between and egg and a sperm for life is a gift from god and you shouldnt interrupt this, may catholics rather use the billings method but this doesn't protect against STI's and STD's such as HIV and aids. The loving sexual relatioship between two women would be deemed immoral since it doesn't lead to reproduction but a man raping a woman does

joseph fletchers situation ethics para 2

-if an action is motivated by and results in love it is justified - bible states god is love and god is personal - Jesus condensed the 10 commandments into one: love god and love thy neighbor -demonstrated principle of agape in the parable of the good Samaritan, selfless love and concern for other regardless of identity and expecting nothing in return

Utilitarianism para 5

Bentham also devise dthe felicific or hedonistic calculus, an algorithm for calculating the degree of happiness and action is likely to cause 1) INTENSITY- HOW STRONG 2)DURATION- HOW LONG 3) CERTAINTY- HOW LIKELY 4)REMOTENESS- HOW SOON 5)FECUNDITY- IS IT LIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED BY MORE HAPPINESS? 6)PURITY- TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE PAIN 7) EXTENT- HOW MANY PEOPLE

Bentham's utilitarianism incompatibility with christian ethics: the status of happiness

Bentham saw happiness in terms of gaining pleasure and avoiding pain as the sole intrinsic good jesus taught that the most important rules are love of god and of they neighbour happiness is about human flourishing and is a by product of a loving action but not the goal

Divine Command Theory Para 5

-in 'church dogmatics' Karl Barth argues that man's obedience to god is the answer to all ethical questions, this overrides all debate because the latter are fallible and God is not - Christians should seek to understand and listen to secular ethics but their approach should be critical and certainly not one of compromise -God is creator of everything and there is an organic link between him and his creation, this is seen biblically int the idea of imago dei, as such humans must literally follow gods commands which are shown specifically and exclusively in scripture

SEE NOTES ( V CONFUSING) *

FREE WILL ? *

Divine Command Theory Para 2

Gods commands: OLD TESTAMENT - adam and eve 'be fruitful and multiply' - the 10 commandments, Moses 'do not use the lords name in vain, do not murder, do not bear false witness, do not commit adultery, do not worship any other gods before me, do not worship false idols - morally abhorrent by today's standards joshua sack city of jericho killing all living creatures e.g. animals, children, women -abraham kill isaac, remarkable birth and dearly loved, test of faith, later tells him to stop NEW TESTAMNET -parable of sheep and goats feed hungry, give drink to the thirst, visit sick and imprisoned, clothe the naked ACCORDING TO DIVINE COMMAND THEORY ALL OF THESE COMMANDS ENCOURAGE GOOD ACTION BECAUSE GOD HAS WILLED THEM

Utilitarianism para 3

The theory is aimed at the moral good of humans fulflling their purposes, which is to achieve pleasure and avoid pain, this is a set maxim and all that is necessary in order to uphold it is justified. Benthams act utliltarianism is quite situational all that is required is to seek good using the principle of utility

Bentham's utilitarianism incompatibility with christian ethics: consequences and intent

for bentham consequences alone matter, not rules, the nature of the action itself or motives within Christianity intent does matter- Jesus taught that if people give many to the poor just to impress others then there is no moral value in it bad thoughts are as bad as bad actions e.g. 'i tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart' rules ave a place, good consequences can't justify an essentially bad act

Kant's categorical imperative compatibility with christian ethics: the consequence of good moral conduct NL

for kant it is to achieve the highest good, Summum Bonum, the perfect balance of happiness and morality this must happen in another realm so we must be immortal so god must cause it, he may be present? for aquinas it is to achieve perfect union with god in the afterlife

How did Kant come up with the categorical imperative (check this content)

he rejected ethical theories that maintained the morality can be discerned from empirical observation because we can never have absolute certainty that our senses our not mistaken and we can only find information about what is not what ought to be, we can't draw conclusions about one from the other so kant puts morality into a noumenal realm

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics para 5

he result of developing virtue is eudaimonia- that which is good for humans, complete well being and happiness, many disagree as to what happiness is but to Aristotle the good life is theoria- contemplation, this has intrinsic value and uses reason, the contemplation of our highest subjects if knowledge bring us the greatest happiness

mill's rule utilitarianism

if people acted according to act utilitarianism all the time society would be devoid of trust so mill argues that we should take a long term approach rather than a situational one, one should do what will bring the most happiness to the most people in the majority of circumstances, we should refrain from acts that only maximize utility in the short term

example of breaking promises

if you want to borrow money but know you can't pay it back you might consider promising to do so anyway but then breaking the promise, but when you apply the universalisation principle to this maxim you discover you have a perfect duty not to break your promise because if everyone did in all circumstances there would be no money lending and society would be devoid if trust

Divine Command Theory Para 4

in 'the institutes of the christian religion', John Calvin, a believer in predestination, advocates divine command theory, he argues that what god commands is righteous 'by the mere fact of him willing it', when questioned on why god does so Calvin replied 'because he pleased.' God is not obliged to will anything by any other entity and as sovereign, gods will should never be questioned

telling lies and breaking promises ED

in general this is damaging to the fabric of society, diminishing trust and undermining human relationships, therefore it is not beneficial to society or something deemed permissible by many people

adultery

in general this is damaging to the fabric of society, diminishing trust and undermining human relationships, therefore it is not beneficial to society or something deemed permissible by many people however this depends on where abouts you live, western societies may take a more liberal view

Kant's categorical imperative incompatibility with christian ethics: lack of appeal to religion

kant deems moral law to be autonomous not relgious,the only good thing is free will r=wchih is evidently a matter of volition, he excludes all consideration of divine commands involving accepting the moral will of another higher authority e.g. DCT he makes no appeal to scripture as an ethical authority, all such authority is invested in the moral agent who must assent to the categorical imperative through practical reason

Kant's categorical imperative compatibility with christian ethics: emphasis on virtue NL

kant's concept of good will is comparable with christian ideas about virtue, it is the only thing god without qualification and is compatible with the idea of the virtuous man who only freely practises good because that is part of his religious intention intention and will are essential when assessing morality for kant and for christians the rational basis for kant's ethics has links to aquinas' thinking, good will is something freely and rationally chosen

the conscience- non divine origins: Emile Durkenheim

the conscience as social conditioning: -god is a projection of society's powers and a useful tool in reinforcing social demands made by the individuals conscience - 'collective conscience' an act is bad if it opposes the view of society and goes against the common conscience - conscience is a survival mechanism, people sticking to string moral values makes society stronger -the conscience is useful to society so society instills contrived notions into us to force us to conform

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics para 4

the doctrine of the golden mean assists in exercising virtues well, it lies between the two extremes of excess and deficiency e.g. courage lies between cowardice and recklessness, troppo o troppo poco results in vice

but what would Hume say?

