OCR AS Ethics
OCR AS Ethics
Syllabus Checklist
|Topic |Details |Done |Revised |
|Ethical theories |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: |
| |The concepts of absolutist and relativist morality; | | |
| |What it means to call an ethical theory absolutist and objective; | | |
| |What it means to call an ethical theory relativist and subjective; | | |
| |The terms deontological and teleological. | | |
| |Candidates should be able discuss critically these concepts and their strengths and | | |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Natural Law |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: |
| |The origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law in Aristotle’s idea of purpose | | |
| |Aquinas’ ideas of purpose and perfection; | | |
| |The use of reason to discover Natural Law; | | |
| |The primary and secondary precepts. | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and | | |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Kantian ethics |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of |
| |The difference between the Categorical and the Hypothetical Imperatives; | | |
| |The various formulations of the Categorical Imperative; | | |
| |Kant’s understanding of the universalisation of maxims; | | |
| |Kant’s theory of duty; | | |
| |Kant’s ideas of the moral law, good will and the summum bonum. | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these theories and their strengths and| | |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Utilitarianism |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: |
| |The classical forms of Utilitarianism from Bentham and Mill; | | |
| |The principle of Utility; | | |
| |The differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and of Mill; | | |
| |The Hedonic Calculus, higher and lower pleasures, quantity v. quality, and Act and | | |
| |Rule Utilitarianism; | | |
| |The Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer. | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and | | |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Religious ethics – a study of the |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: |
|ethics of the religion chosen by the | |
|candidate | |
| |The main ethical principles of the religion studied and how the followers of the | | |
| |religion make ethical decisions; | | |
| |The ways in which religion and morality may | | |
| |seem to be linked or be seen as separate from each other; | | |
| |How far morality may be seen as dependant on God (Divine Command theory) | | |
| |How far religious ethics may be seen as absolutist or relativist | | |
| |How ethical theories may be considered religious | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and | | |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Topic |Details |Done |Revised |
|Abortion; the right to a child of |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
| |The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to abortion |Done |Revised |
| |The concept of personhood as applied to abortion |Done |Revised |
| |D• the right to life as applied to abortion and the |Done |Revised |
| |rights of all those involved | | |
| |The issues of infertility and the right to a child |Done |Revised |
| |The status of the embryo |Done |Revised |
| |Whether a child is a gift or a right |Done |Revised |
| |The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to |Done |Revised |
| |abortion and the right to a child | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and |Done |Revised |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Euthanasia |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding ofsed |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
| |The concept of the ‘Sanctity of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia ails |Done |Revised |
| |The concept of the ‘Quality of Life’ and how it applies to euthanasia |Done |Revised |
| |The right to life as applied to euthanasia |Done |Revised |
| |The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories to euthanasia. |Done |Revised |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and |Done |Revised |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|Genetic engineering |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
| |The ethical questions raised by the different types of genetic engineering to humans, |Done |Revised |
| |animals and plants; human embryo research | | |