'reason should be a slave of passions' conscience is more a product of intuition than reason

Aquinas Natural Law para 1

-embraced by roman catholic church -deontoligical, teleological ethical approach -based on primary and secondary precepts -god plans and wills that humans live moral lives -nt all have access to bible - we are endowed with the ability to use god given reason to discern natural law and how to adere to it - we can all meet our ultimate destiny, unity with god in afterlife

A NL para 2

-first underlying principle- good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided -good = whatever man seeks as a goal- what is in line with his natural purpose - also encourages development of virtues justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude, faith hope and love - through these one can do the right thing according to natural law

similarities of Bentham and Kant: God is not the starting point for either ethical system

- Both can be used without any reference to the supernatural - Utilitarianism takes an approach based on rational and scientific grounds, with no reference to the supernatural or any other received wisdom - With Kant god is not needed in order to discern what is right and wrong because this can be done through intellect however god is a consequence of this moral theory, this is because humans cannot achieve the highest good (summum bonum) in this realm, yet if the universe is fair there should be some reward for our good will, and therefore we must make three underlying assumptions- the three postulates of practical reason, God, Immortality and Freedom there is immortality in which summum bonum can be achieved but this can only be provided by God

Kant Warns that

- Hypothetical imperatives (which are relative and conditional) are not like categorical imperatives, e.g. 'if you want money you should get a job' this is goal orientate and makes an assumption but categorical imperatives should be done regardless of goal or outcomes, n all situations, regardless of consequence - he excluded black people, children and animals from the rational community, he didn't believe that they were capable of following the categorical imperative

What is ethical non naturalism?

- It is a cognitive theory (which claims that ethical statements make prepositions which can be true or false.) - But although good is real it cannot be defined in terms of any natural properties - therefore it cannot be discerned by human reason and is therefore either known intuitively or received from God naturalistic fallacy- any attempt to prove an ethical claim by a appealing to a definition using natural properties e.g. you can'e explain good with a sentence that doesn't contain the word good

A NL para 5

- these secondary precepts can be altered on rare and particular occasions e.g. when a primary precept is threatened bu upholding them - e.g. man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family - in times of need, all things become common property -more evil that no one has offered him charity or that life has not been preserved

A NL para 6

- warns of interior and exterior acts, acts be seem to be good externally but if their motivation isn't good they can be bad interior acts - real and apparent goods, an adulterous affair may seem good on an animalistic level but once human reason is applied it is evident that its effects are not

A NL para 7

- aquinas also refers to the doctrine of the double effect -'nothing hinders one more than having two effects' - the intent of the action is the key in determining its morality and therefore if the primary intention is moral then the secondary outcome is warranted provided that: - the secondary effect is not in itself to the primary end, the act is morally good, the primary effect is at least equivalent in importance to the secondary effect and the intention is only to achieve the good effect INDIFFERENCE TO THE ACTS OF LYING OR KILLING AN INNOCENT IS NEVER MORALLY PERMISSIBLE

Utilitarianism para 1

- consequential, teleological meta ethical approach that asserts that moral values can be discerned from nature using human reason because they are an intrinsic part of the universe - notably this approach is based only on rational and scientific ground with no reference to the supernatural, tradition or any other revealed wisdom

examples of utilitarianism as problematic in practise

- doctor, transplant, neighbour -small village murder -cheating in an exam

Strengths if Aquinas' Natural Law

- it provides a clear framework for rules in society, this is attractive because the ethics of many in the 21st century are approached with relativism, there are no longer absolute rights and wrongs some claim this is degenerative t the fabric of society, with the sliding of sexual ethics e.g. gay marriage, one embarks on a slippery slope that could lead to the acceptance of polygamy, In a post modern world where ethics are constantly changing the absolute primary precepts offer a sense of security. - accessible to all, doesn't rely on revelation, supports the idea of god as benevolent, wishing to be reunited with all of his children, regardless of country, tradition, religion and culture yet it is compatible with the bible so poses no problem for religious believers, most would agree that developing virtues is beneficial - aquinas does allow some exceptions, natural law is not as rigid as it can initally seem e.g. theft, in times of need all things become common property, lying- you ca withold the truth, indeed the roman catholic also shares this view. Bernard Hoose principle of proportionalism can be applied to NL, all circumstances are considered before deciding a course of action

Divine Command Theory para 1

- religious meta ethical theory that purports that in order for morality to be binding git must be originate from God, it is according to his decree that the status of acts, as good or as bad, are decided - god is good and what he commands is in harmony with his nature and plan for humanity, likewise what he condemns is not - in short what god commands is good and what he forbids is evil - followers of DCT generally feel a powerful reason for which to do what is 'good' for fear of consequences now or in the afterlife e.g. karma , Hindus reincarnation, Christianity- parable of the sheep and goats, according to whether or not you have fulfilled gods demands e.g. feed the hungry, clothe the naked you will receive eternal reward or eternal punishment

Strengths of Kant

- simple and effective use of principle of universalisation and the formula of humanity to derive categorical imperatives, in a simplified form this is also accessible to children -avoids doing immoral acts in the name of a greater good e,g, trolley problem, some acts are instrinscially evil e.g. principle of utilitarianism - Emotion sentiments and desires are considered irrelevant to morality- we cannot be swayed by favoritism which would be immoral - influential with the modern emphasis on human rights- humans are an end not a means to an end, justice and equality are encouraged because humans have intrinsic value -the main thrust of the theory can be used in a secular sense - we can deal with conflicting duties in numerous ways e.g. evasive truths when life and truth are at odds WD ROSS prima facie dutiesare intended as an ammendment to kants theory e.g. -pay abck the harm you do to others -do not injure others - pay back favours -do not harm the innocent - look after your parents etc. here you would abandon the truth duty because you of your duty to protect the innocent which takes presidence, this is intuitivley obvious

A NL para 3

- such natural ends defined in form of three ABSOLUTE primary precepts -to preserve life (the natural tendency to go on living) and to reproduce, to nurture and educate the young and to live in a stable and orderly society and finally to know God - These are inbuilt human purposes and to fullfill a purpose is intrinsically good, whatever can be done to uphold them must be e.g. monogamous marriage - good life is one lived in accordance with these ends

Utilitarianism para 4

- the principle of utility asserts that you must seek to produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number (utility measures the worth of an action in relation to how much pleasure it causes) - the right thing is not what brings you, as an individual the most pleasure but what will bring the greatest pleasure to the greatest number, as such it is not an egoistic ethic, the pleasure of one individual is never more valuable than that of another, furthermore pleasure derived from a simple game of push penny is no less valuable than that derived from opera. Indeed another proponent of utilitarianism (Mill) encourages us to make decisions form the perspective of a benevolent but uninterested bystander

The Kingdom of ends how is god involved etc.

- the virtuous are those who have good will, we will the highest good (summum bonum) even if we aren't sure that it exists, but in willing it we know that it is at least possible e.g.ought implies can -in this life the important thing is good will which constitutes being worthy of happiness, happiness is an optional extra but is not guaranteed in this life - to make sense of this conviction KAnt makes three underlying assumptions- the 3 postulates of practical reason GOD IMMORTALITY AND FREEDOM - Although right and worng is knowable using intellect and god doesn't command the moral laws he is a consequence of this moral theory - we feel the compulsion of the moral ought and can assume that the universe is fair therefore there should be some sort of reward for doing our duty- happiness in proportion to the extent of my obedience to the moral law -this reward is summum bonum, perfect match between happiness and morality -this is not accessible in this life so here must be another in which it is, therefore we must have immortality and this immortality can only be provided by God - we know through apriori methods taht we are free and this freedom is essential to morality, if we ar nit free morality makes no sense and would have to be abandoned. THUS FREEDOM IS A NECESSAR ASSUMPTION

similarities of Bentham and Kant: both seek to provide an ethical framework for deciding what is right and wrong and hold that this does exist in a cognitivist sense

- there is an objective good ha can be sought, whether it be minimising pain and maximising pleasure, as with bentham's utilitarianism, or by carrying out or duty with good will, as according to kant's deotological ethics - both systems also provide a workable method which can be used to determine whether an action is morally justified. Whilst Bentham proposes the principle of utility and Felicific calculus, in order to determine which a course of action will cause the most pleasure and the least pain, Kant proposes the principle of universalisation as a means for determining categorical imperatives.

what is ethical naturalism?

- these are realist theories that aspire to be true, moral values are an objective part of the world -we can be right or wrong about them -moral values can be discerned in terms of natural properties e.g. love and happiness. -we can use human reason to discern them -these are usually absed on nature and human nature e.g. utilitarianism- good is pleasure and happiness, virtue ethics- good is eudaimonia- complete wellbeing We must hold that there are ethical facts about our universe in order to justify our actions

Bentham's utilitarianism compatibility with christian ethics: the actions of Jesus (SE)

-Relief of need os central to bentham's approach, his attempts at social reform were motivated by compassion and concern for others and his ethics stress equality of all -Similarly Jesus judges people on how the respond to others e.g. mathew 25:32-46 parable of sheep and goats, he has come to help those in need in pauls letters to the colossian christians he instructs them to treat people with compassion and kindness -benthams approach is concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number and this sometimes means rules need to be set aside -jesus also sometimes acts situationally, casting rules aside in order to help people e.g. he healed on the sabbath, saved an adulteress from being stoned and picked corn on the sabbath -Mill insisted that jesus made decisions according to the 'golden rule' and thus there is a direct link between utilitarianism and jesus 'in the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth we read the complete spirit and ethics of utility. To do so as you would be done by, love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality' SITUATION ETHICS IS SOMETIMES CALLED CHRISTIAN UTILITARIANSIM, THE ENDS JUSTFIY THE MEANS, IT IS TELIOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST- PLEASURE/ AGAPE

joseph fletchers situation ethics para 3

-concerned with evaluating individual scenarios - jesus discards law of no work on the sabbath in order to compassionately pluck cron to feed his disciples, he also intevened when a woman was to be stoned to death eclaiming 'he who is free of sin shall cast the first stone' - evidenty law and custom can be cast aside when they don't serve love

similarities of Bentham and Kant: neither moral theory is egoistic

-moral decisions cannot simply be base don what benefits the individual most bentham's principle of utility suggests the greatest good for the greatest number and argues that the value of the pleasure of one person is never superior to another, infact mill, proponent of rule utilitarianism encourages us to make decisions from the POV of an uninterested benevolent bystander. Bentham also argues that higher and lower level past times are equally valuable e.g. the pleasure derived from a simple game of push penny is not inferior to that derived from opera meanwhile kant argue sthat desire emotion and sentiment are irrelevant to ethics and thus we should not favor ourselves or loved ones over others, instead moral action is based upon pure practical reason

A NL para 4

-secondary precepts are derived from the primary precepts in order to uphold them - more specific set of rules e.g. do not kill, do not lie -in this way scripture is not essential to live a oral life - yet there is no contradiction to biblical teachings so this poses no problem to religious believers

Divine Command Theory Para 3

-this view is particularly common among protestants who consider the bible to be inherent, infallible, authoritative and plenary - after biblical scholarship many have concluded that new testament teaching, expressed int he sermon in the mount, override old testament teachings such as an eye for an eye -the old testament surrounds the old covenant relationship between the Israelites and god whilst the new testament surrounds the new covenenant relationship between god and mankind and is thus more applicable to us

Divine Command Theory strengths

1) Divine Command theory holds that the moral status of acts is determined by Gods demands, For many, God's involvement is crucial in morality, since within God 'anything can be deemed morally permissible' as demonstrated by Dostoevsky in 'The Brothers Of Karamazov', this also solves the grounding problem, all metaethical theories should have a firm foundation. 2) For those who consider the bible to be authoritative, infallible and plenary divine command theory provides an absolute guide to morality, with universal laws in all circumstances, this makes it clear and straight forward, thus accessible to all those exposed to it 3) Since God is infallible the laws are strong, persistent and unchanging, god's judgment doesn't share the weaknesses of human judgment 5) Not only does it provide instruction, but also motivation, if one embraces divine command theory it seems that it must be assumed that they believe the claims of biblical texts and thus they believe that in behaving morally one works towards their position in the afterlife e.g. parable of sheep and goats furthermore it provides assurance that, in following gods commands, humans can act in accordance with his will and fulfill their purpose (as beings created in the image and likeness of God)

Weaknesses of Intuitionism

1) Ethical non cognitivists would reject the basis of moral judgments in fact, in reality they are subjective statements of approval 2) How can we be sure that views on rightness and wrongness have their basis in some undefinable yet objectively real thing?We could be unconsciously effected by our society, upbringing and cultural heritage 3) PHILLIPA FORD- virtue plays a key ethical role this is dependent on biological and social factors, scientific fact doesn't lead away from virtue but towards it and thus morality does have a factual content objective and in the natural law, not necessarily absolute Neo naturalism could solve the issues of disagreement among naturalists, it could be claimed that happiness and agape and well being are all just about human flourishing- if what we do contributes to human flourishing it is good E.G. old woman is helpless you must encourage human flourishing you ought to help her THIS ALSO FILLS THE OUGHT TO GAP 4) where does intuition come from? is it part of our brain? an emotion? the process of us considering something? how does it differ to the conscience? If we can't locate it or observe it does it really exist? 5) makes ethical discussion very difficult, no fundamental reasoned basis upon which to argue, moral views cannot be logically justified by their holders 6) congitive non naturalism led to the belief in non cognitivism- ethics is not facts but only emotions/ inetntions and wishes, this is a dangeorus view for society to hold e.g. ayers emotivism 'saying that murder is worng is simply to make an emotional ejaculation like crying or laughing' 7) ROBIN AH FIELD many ethicists dismiss the idea of the naturalistic fallacy, how does one know that there will never be a successful definition of good? moore is assuming his own conclusion on the way to reaching it