| |The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories to genetic |Done |Revised |
| |engineering. | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and |Done |Revised |
| |weaknesses. | | |
|War and peace |Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:ed |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
|Topic | |
| |The principles of ‘Just War’ and its application; |Done |Revised |
| |The theories of ethical and religious pacifism; |Done |Revised |
| |The application and the different approaches of the ethical theories listed above to |Done |Revised |
| |war and peace. | | |
| |Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and |Done |Revised |
| |weaknesses. | | |
Glossary of Technical Terms
|Word |Meaning |
|Absolute | |
|Abortion | |
|Act utilitarianism | |
|Analytic | |
|A priori | |
|A posteriori | |
|Artificial Insemination | |
|Assisted dying | |
|Autonomy | |
|Categorical imperative | |
|Cloning | |
|Conscience | |
|Consequentialism | |
|Cultural relativism | |
|Deontological | |
|Descriptive statement | |
|Divine command theory | |
|Double effect | |
|Duty | |
|Embryo | |
|Empirical knowledge | |
|Euthanasia | |
|Euthyro dilemma | |
|Foetus | |
|Final Cause | |
|Five primary precepts | |
|Genetic engineering | |
|Hedonic calculus | |
|Hedonism | |
|Higher pleasures | |
|Hippocratic oath | |
|Holy war | |
|Hypothetical imperative | |
|In vitro fertilisation | |
|Just war theory | |
|Kingdom of ends | |
|Lower pleasures | |
|Maxims | |
|Pacifism | |
|Personhood | |
|Principle of utility | |
|Prima facie duties | |
|Purpose | |
|Relativism | |
|Rule utilitarianism | |
|Sanctity of life | |
|Secondary precepts | |
|Summun Bonum | |
|Synthetic statement | |
|Teleological | |
|Universalisability | |
Absolutist Theories
Relativist Theories
Evaluate
Natural Law – Strengths and Weaknesses
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|There is no moral confusion – absolutist theory so the action is either right |The inflexibility is unhelpful as there are always exceptions to the rule. |
|or wrong. | |
| |Some dispute the presence of a common natural moral law and whether humans have|
|Natural moral law enables people to establish common rules to structure |a single nature |
|communities | |
| |Humans may have different or changeable natures, as indicated by the different |
|Differing cultures can be seen to have basic principles of preserving life, |sexual orientations in society. |
|continuing the species, education and building society, so natural law seems | |
|reasonable. |Aquinas could be wrong about his primary precepts, his definition of human |
| |purpose. |
|Natural moral law gives guidance on day-to-day questions of how to live and | |
|links them to the fundamental principles of life |Natural moral law is a Christian ethic and yet Jesus’ opposition to legalistic |
| |morality is apparent in the New Testament. Some, such as Joseph Fletcher, |
|It is right to not base moral judgements on consequences. We can never truly be|argues that Jesus rejected that approach. |
|certain of the consequences of our actions – therefore basing moral decisions | |
|on possible consequences is foolish. |Natural moral law may not be as rigid as it first appears, as secondary |
| |precepts may change in some particular aspects. If applied rigidly injustices |
|Natural Law can be accessed by everyone (even if they don’t believe in God) as |arise e.g. no IVF ever? No divorce ever? |
|their reason can lead them to conclude the right course of action. | |
| |We should take consequences into consideration as in reality that is how we |
|It combines faith in God and the use of reason, appreciating that we are |judge others and ourselves. |
|reasonable and can make rational and moral decisions though still from a | |
|Christian perspective. |It might be wrong to base our actions on reason as some people have obviously |
| |more limited practical reason than others. |
|Natural law wants all humans to be fulfilled. This is a positive target. | |
| |The theory is based on the belief that we are naturally inclined to do good. |
|Natural law is not as rigid as it may first seem. The flexibility comes in the |Whereas other Christian beliefs teach we are sinful – therefore following our |
|application of secondary principles. |nature may lead to sin. |
| | |
| |It is wrong to conclude that the world is as God intended and is therefore a |
| |point of reference for what is good as the world is always changing if you |
| |believe in evolution etc. |