Weaknesses of Utliltarianism

1) act utilitarianism can be too case specific and time consuming, we would not have time to consider the felicific calculus in all situations e.g. in a terror attack, there is something emotional and innate about making moral decisions, they cannot always be scientific 2) varying forms of pleasure are not truly on the same moral scale e.g. the council needs to either fund a library or a brothel 3) the consequentialist factor permits actions which are arguably inherently immoral e.g. murder in the village, doctor and transplants 4) two acts leading to the same outcome of pleasure are equally moral even if one involves lying e.g. cheating in an exam because ends justify means 5) ignores reality that decisions affecting loved ones are often biased 6)chocolate bar dilemma, intensity and extent 7)predicting outcomes can be problematic, there is no guarantee that you will be right 8) Not all humans are motivated by desire of pleasure and avoidance of pain 9) fails to explain jump from is to ought, as hume highlights (in his defence this gap doesn't exists and morality is simply seen int he facts of the world, human flourishing and the flourishing of the biosphere

virtue ethics and lying

1) agent centred approach, less concerned with the action of lying and more so with what a virtuous person would do under the given circumstances, morality lies in the extent to which one has cultivated virtue, reasoning well, this should not be asses ed over short space of time but over a whole life time and thus when considering whether to lie and virtuous person can do so whilst considering that their actions in individual situations accumulate to a virtuous life. 2) VIRTUES INVOLVED: Aristotle refers to he virtues of honesty and truthfulness which forbid lying, truthfulness is the mean of self deprecation and boastfulness, lying is an issue concerning how we interact with others and the deficiency and excess negatively impact our peers. Furthermore courage may be required in order to tell the truth, , one must be high minded and friendly in the sense of giving others their due. Lying is not permitted when it abuses justice for justice has no excess nor deficiency, it considers the good of others as an end in itself and thus unites all other virtues. In this way telling the truth and upholding this justice displays many other virtues such as temperance and altruism especially if telling the truth means liberating an innocent 3) VICES INVOLVED: vices that are involved, demonstrating poor character, depend on the situation, they may involve envy, spitefullness and pride, arostotle says ' in itself what is false is base don what is blameworthy, wheras what is true is based upon what is noble and praiseworthy, in general lies are told in order to hold vice 4) PRACTICAL WISDOM shows us that virtues come together to form a synergy and one cannot isolate honesty from other virtues, thus there a virtous people that exist and tell lies e.g. Agent Garbo- courage and compassion, fighting injustice 5) because virtue is developed habitually it is best to tell the truth in the majority of cases so as to build good moral charcter and benefit the fabric of society. However this is nto a deontological ethic an thus one is ot bound tot tell the truth regardless of circumstance neither s it consequentialist, if your intent is virtous you act is justfied. You must intend to act virtously e..g if a manlied about the wherabouts of weapons becuase he wants to sell them and this alos stops a terrorst gaining access tot hem the man has not acted virtously because he was ignorant of what he was doing.

Virtue Ethics and Theft

1) agent centred approach, less concerned with the action of theft and more so with what a virtuous person would do under the given circumstances, morality lies in the extent to which one has cultivated virtue, reasoning well, this should not be asses ed over short space of time but over a whole life time and thus when considering whether to lie and virtuous person can do so whilst considering that their actions in individual situations accumulate to a virtuous life. 2) theft is a BASE ACTION it is not subject to the golden mean, one cannot steal well or badly, just as one cannot commit adultery well, in this way he seems of be very hardline on theft 3) However he does talk about justice in two senses- one as in abiding by the law and the other as restoring the distribution of gain and loss between two people when the loss has occurred through theft- in this sense it may be justified to steal something back 4) VICES: selfishness, envy, greed and sloth e.g. stealing jewelry from a helpless eldery woman for nothing but self gain, it could also entail situations which accumlatively lead to a disregard for the feelings of others, when hurting people becomes normalised but there is a difference between theft due to genuine need and that done for personal profit alone, one must remember that we can't question Aristotle on theft in varying contexts for instance on the scenario that Aquinas gives us 5) in the above situation many virtuous people would steal the bread in fact this requires virtues such as compassion for the starving family, courage in the right degree, overcoming the fear of being caught and never being able to return to them, altruism, arguably the starvation is an injustice, it is not right that a family should starve whilst others can sell may loaves of bread, the good of the family is considered an end in itself so all virtues are united 6) refraining may insue pride and cowardice which are vices using practical wisdom we deduce that virtues forma synergy if the other virtues implicate theft we cannot isolate refraining from theft from this 7) because virtue is developed habitually it is best refrain from theft in the majority of cases so as to build good moral character and benefit the fabric of society. However this is not a deontological ethic an thus virtue doesnt lie in indefinitley following deontological rules e.g. do not steal neither is it consequentialist, if your intent is virtuous you act is justfied e.g. f you wrent aware of this but the shop you stole he bread from was struggling You must intend to act virtously e..g if a manlied about the whereabouts of weapons becuase he wants to sell them and this alos stops a terrorst gaining access tot hem the man has not acted virtously because he was ignorant of what he was doing.

strengths of virtue ethics

1) allows for morla judgments without issues of consequentialist ethics- doesn't attempt to predict hypohetical consequences of actions where we could be worng e.g. mother aborts pregnant fetus 'lesser of two evils' but fetus cures cancer also avoids issues of deonotlogical ethics e.g. dealing with conflicting laws and followig a law even if your conscience tells you it is immoral' e.g. jews in the attic 2) hopeful and encouraging, always room for improvement since morality is assessed over a life time and there is always room for improvement, one doesn't give up at the first hurdle, there is also the aim of eudaimonia- the good life, wellbeing and happiness this is optimistic and encourages hope, it inspires us to fulfill our purpose but accepts that we make mistakes 3) accessible- there are no challenging ideas like the doctrine of the double effect to grapple with and it is also not religious and so doesn't require any prior belief, regardless of religion it is true that most people feel a drive to be virtuous 4) gives a workable method the golden mean offers a simple way of coming to decisions and allows a degree of flexibility e.g. courage of a solider and a cancer patient, the idea that virtue is developed through habit is supported by observation of children and their parents and of athletes and intellectuals WWAVPD

Aquinas NL and theft

1) arguably theft is always wrong because 'do not steal' is a secondary precept, which has been made with the aim of maintaining the primary precepts, which are absolute. If people refrained from theft in all circumstances a threat would be removed to the fabric of a stable and ordered society. Stealing induces suspicion, fracturing friendships and undermining trust, it feeds vices such as sloth and greed and diminishes humans so that they fall short of God's plan for them, humans are meant to be a community- the body of Christ, but theft alienates them from one another. 2) Aquinas does allow for some exceptions to this prohibition on rare and particular occasions for instance when a primary precept is at risk if one refrain from stealing e.g. if a man wishes to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. This is justified because the primary precept of preserving life takes precedence. In fact taking the bread wouldn't really be theft because in times of need all things become common property, after all, all things belong to god, who has entrusted stewardship to all humans, the world and its fruits are for human kind not just for individuals, it would be worse that no one had extended charity to they man, demonstrating the principle of agape as demonstrated by Jesus 3) The Roman Catholic church advocates a similar position, arguing that the state has the right to take the property of an individual if it is for the sake of the common good e.g. bombs and guns from a terrorist cell in order to protect life and maintain a structured and orderly society. Aquinas himself advocates this position; the life of the community overrides the needs of the individuals and institutions within it. 4) many people, such as Bernard Hoose, use the principle of proportionalism in relation to natural law. Hoose argues that all circumstances must be considered before taking a plan of action, 'it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason for which to do so.' So for example if one wanted to abandon the so 'do not steal' because they wanted a new car and didn't';t have enough money there is no such proportionate reason, the threat posed to living in stable and orderly society by this would, for example, not be balanced out by a need to preserve life. However some cases of stealing can result from virtue e.g. compassion and selflessness e.g. the heinz dilemma, mans wife is ill and pharmaceutical company develop cure but put a ridiculous price on it- man is selfless and risks his own arrest to save his wife ALTHOUGH IN GENERAL THEFT IS FORBIDDEN ITS NATURE ARGUABLY CHANGES DEPENDING ON IT MOTIVATION, MANY FOLLOWERS OF NL WOULD NOT CONDEMN IT FOR INSTANCE IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO UPHOLD THE PRIMARY PRECEPTS

Strengths of Utliltarianism

1) easy to see how reasonable it is- most would lie in order to save a life 2) underpins the allocation of resources within the NHS- greatest god for greatest number, common sense 3) Revolutionary in terms of animal ethics, they too feel pain and pleasure so are subject to the same moral laws as humans, we don't ignore their observable reactions to pain and pleasure, unlike what christian ethics encourages us to do (lower beings, unable to feel pain) descartes argued animals aren't self aware and are simply automata but this is contradictory to empirical observation 4) Not religous, open to all 5) Provides a thorough method in the form of the felicific calculus and principle of utlility- benevolent bystander 6) Based on a simple and straight forward maxim 7) Consequentialist, considers consequence of actions before moving forwards 8) Workable and considerate of a range of situations, avoids the issues of deontological ethics, dealing with conflicting laws

situation ethics strengths and weaknesses

1) initially attractive, doesn't immediately condemn individuals or prejudge a situation due to a legalistic approach, instead each person considered individually according to fundamental principle that love decides the and there and the working principle of relativism 2) in reality it isn't possible to consider every situation individually e.g. woman dying of breast cancer, most loving thing for her would be to give her the drug she wants in order to prolong her life, but this funding comes from the same pot that could fund other treatments, would it not be better to spent the money on screening programs to save 1000's of lives rather than prolonging one? the NHS uses a formula to distribute funding across prevention and treatment 3) situation ethics echoes the teachings of jesus, e.g. agape, good samaritan, the ultimate source of moral authority for chirstians, his tecahings trump those of the old testament e.g. eye for an eye and sermon on the mount, the adulteress, according to his rule tradition and custom can be cast aside if they don't serve love biblical criticism in old testament, liberationist strand 4) in a sense situation contradicts itself, it is governed by a law- love 5) The individual judgment is problematic because it is relativistic, two people may propose two different solutions to a given issue, motivated by love, how do we say which one is right? on a large scale situation ethics could mean the break down of law ad ethical norms, a stable society needs laws that are respected by its citizens- if not justice could be threatened and love and justice are one ad the same, the practice of the theory endangers its own principles, it would be impossible to uphold a stable society using it, we need stable ethical frameworks which it fails to provide 6) often there is more than one person involved in a situation, which is prioritized? e.g. mother has been raped and wishes to abort her subsequent pregnancy, do we choose her or the fetus? (innocent to its fathers crime and has right to life) 7) situation ethics is consequentialist and is based upon anticipating outcomes that we cannot be sure of e.g. aborted baby could have discovered the cure to cancer Arguably it gives too much responsibility, since humans are tainted by sin there is a natural tendency towards selfishness according to many Protestants and calvinists

weaknesses of Virtue Ethics

1) it can't be aplied ot international situations, when considering vast no.s of people you can't consider your own character but the wellbeing of the masses and this a utilitarian approach may be more appropriate, you have to think about consequence when making a decision this large 2) in order for society there must be a clear ethical framework with laws and consequneces for this who do not act virtously and break them, if one commits a murder they cannot be exmept from punishment becaus ethey are evaluated over their whole life time, especially if they pose a threat to society 3) ignores cultural relativism, Aristotle lived in the 4th century BC when half the population were slaves and male dominance was a virtue yet now in 21st century we see that is is virtuous to respect the respect the rights of women, but this raises the q, whose virtues are right? is there any objective immorality? ideas of what a virtuous person is depend upon each persons individual judgments it is very challenging to bring virtue ethics into the 21st century 4) some would accuse situation ethics of being anthroporcentric, disregarding the welfare of other animals and the environment, this in turn will harm humans and thus VE is selfish and counter intuitive

Aquinas NL and lying

1) lying is immoral not only because it damages ones neighbor but also on account of its inordinateness, primary precepts derived using human reason, lying goes against this is its disorderly, on no account can one make use of something to inordinate even if it is to protect someone else, it is unnatural to significance by words what is not in your mind, undermines dignity of human beings who have a god given purpose to will and bear witness to the truth, that which separates humans from their purpose is evil, great martyrs such as st avrà have me revered for their unyielding adherence to the truth 2) truth protects primary precepts essential to nurture and educate young and to live in a stable and orderly society e.g. hitler indoctrination of a generation and diminishes trust, condemns innocent, truth is a virtue in itself, its importance is deeply rooted in natural moral law, to lie is to neglect the virtues of courage and justice 3) aquinas does indicate that you can withhold the truth, this has been discussed by various theologians and philosophers e.g. Kant, RCC 'no one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who doesn't have the right to know it' e.g. Jews in the attic 4) we may also consider Bernard Hooses' proprtionalism, a modern reinterpretation of natural law and perhaps the most comprehensive reevaluation of the theory since Aquinas, he suggested that under certain circumstances Aquinas may have allowed some precepts to be laid aside, if there were a proprtional reaosn for which to do so, for example we could apply the case of Agent Garbo? Consider all circumstances before acting RCC the gravity of a lie is measured against the given stances that caused it if it in itself only constitutes venial sin this become mortal when it does grave injury to virtues of justice and charity