| | |
| |The universe may not have a purpose. No purpose then there are no grounds for |
| |right or wrong based on nature. |
Kantian Ethics
Kantian Ethics (Continued)
Kantian Ethics – Strengths and Weaknesses
| |Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Universal Law |By acting according to this principle people are |This principle does not permit lying but sometimes |
| |encouraged to be less selfish. |it may seem tempting to lie - e.g. to a murderer |
| | |about the whereabouts of his potential victim. |
| | |This can be interpreted, as everyone should act the |
| | |same in a given situation. Too inflexible? |
| | |Using the categorical imperative in all situations |
| | |will lead us to making absurd rules into rules of |
| | |nature just because it can be universalised. |
|Treat people as ends |By acting according to this principle the person |This can be interpreted (though Kant would say |
| |accepts freely that they are an autonomous agent |wrongly) as it being wrong to use the services of a |
| |acting according to duty. They are not influenced by|GP or of a hairdresser etc. |
| |any outside agencies (e.g. the Church). | |
|Kingdom of ends |By acting according to this principle the person |Are we all really in possession of reason that makes|
| |accepts freely that they are an autonomous agent |us capable of being completely autonomous moral |
| |acting according to duty. They are not influenced by|agents? |
| |any outside agencies (Church, Authority) . | |
|Other |Every human being is of equal |Gives no place to consequences. They do (and |
| |worth - as every human being |should?) effect our moral decisions. |
| |possesses reason. (Kant also |It is ‘Cold and unattractive’ therefore not |
| |ensures this through the formula of ends) |practical (no emotion etc..) |
| |Demands that everyone is treated with respect. |Some argue that a conflict of duties may arise e.g. |
| |It provides a basis for morality independent of |never lie and always keep a promise at the same |
| |religion. |time- example. |
| |It acknowledges the danger of allowing emotions to |Don’t human beings have prima facie duties (that |
| |determine what is right or wrong. |will come first) e.g. family before strangers? |
| |It champions justice (unlike utilitarianism) as the |Acting out of good will may lead to disaster. |
| |individual is protected even if it doesn’t suit the | |
| |majority to do so! | |
Bentham
Mill
Singer
Utilitarianism – Strengths and Weaknesses
Bentham
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|It is Egalitarian - the moral view that everyone |He implies all forms of pleasure or happiness are equal. (A problem later tackled by mill). Please gained by|
|should be treated equally. No one person’s |sadistic torture is as desirable as pleasure gained by friendship and knowledge according to Bentham. |
|pleasure is more valued than any others. |It is not really possible to know the consequences of our actions – so it is foolish to base our decisions |
|It provides people with a decision making |on assumptions and uncertainties. |
|procedure- how do they know what is right in any |When do the consequences cease to be the consequences of your action? |
|given situation? Seek to maximise happiness. |Motive has no importance in utilitarianism so it doesn’t matter at all why you do something therefore |
|Focuses on the well being of Human beings – |actions that promote happiness are GOOD no matter what! Therefore my motive for my action might be greed or |
|encouraging people to be kind to others |lust but as long as pleasure is the consequence the action is good. |
|It emphasises Happiness – which according to many|Anything is permitted as long as it promotes happiness – even blatantly unjust actions, therefore violating |
|ethicists is common sense. |the principle of Justice. This permits obviously immoral actions such as gang rape and murder if people find|
|It recognises the importance of consequence in |them pleasurable. |
|moral decisions and responsibility |Although he provides the hedonic calculus many would argue that you cannot measure pleasure. |
| |Nothing has intrinsic worth – pleasure makes things acceptable therefore breaking the golden rule from |
| |natural law and Kant that evil may not be done so that good may come. |
Mill
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|It is Egalitarian - the moral view that everyone should be |Is it really possible to know the consequences of our actions? |