situation ethics and lying

1) rejects the view that a deontological statement can be universally made about lying (knowingly articulating a falsehood the intention to deceive) - concerned with evaluating individual scenarios e.g. love decides then and there, relativism, if lying is motivated by and has the outcome of love it is justified 2) avoids absolute laws of deontological ethics, governed by underlying dopminating principle of agape 3) although a christian ethic it does not adhere to a legalistic view of the 10 commandments, the 9th of which forbids 'bearing false witness', indeed embracing the model of Christ who condensed the commandments into one, love god and love thy neighbor, the working principle that love is the only norm maintains that NO Other commandment should be followed indefinitely and this includes avoiding lying because alone is always good, it is not intrinsically good not to lie. Jesus himself cast aside rules e.g. sabbath. evidently law and custom can be cast aside if they don't serve love. 4) example of agent garbo- posed as nazi spy, lied to protect secrets of the allies, shortened war by years, saving millions of lives- motivated by and has outcome of love, morally permissable -personalism -relativism -pragmatism -positivism? indirect? love and justice are one and the same, love justifies its means, loving is not the same as liking? 5) if conditions of SE are not satisfied by circumstances e..g lying motivated by hatred or greed it is immoral,1930's textbooks Germany, indoctrination, calling Jews lower order beings and vermin in disguise- catastrophic effects, unjust, discriminative- loving is not the same as liking lying in order to accumulate something e.g. politically is also wrong, it doesnt serve agape by considering how love is most affirmed in each individual situation we are exercising our conscience, this is a verb not a noun, it is a word used to describe our attempts to resolve a situation constructively, creatively and fittingly, this may or may not mean telling a lie.

Weaknesses of Divine Command Theory

1) some of gods commands are evidently morally abhorrent by today standards e.g. -he tells Joshua to sack the city of Jericho killing all animals women and children - 2 kings 2:23-24 Elisha is walking and some small boys come and sneer at him so he curses them and two she bears come and kill the boys -Paul advocates slavery in his letters to Titus 'slaves must be submissive to their master, give satisfaction in every respect' surely it is foolish to follow gods demands without question even when they contradict our own conscience 2)Biblical scholarship explores the way in which external factors gave impacted scripture, it is inspired by god but written by humans and thus reflects human opinion which are effected by historical context and personal bias, can ethics applicable in a patriarchal era when slavery thrived really be applied to modern day scenarios? 3) Gods commands aren't universal for all, there are a huge spectrum of beliefs within Christianity concerning the same issues e.g. turn the other cheek/ a tooth for a tooth , for instance there is some disagreement on the nature of Jesus e.g. adoptions, who believe that Jesus was adopted by god at his baptism, in this way his authority is diminished and people may choose to favor alternative teachings if people disagree about the nature of god beyond this ethical theory it can be argued that it does not solve the grounding problem 4) Diminished the value of human reason and free will, it takes away the onus of our own judgment. Humans have been endowed with god given reason and free will and should be able to use these to identify valuable teachings and discount others e.g. Rosemary Radford Reuther acknowledges the blatant patriarchy in the bible yet has identified the theme of liberation which she calls the golden strand, through this we can truly encounter the genuine will of God our autonomy is essential for us to be truly morally good, this is sacrificed if we follow gods teachings only to facilitate our own needs and interests in the after life 5) Euphyro dilemma- a lawyer pressing charges against his father is talking to Socrates before the trial which will lead to his death DCT raises the question, does god will good because it exists independently of him? in this case god is not omnipotent, he is irrelevant to morality and is subservient to good But if what god will is necessarily good then morality becomes arbitrary, if god intervened now and changes his commands, telling us that all he had forbidden in the past he now commanded e.g. rape and genocide, would we be justified in following his command?

Strengths of Intuitionism

1) the objective nature of right and wrong enables us to assess our actions and provides with guidelines, particluarly when considering the prima facie duties of ross 2)it overcomes the issues of disagreement among ethical naturalists e.g. what is good? oeasure or agape? it is simply intuiton 3) fits in with universal human experience e.g. intuitive sense that murder is wrong but killing in self defence is not

Weaknesses of Kant

1) this is no more believable than DCT, both amount to moral guesswork, by observing the state of the world it is bvious that there are no universal moral laws, the categorical imperative is nothing but wishful thinking morality in this world is not equivalent to that in a noumenal realm 2) by this logic a country could be massacred to ave one innocent, if we can act to create an excess of good over an inevitable ad then surely we have a duty to do so, you cause more harm than would be otherwise 3) detaching morality from emotion is realistic it is impossible for humans to ignore their emotions, this is what makes them humans, it is moral sentiment and utility that motivate us to act 4) it is anthroporcentric, humans have intrinsic value bu animals are non rational and thus can be treated as a means to an end, they cannot be seen as part of the moral community. (blacks and children?) it is no better environmentally than thomist or aristotlean ethcs 5) some humans are not intellectually capable of universalizing the maxims 6) 2 of three of kants postulates of practical reason are religus and thus inaccessible to non relgious peoples 7) Kant would reject WD Ross ammendmetns because moral intuition is not the same as good will, thus we are left with the issue of dealing with conflicting duties, you couldn't universalize a white lie in certain circumstances because it would be a hypothetical imperative 8) puts morality into a noumenal realm and is accused of adding another layer to existence (in defence on him it is not a different reality but a different aspect to our own, like dual aspect monism)

situation ethics and theft

1)Rejects the view that a deontological statement can be universally made about STEALING - concerned with evaluating individual scenarios e.g. love decides then and there, relativism, if theft is motivated by and has the outcome of love it is justified 2)avoids absolute laws of deontological ethics, governed by underlying dominating principle of agape 3)although a christian ethic it does not adhere to a legalistic view of the 10 commandments, which state that 'thou shalt not steal' indeed embracing the model of Christ who condensed the commandments into one, love god and love thy neighbour, the working principle that love is the only norm maintains that NO Other commandment should be followed indefinitely and this includes refraining from stealing because love alone is always good, it is not intrinsically good not to steal, Jesus himself cast aside rules e.g. sabbath. evidently law and custom can be cast aside if they don't serve love. 4) Primo Levi- surviving Aushwits- horrific food shrtages, the imprisoned were forced to steal food from the kicthen stock, one could not condemn this action of theft in the face of injustice, it was motivated by and has outcome of love, feeding fellow inmates and was therefore morally permissable -personalism, the lives of the imprisoned come before the law -relativism, desperate times, desperate measures -pragmatism workable -positivism? indirect? love and justice are one and the same, they faced grave injustices if we are bringing about justice we are justified, love justifies its means, loving is not the same as liking? 5) if conditions of SE are not satisfied by circumstances e..g stealing from a small family business, motivated by greed and sloth, this abuses fundamental and working principles, demonstrating a stark lack of love for others, even if you dislike the family loving is not the same as liking the use of conscience- the application of human reason to ethically challenging situations is crucial when deciding whether theft can be justified

SEE WORD DOCUMENT - FROM REVISION GUIDE *

APPLICATIONS OF AS ETHICS *

Duty and the categorical imperative

Alongside our god will our pure reason is also aware of the moral ought, we have a moral sense of obligation, regardless of circumstances. from this we can form an account of our moral duties, allowing our sense of duty to inform our reason the duties that we discern are known as categorical imperatives- absolute, unconditional moral commands Therefore this is a deontological ethic- it ocncerns motive and duty and its rules are absolute and exceptionless moral truths are like mathematical truths, you can discern them using reason and they are true in the same way as it is true that 2 + 2 = 4

Intuitionism

Intuitionism is a metaethical view that moral knowledge is a factual property can be known through intuition - moral judgments do not come from the evaluation of results or through logical arguments, they can't be fully justified by empirical observation, instead they can only be known by what thinker GE MOORE describes a intuition, beliefs not influenced by inferences due to other beliefs, in other words they stand along and are self evident -MOORE is author of principa etica 1903, analyses moral concepts and language and follows Hume in claiming that many ethical theories seem to move from fact to moral values with no recognition that the basis upon which they are arguing as changed and there is no real continuity between the two. He calls this the naturalistic fallacy, a failed attempt to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' (any attempt to prove an ethical claim by appealing to a definition using natural properties) -in order to avoid the naturalistic fallacy he concluded that good is not a terms of anything more basic such as the 'greatest happiness' instead he argues that good is known intuitively but is not straight forwardly definable, thus non naturalism cannot provide a definition for the word good - to illustrate this Moore compares good to the word yellow, when we define yellow as light travelling at a particular frequency we are not truly describing yellow because yellow is what we see when we look at yellow objects, not the light vibrations which cause us to see that. When describing it to someone else we can compare it to different colors but cannot define it in terms of a simpler concept. Just as the word yellow is comprehensible to us but we can't define it in terms of anything else we can recognize good when we encounter it but can't define it in essence -mores definition of good is that 'good is good and that is the end of the matter' good is a simple idea, alike to yellow, we cannot break it down into definable parts and must accept that there is a limit to our language and we therefore cannot define it but the important thing is that we recognize it - we do not have to witness a murder to now that killing is wrong because this is self evident, we know that innately and therefore seek to respond with care and compassion to the victims family and work to have the murderer punished -The Trolley problem also demonstrates the importance of intuitionism, whilst utilitarianism justifies the killing of one to save 5 others many simply could not brng themseves to kill the one innocent person, yet they cannot describe why. This is their intuition. -In the final chapter of principa etica moore describes the love of friendship and beauty as by far the most valuable things we can know or imagine, we know intuitively that these things are of good nature

Differences of Bentham and Kant: How they draw their conclusions

Kant arrives a his understanding through reason alone but discounts empirical observation maintaining that we can never have absolute certainty of conclusions drawn from sensory experience, ensuing a transcendental argument related to a Noumenal realm. Meanwhile Bentham's theory is naturalist, it holds that ethical values stem from facts about the nature of the world and human nature, and thus because Bentham observes that humans have a tendency to will pleasure and avoid pain and believes that human nature can be explained in terms of psychological hedonism he states that 'nature has put man under the governance of two masters, pleasure and pain, and it is for them alone to point to what we ought to do.

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics para 3

To aristotle, exercising virtue means reasoning well, this should be assessed over a whole life time not just over a short space of time. What one becomes is more important than what an individual chooses to do In a given situation. The non rational soul has moral virtues of courage, compassion, temperance etc. these are cultivated through habit with the help of practical wisdom from the rational soul. as one becomes physically strong with good exercise and nutrition habits one becomes courageous by ignoring frightening things. We become virtuous not by following rules but by mimicking other virtuous people, e.g. a child mimics their parents. One must also act with the right intention and consciously choose to ac virtuously e.g. a man saves a child from a burning house to impress girlfriend or because he wasn't aware that he was in danger

Differences of Bentham and Kant: what is right vs what is good

Utilitarianism begins by asking what is good, concludes happiness, then deems it an end in itself Kant starts from what is right, the goal of being worthy of happiness doesn't necessarily mean being happy, the only good thing in itself is god will

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics para 1

Virtue Ethics is an agent centered ethical approach- more concerned with overall character than individual actions, morality lies in the extent to which one has cultivated virtue the natural charcteristic of the human soul, not on specific actions not deontological- morality doesn't lie in following rules or precepts not consequentialist- morality doesn't lie in outcome it is teleological- based on the notion that humans have a fixed nature and purpose although this hasn't been imprinted by God

There are some slightly teleological elements to this

When considering the universalisation principle you must consider the consequence of your actions in all circumstances, not just in your own. This is a method for deducing categorical imperatives that states that one should 'only act in accordance with the maxim that one can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction' That sis to say that if you approve of theft in situation X you condone it in all circumstances, everyone should always steal.

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics para 2

all that exists has a fixed nature and purpose, goodness lies in fulfilling this, nature has created within humanity, a drive to be virtuous, just as the function of an acorn is to grow into a mighty oak, humans must develop good qualities in a similar way. Humans have tendencies to live, to grow, to be healthy, to have company but animals also have these. It is our use of reason that sets us apart. Because reason is unique to humans Aristotle concluded that using the rational part of our soul is our telios- ' thus the good life s not the kind in which we eat, reproduce, sense, move, remember or imagine well, for plants and animals do that but that n which we exercise reason well' - four cardinal virtues which guide the individual to the golden mean the most significant of these is prudence- practical wisdom thus the intellectual virtues such as physics, mathematics and philosophy that come from the rational part of our soul contribute heavily to the good life.

joseph fletchers situation ethics para 1

avoids absolute deontological legalistic ethics and disorderly antinomian ethics instead taking a mirddle ground, governed by underlying dominating principle of love

Bentham's utilitarianism incompatibility with christian ethics: god and happiness

bentham considered religion to be untrue and irrelevant, utilitarianism was formulated independently of god and bentham looked forward to a future in which religion would become irrelevant to human affairs he also believed that happiness is earthly happiness meanwhile Christians hold belief in god as central, Faith in jesus as saviour is necessary to save one's soul so that on can have eternal joy in gods presence in the afterlife kingdom of heaven, life after death, personal relationship with God happiness lies in the next life faith inspires good moral works, 'faith without works is dead.'