|treated equally. |When do the consequences cease to be the consequences of your action? |
|It provides people with a decision making procedure- how do |Motive has no importance in utilitarianism so it doesn’t matter at all why you do something |
|they know what is right in any given situation? Seek to |therefore actions that promote happiness are GOOD no matter what! |
|maximise happiness. |Because of its emphasis on pleasures of the mind Mill’s utilitarianism is often criticised for |
|Focuses on the well being of Human beings – encouraging |being INTELLECTUALLY ELITIST and SNOBBISH. It implies that those who are satisfied with their |
|people to be kind to others |life that is filled with ‘lower pleasures’ are living the life of an animal. according to the |
|It emphasises Happiness – which according to many ethicists |criterion of competent judges they have an ‘infirm character’ |
|is common sense. It recognises the importance of consequence|It is not always easy to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures. Getting drunk may be a |
|in moral decisions and responsibility |lower pleasure but what if my pleasure comes from drinking wine that I have spent years learning |
|Mill attempts to address the problem of Justice evident in |about and share my knowledge with others etc… |
|Bentham’s theory. It is possible to eradicate some of the |Sex may also be considered a lower pleasure but surely sex in a loving, committed relationship is|
|injustices on the grounds that Rules will norm decisions and|a pleasure of the spirit? |
|there is a distinction made between higher and lower |Strong rule utilitarianism is not based on pleasure (or they would break the rule if more |
|pleasures. |pleasure was produced by doing so) therefore what else does it take into consideration? Is it |
|It avoids the time consuming calculations required by the |only part utilitarian and part deontological? Hamilton argues that the rule utilitarian ‘ should |
|hedonic calculus |just admit that he or she cares about things other than happiness’ (Hamilton) |
Singer
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Considering the preferences of people removes some of the |Impossible to know everyone’s preferences. |
|injustices of ACT utilitarianism. | |
| |Preference satisfaction and happiness – there is no difference? Singer himself conceded |
|Majority are satisfied. |this may be the case |
| | |
|Included non human animals. |What about the minority’s preferences. |
| | |
|MANY OF THE ABOVE STRENGTHS APPLY | |
How far is morality dependent on God?
How far are ethical theories religious?
Christian
Ethics – Absolutist or Relativist?
|ABSOLUTIST |RELATIVIST |
| | |
|Natural Law / Catholic Approach – certain actions are always intrinsically |Situation ethics is a relativist Christian theory based only on the principle |
|wrong. |of Love. |
| | |
|Ten Commandments are absolute rules with no exceptions that came from the | |
|mouth of God. |Many Christians argue Jesus had a relativist approach to the Law – he was |
| |prepared to put it aside if the situation required. |
|Those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible emphasis the absolute |e.g. adulterous women / woman at the well Cornfields on the Sabbath. |
|authority of commands in the Bible with no exception. | |
| | |
|The divine command theory emphasises the goodness of God’s commands - this is |Christians that use the Holy Spirit as a guide can be argued to have a |
|an absolutist position as the commands are taken as good without |relativist approach to Ethics as the Holy spirit will guide them relative to |
|interpretation or questioning. |that given situation. |
| | |
|Conscience shouldn’t go against the teaching of the Church if it has been | |
|properly educated so it is not relative as the laws that inform it are |The emphasis on conscience as supreme by the Catholic Church can be seen to |
|absolute. |allow certain rules to be broken according to our own conscience. |
| | |
| |St Paul recognised that if you are guided by the spirit there is no need for |
| |the law. This seems in agreement with a Situation ethics/ holy spirit |
| |approach. |
| | |
| | |
Religious Ethics – Strengths and Weaknesses
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Unchanging – like God |Makes no sense without a (collective?) belief in God – since |
|Based in a being that is perfectly good. |enlightenment people have moved towards rationalist/ reason based |