Differences of Bentham and Kant: what you'd do in situation when you can kill one and save many others

bentham- one person can be sacrificed for the good of the others, if you don't act you are responsible for the deaths of all of the people Kant- formula of humanity menas that killing an innocent is never permitted, all humans are autonomous and rational and thus have absolute moral worth

the conscience- non divine origins: Lawrence Kohlberg

conscience as behavior developed through social interaction -kohlberg tested moral dilemmas on numerous groups of people and established 6 stages of development with three levels. - he identified conscience as the post conventional level which only a few people actually reach, this is an understanding of social interaction and genuine concern for the welfare of others. followed by respect for universal principles and the demand of the individual conscience we distinguish between our own concerns and universal principles for the flourishing of society using moral reasoning and decision and this is what develops the conscience

Bentham's utilitarianism incompatibility with christian ethics: deontological and non naturalist ethical approaches

divine command theory and situation ethics are both non naturalist, divine command theory relegates the use of the human intellect in favour of gods commands divine command theory and natural law are deontological ethical theories and therefore follow absolute laws but with bentham rules are of secondary importance

Bentham's utilitarianism compatibility with christian ethics: Hedonistic not legalistic

each persons happiness is equally important thus often you put the needs of numerous others above yourself however, self interest is an integral part of human nature and is therefore inevitable, this encourages self love since this is what drives us, religion is actually an example of this since it offers the individual prospect of divine punishment christian ethics also realize the importance of self love, 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' love of others is not possible without love of self

Differences of Bentham and Kant: Kant is deontological and Bentham is teleological and consequential

kant's theory is concerned with motive and duty, alongside good will, pure reason is aware of the moral ought and this means hat we always have a sense of moral obligation it is rule based without exception, we form an account of our moral duties by allowing our sense of duty to conform to human reason and deduce categorical imperatives which are absolute and unconditional moral commands- all can discern them and must act in accordance with them, moral truths are like mathematical truths, hypothetical imperatives are not moral imperatives Bentham's theory is consequentialist and teleological, human beings have the purpose of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, they must base their decisions on outcomes and whichever is needed to fulfill their purpose is justified, after using the principle of utility and felicific calculus

Kant's categorical imperative incompatibility with christian ethics: enlightenment values

kant- based on enlightement values of reason and autonomy, human reason rules without reference to religion because human beings have inherent value, as seen in the formula of humanity, human reason and autonomy triumph over superstition and unquestioning acceptance of authority for divine command theory and natural moral law belief in god is essential because it is good that is determining what is moral in the first place for situation ethics you must know the example of jesus

Kant's categorical imperative compatibility with christian ethics: the status of human life

kant- humans are autonomous and rational have absolute moral value hey should never be treated as a means to an end- the formula of humanity christianity- human life is sacred, a gift form god, neppesh hayyah, intrinsically valuable, santitiy of life principle, Natural Law the doctrine of the double effect, the abortion couldn't be in itself the means to the end

Kant's categorical imperative compatibility with christian ethics: existence of God

kant- three postulates of practical reason, the kingdom of ends, reality in a noumenal realm christianity- god is beyond space matter and time and obvs exists

Kant's categorical imperative compatibility with christian ethics: behaviour concerning others

kant- universalisation principle, people must discern their own duties, rational and reflexive, would be futile to have prnciples that people didnt want to follow e.g. ou tell the truth because you don't want to be lied to jesus- do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Kant's categorical imperative incompatibility with christian ethics: freedom

one of the postulates of practical reason is freedom but this is not compatible with the idea of predestination as advocated by calvin

WD Ross Prima Facie

people disagree about what is right and wrong according to their intuition, this is due to conflicting duties, it is sometimes not obvious which of these take priority. so he lists 6 prima facie duties -keeping promises -paying back harm done to others - not injuring others - returning favors ad services that others have given to us - not harming innocent people -looking after our parents we use the intuition to choose between duties but when none of these conflict we must maintain them all as absolute -failure to agree on this suggests that peoples thinking is insufficiently mature or reasoned

Kantian morality is autonomous

people must work out their own categorical imperatives, this is rational and reflexive, there must e.g. a link between morality and peoples wants and desires otherwise it would be futile, to decide upon principles that no one wants to follow e.g. tell the truth so that you won't be lied to

joseph fletchers situation ethics para 4

the ethical approach is based upon 6 fundamental principles: -love alone is always good e.g. decalogue states 'do not bear false witness' yet agent garbo shortened the war by years and saving millions of lives by pretending to be a nazi spy - love is the only norm, there are no other natural laws that should be followed indefinitley - loving is not the same as liking\ love is not sentimental-one should love regardless of identity like the Good Samaritan, it is not affected film or sympathy for these emotions anoint to self love -love and justice are one and the same, justice is love distributed evenly -love decides then and there, you can't premeditate a solution to issues, categorising the problem - love justifies its means, whatever can be done to ensure that love prevails should be

Kant's categorical imperative compatibility with christian ethics: emphasis on reason NL

the rational basis for kant's ethics has links to aquinas' thinking, good will is something freely and rationally chosen, pure practical reason chooses actions which are good in themselves for aquinas god given reason is the faculty that underpins morality

joseph fletchers situation ethics para 5

there are also 4 working principles: - pragmatism -relativism, ends relative to means - personalism- person comes before the law - positivism- one should start with the positive aim of affirmation of faith in an omnibenevolent and personal god THE CONSCIENCE IS a verb not a noun, it is what humans do when they are using the agapeic calculus to decide how love is most affirmed in each particular situation 'conscience is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively and fittingly'

ahem

there is an element of consequnetialism in both e.g. principle of universalisation

telling lies and breaking promises

these are damaging to the fabric of society and may implicate a lack of genuine concern for others, one would have to consider the universal principles compared to their own concerns and try to get the right balance

Human rights

this moral system also advocated the formula of humanity, one must act as to treat humanity always as an end and never as a means to an end, be it yourself or somebody else humans are rational and autonomous and have absolute moral worth, actions involving lying and deception affect the autonomous choices of others and are therefore immoral

Differences of Bentham and Kant: what is immorality?

to Bentham immorality is the failure to avoid pain and maximize happiness to Kant it is inconsistency through faulty reasoning

Kant's categorical imperative incompatibility with christian ethics: emotion sentiment and desire

to kant these are considered irrelevant to morality, only duty and good will matter but to Christians morality is focused on love of god and love of others

Kant's categorical imperative incompatibility with christian ethics: god is simply not necessary to work this ethic

uniersalizability can be used in secular ethics, hare used a version of this in his metaethical theory of prescritivism and no relgious reference was needed the religious components can be abandoned without weakening the approach, in reality summum bonum etc weaken the approach, how can we assume that the universe is fair? the possibility of reward diminishes good will

but what question does this raise?

what about people who challenge social norms due to the guidance of their conscience e.g. oscar romero

Differences of Bentham and Kant: naturalism and non naturalism (double check)

with utilitarianism morality lies primarily in what you do in the world- naturalism with Kant morality is primarily in a noumenal realm which is independent of human perception- non naturalism