|Ethics based in society (cultural relativism) lead to no moral |beliefs that now dominate society. ‘Because God said’ is not |
|consensus and has the problem of Chang quote. |enough…. |
|Relativism can quickly become antinomianism if there is no |Problems of the Euthyphro dilemma. |
|foundation but our own perception. |What of other faiths – are they wrong? |
|Emphasis on love (agape) is self giving and non preferential. |There are contradictions in teachings in the Bible and among |
|Rules like Ten Commandments are agreed upon by most reasonable |denomination – unhelpful. |
|secular and religious societies. |Too fixed – natural law. |
|Conscience – allows individuals to make choice in opposition to |Too flexible – situation ethics. |
|rules in carefully considered and individual circumstances. |Falls apart if there is no God |
|Encourages moral responsibility to all human beings who have |Useful only for believers. |
|intrinsic worth as they are made in God’s image. |Emphasis on conscience is relativism / antinomianism – too vague. |
|Encourages us to value all member s of society paying particular |Natural law claims the world id fixed as god intends and therefore |
|attention to those in need – outcast /sick/ oppressed. |everything has a set telos but the world is evolving so this is a |
|Natural Law – available to all through reason and conscience – do |false belief. |
|not have to be Christian just human to know right form wrong. | |
|Individuals are guided by churches / bible/ past wisdom/ saints etc | |
|in moral decision making not alone. | |
|Situation ethics is a flexible Christian ethic. | |
|Natural law is a clear and fixed Christian ethic. | |
|Promotes justice in this life and the next. | |
Sanctity of Life
[pic]
[pic]
Abortion and Right to a Child
Abortion (Continued)
Grounds for Abortion
The Rights of the Foetus
Iss
Euthanasia (Continued)
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Arguments for voluntary euthanasia: |Religious arguments against voluntary euthanasia: |
| |Life is a sacred gift from God, and humans are called upon to preserve it and make |
|Voluntary euthanasia is not murder, as killing humans who don’t want to |it fruitful |
|live isn’t wrong |Killing is forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures |
|It shows mercy to those suffering with intolerable pain from an incurable |For Christians, suffering has a special place in God’s plan, because Jesus died in |
|disease |pain on the Cross, and human suffering can have meaning in the context of a life |
|It gives people autonomy – the right to choose their destiny, including how|lived in faith |
|they live and die | |
|Voluntary euthanasia should be an option for a competent adult who is able |Other arguments against euthanasia: |
|and willing to make such a decision |Motives may be questionable – we may ask in moments of despair, or out of misplaced|
|Euthanasia goes on already, in an uncontrolled and therefore unsafe way |fears of the future |
|It allows human beings to live dignified lives – the ends of their lives |Mistakes could be made through faulty diagnosis |
|should be dignified |The system might be subject to abuse in the case of elderly relatives |
| |Euthanasia might have a negative impact on the community by reducing the importance|
|Evaluating voluntary euthanasia: |of care of patients who are dying, or by preventing people from going to hospital |
|Some argue that there’s no moral difference between the withdrawal of |for fear of the possible consequences |
|treatment and the active killing of a patient by lethal injection |Acceptance of the practice of killing in hospitals could reduce the respect for |
|The theological traditions that underpin the religious arguments have been |life that civilizations uphold |
|challenged, as there are no exceptions for the no-killing rule in the case |There would be flaws in the systems that might regulate the practice. Could they |
|of self-defence and war |ever be foolproof? |
|The consequences of legalised euthanasia are uncertain |We can’t predict the impact that ‘voluntary euthanasia might have on peoples’ |
| |perceptions of hospitals, or how it might affect an elderly person’s perception of |
| |whether she is a burden |
| |The potential social dangers stand against the restrictions of individual autonomy |
| |that result from prohibiting voluntary euthanasia |
[pic]
Right to a Child
[pic]
[pic]
Genetic Engineering
Embryo Research
[pic]
[pic]
Why go to war?
Just War Theory
Just War Theory (Continued)
|Strengths |Problems |
|Just War theory defines the conditions under which violence may be |Allowing war if it is just has ‘opened the floodgates’. It would be better that war was |
|used and it combines the wisdom of thinkers and philosophers from |never morally acceptable at all. |
|many centuries. |Just War theory says that violence is permitted, but morality must always oppose |
|It is a flexible theory, and grows and develops with the times. |deliberate violence. Just war ideas tend to make violence acceptable, rather than |
|Sometimes war is unavoidable and regrettable but the Just war theory|restrain it. |
|forces people to consider moral conduct even in the face of such a |Just War theory is unrealistic, as the strong and powerful will always win. |
|decision – War cannot be a ‘free for all’ where anything is |If God 'requires us to make war' it would be wrong to disobey him, regardless of the |
|permissible. |requirements of the Just War theory. In the Bible God is frequently on the side of those |
|Just War theory recognises the necessity of action against an |waging wars that don't conform to just war theory |
|aggressor. |The conditions are too simplistic and ambiguous to apply in practice. E.g. What counts as|
|Just War theory allows defence of the defenceless. |a just cause? |
|Just War theory does not allow acts of war simply because they are |The overriding aim of war should be to achieve victory as quickly and cheaply as possible|
|thought to be in the interest of one nation. |, if the cause is just, then no restrictions should be placed on achieving it |
|Weapons of mass destruction may change the Just War theory, but we |The rules of conduct of war are mere camouflage because they are always over-ruled by |
|still need to consider their use within a moral framework. |'military necessity'. |
|In spite of difficulties with the individual principles, Just War |Weapons of mass destruction demand a different approach, as they break all the basic |
|theory the remains a universal theory. |rules (proportionality, discrimination). Since these weapons can't be uninvented they |
|It is applicable in religious and secular morality. Versions are |render just war theory pointless |
|accepted by the UN for example. |Terrorists are inherently uninterested in morality, so following any ethical theory of |
| |war handicaps those whom terrorists attack - thus a different approach is needed |
| |Many wars are only considered just in hindsight. |
Pacifism
Pacifism (Continued)
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|It is clear – No war therefore no confusion. |It is irresponsible as a national ethic as it leaves people vulnerable and can |
|Follows the teachings of Jesus which pacifists argue are ignored by the Just |actually allow grave in justices to go unchecked. The pacifists' refusal to |
|War theory. |participate in war does not make them noble idealists, but people who are |
|It promotes the absolute value of human life. |failing to carry out an important moral obligation. |
|It encourages others to change violent behaviour and has worked for example the|The state has a duty to protect its citizens. |
|successes of Ghandi, MLK. |It allows evil (who presumably are not pacifist) to dominate the good (who may |
|True pacifism is not ‘doing nothing’ in the face of violence – it involves |choose pacifism). |
|working for true peace and tackling the causes of conflict. |The world is not perfect and so therefore war is not always wrong (the position|
|It is logical as it does not attempt to rid the world of violence by using |of Christian realism). |
|violence. |Pacifism that will allow violence in some instances (contingent and |
| |preferential) is not pacifism. |
-----------------------
Primary Precepts:
Desired by reasonable people
• Worship God
• Ordered society
• Reproduce
• Educate children
• Preserve life
Secondary Precepts:
Rules that help fulfil the primary precepts.
E.g. Murder is wrong because it breaks ‘preserve life’.
Interior and exterior acts:
Interior act: the intention or motive behind the action.
Exterior act: the act itself.
Both must be good for the act to be good.
Real and apparent goods:
Sometimes we do the wrong thing because we confuse real goods and apparent goods.
Real goods ( unity with God.
We are misguided by sin or by emotions and choose the wrong thing.
The Theory is...
Deontological – concerned with the intrinsic worth of an action and not with the consequences.
Absolutist – actions are always right or wrong with no hesitations or exceptions.
Reason
Aquinas placed emphasis on reason:
“To disparage the dictate of reason is to condemn the command of God”.
Everyone has practical reason. This means I can:
• Know the right thing to do
• Determine the telos.
We can use our reason to know the right thing because we are naturally inclined towards good.
The Telos
Through God given reason I can determine the telos of an action.
E.g. The telos of sex is procreation.
Any action which prevents this telos is wrong, e.g. contraception.
Aristotle and Aquinas:
• Aristotle – the way to be happy is to live a virtuous life (eudaimonia). Aquinas – being virtuous (union with God (the beatific vision).
• Aristotle – virtues include courage and patience. Aquinas added Christian virtues such as love and charity.
• Aristotle – everything has an end/purpose (telos) and an efficient cause (how to achieve the telos). Aquinas – the telos is God’s intention so the right thing is to achieve the telos.
Aquinas and Law
Four types of law:
Eternal law – the mind of God, ‘God’s plan (only partially knowable to humans).
Divine law – the Scriptures. Knowable to reason but to teach us with certainty on matters.
Natural law – how the rational creature participates in the eternal law of God. (Conscience – reasoning and observing nature we can know what is right).
Civil law – put in place to order society – if reasoned properly they will be in keeping with Natural law.
The main exponent of Natural Law is St Thomas Aquinas. He based much of his thinking on the thinking of Aristotle.
Utilitarianism
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
• The classical forms of Utilitarianism from Bentham and Mill;
• The principle of Utility; The differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and of Mill; The Hedonic Calculus, higher and lower pleasures, quantity v. quality, and Act and Rule Utilitarianism; The Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer. Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.
Jeremy Bentham:
• Jeremy Bentham devised the utilitarian theory. Human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain (hedonism) and all humans pursue pleasure, which is good, and seek to avoid pain, which is bad
• The utility principle: the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its ‘utility’, or usefulness
• Usefulness refers to the amount pleasure or happiness caused by the action
• ‘An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’.
• The hedonic calculus: this weighs up pain and pleasure based on intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent
John Stuart Mill:
• The well-being of the individual is of greatest importance, and that happiness is most effectively gained when individuals are free to pursue their own ends, subject to rules that protect the common good of all
• Focused on qualitative pleasures – some pleasures are higher (mind) and others lower (body)
• ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’
Act and rule utilitarianism:
• Act utilitarian’s maintain that the good action is the one that leads to the greatest good in a particular situation
• Act utilitarianism is flexible, being able to take into account individual situations at a given moment
• However, it has the potential to justify virtually any act
• It may be impractical to suggest that we should measure each moral choice every time
• Rule utilitarian’s establish the best overall rule by determining the course of action which, when pursued by the whole community, leads to the greatest result
• Rule utilitarianism overcomes some of the difficulties encountered in act utilitarianism
• However, it may still permit certain practices, such as slavery, that appear to be morally unacceptable, because minority interests are not protected
The Categorical Imperative
The universal law – All moral statements should be general laws, which apply to everyone under and circumstances. There should be no occasion under which an exception is made.
Treat humans as ends in themselves – Kant argues that you should never treat people as a means to some end. People should always be treated as ends in themselves. This promotes equality.
Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends – Kant assumed that all rational agents were able to deduce whether an argument was moral or not through reason alone and so, all rational humans should be able to conclude the same moral laws.
Imperatives
Hypothetical - a command that you obey because of what it will achieve e.g. John must revise in order to pass French
Categorical - a command that is to be obeyed because it is good in itself e.g. Revise!
The Universability Test
1. Find the agent's maxim (a principle from which rules are made)
2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim.
3. Decide whether any contradictions, or irrationalities, arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.
Two types of contradiction:
• Contradiction in Conception (law of nature): the maxim contradicts itself or an existing Law of nature.
• Contradiction in Volition: the maxim can logically be applied, but as a rational human being, it makes no sense to!
Reason, Good will and Duty
Good will – concerned with the interests of others not our own.
Acting out of good will = acting out of duty.
Reason will lead us to know what our duty is, and to do our duty is to do good.
If Kant were asked ‘why must I do my duty’ he would say ‘because it is your duty’.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason goes against the duty principle on the grounds that you are driven by something other than duty. This is immoral as you act hypothetically and fail to realise that duty is good in itself.
Kant teaches that when we are aware moral obligation in the form of a Categorical imperative we have a duty to obey it. –‘ought implies can’
Three postulates of practical reason:
Postulate: a necessary assumption especially as a basis of an argument. E.g. England will always be rubbish at games it invented.
• We can POSTULATE the existence of God and the belief in immortality because despite being inclined towards good and doing one’s duty, this does not always lead to happiness in this world.
• We can POSTULATE our freedom as we are aware of having to make a moral decision and if we were not free to make that decision there would be no decision to make.
• We can POSTULATE that there is an afterlife (immortality) where the Summum Bonum is achieved.
The theory is...
• deontological – concerned with inherent worth of the action.
• absolute – it does not allow any exceptions to it’s rule and can be applied universally.
Reason
• Kant believes that as Human beings we possess innate reason. Reason alone therefore will lead us to solutions to moral dilemmas.
• A priori statements are those that come from reason and not our sense experience. Moral statements are a priori. They are fact and need no verification (or they would be hypothetical imperatives!)
• By emphasising reason alone as the key to moral behaviour Kant emphasises Autonomy – self Law, and no obligation to any outside authority.
• Kant believes that looking to consequences of actions, the person making the decision is in danger of giving in to emotions or ‘inclinations’ and this is never an acceptable position to take.
Four examples:
• Suicide: "...from self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life when its longer duration threatens more troubles than it promises pleasure."
• False promises: "...when I believe myself to be in need of money I shall borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know that this will never happen."
• Wasting talents: “I will neglect the development of my natural talents and instead devote myself to idleness and pleasure.”
• Refusing aid: "...let each be as happy as heaven wills or as he can make himself; I shall take nothing from him nor even envy him; only I do not care to contribute to his welfare or to his assistance in need!"
The Euthyphro Dilemma
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
Ethical theory
The concepts of absolutist and relativist morality;• What it means to call an ethical theory absolutist and objective; What it means to call an ethical theory relativist and subjective:• The terms deontological and teleological. Candidates should be able discuss critically these concepts and their strengths and weaknesses
Absolutists:
• Believe in moral truths that are fixed for all time and people
• Believe that moral actions are right or wrong in themselves, irrespective of circumstance, culture or opinion.
• Deontological thinkers are concerned with acts, not ends.
• ‘Follow the good and avoid evil’ (a saying from the Middle Ages)
Examples of ethical absolutists:
• Plato, believing that goodness itself really exists beyond this world
• St Thomas Aquinas, believing in a fixed divine law.
• F.H. Bradley believing morals are fixed, part of a concrete universe.
Relativists:
• Believes that moral truth varies depending on culture, time, place and religion.
• Believe there is no fixed objective moral reality – or if there is, that it cannot be discovered.
• Believe that morals are subjective – subject to culture, religion, time and place
Examples of ethical relativists:
• Aristotle believed that forms were in the world and therefore not absolute. Differing human circumstances mean we cannot have a general rule of all situations.
• Protagoras: ‘ man is the measure of all things’ (attributed)
• William Graham Sumner: ‘The right way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.’ Sumner was an anthropologist who investigated and appreciated cultural diversity.
• J.L. Mackie: ‘ there are no objective values’- different culture’s ethics are evidence against the existence of moral absolutes, and people participate against the existence of moral absolutes, and people participate in different ways of living, or codes.
Rule Utilitarianism
Rules should be formed using utilitarian principles for the benefit of society. Strong utilitarians believe that these derived rules should never be disobeyed. However, weak utilitarians say that although there should be generally accepted rules or guidelines, they should not always be adhered to indefinitely.
Higher and lower pleasures
Quality is more important than quantity when it came to pleasure. The pleasures of the mind are far superior to the gratification of the body’s desires.
Qualitative
“It is better to be a human being satisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
“Nature has placed mankind under the goverence of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we shall do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”
Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism uses the outcome of an action to asses whether it is right or wrong. Thus, there are no necessary moral rules except one, that we should always seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number in all situations.
Principle of Utility
The greatest good for the greatest number. The most useful course of action if trying to maximise pleasure and minimize pain. In a given situation, one must examine the consequential pain/pleasure resultant for all concerned.
Bentham’s approach is therefore quantitative.
The Hedonic Calculus
Weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It considers several factors:
REMOTENESS – near?
PURITY – free from pain?
RICHNESS –other pleasures?
INTENSITY – powerful?
CERTAINTY – likely?
EXTENT –affect others?
DURATION – long lasting?
The theory is...
Teleological
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.