Philosophy and Ethics
OCR AS 2008 Course Companion
Unit 2: Religious Ethics
Andrew Hill
Contents
Teleological and Deontological Ethics ...................................................................................................... 3
Absolutist and Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Relativist and Subjective ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Moral Relativism ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Cultural Relativism .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Naïve Relativism ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Liberalism ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Thinking About Right and Wrong ............................................................................................................ 6
Minority Report ................................................................................................................................................... 6
There Are Two Approaches to Ethics: ................................................................................................................... 6
The Ring of Gyges ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Key Terms:........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Natural Law ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law ......................................................................................................................... 8
Aquinas’ Five Precepts ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Value and Usefulness of Natural Moral Law .................................................................................................... 10
Kantian Ethics ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Kant and the Categorical Imperative ................................................................................................................ 11
Duty................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Categorical and Hypothetical Imperative ......................................................................................................... 12
Evaluating Kant ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Utilitarianism ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Different Kinds of Utilitarianism ....................................................................................................................... 14
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) ........................................................................................................................... 14
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) ............................................................................................................................ 15
Act Utilitarianism .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Rule Utilitarianism ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism .................................................................................................... 16
Christian Ethics ..................................................................................................................................... 18
The Golden Rule ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Practical Ethics ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Kant ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Natural Moral Law ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Utilitarianism .................................................................................................................................................... 21
Jeremy Bentham ............................................................................................................................................... 21
John Stuart Mill ................................................................................................................................................. 21
Christian Ethics.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Abortion............................................................................................................................................... 22
The Pro-life Argument ....................................................................................................................................... 22
The Pro-Choice Argument ................................................................................................................................. 22
British Law on Abortion..................................................................................................................................... 22
Ectogenesis ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Christian Perspectives on Abortion ................................................................................................................... 23
Natural Moral Law and Abortion ...................................................................................................................... 24
Kant and Abortion ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Utilitarianism and Abortion .............................................................................................................................. 25
Euthanasia ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Arguments for and Against Euthanasia ............................................................................................................ 26
Case Study: Calling Dr. Death ........................................................................................................................... 27
Christian Perspectives on Euthanasia ............................................................................................................... 27
Ethical Theories and Euthanasia ....................................................................................................................... 28
The Right to a Child............................................................................................................................... 30
Surrogacy Issue: Case Study .............................................................................................................................. 30
Christian Perspectives ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Right to A Child and Applied Ethics ................................................................................................................... 31
Genetic Engineering.............................................................................................................................. 33
G.M. Crops ........................................................................................................................................................ 33
Therapeutic Cloning .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Reproductive cloning ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Gene Therapy .................................................................................................................................................... 34
Christian Perspectives on Genetic Engineering ................................................................................................. 35
Kant and Genetic Engineering........................................................................................................................... 35
Utilitarian Perspectives on Genetic Engineering ............................................................................................... 35
Virtue Ethics and Genetic Engineering .............................................................................................................. 35
War and Peace ..................................................................................................................................... 37
The Just War ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
Ethical and Religious Pacifism ........................................................................................................................... 38
Christians and War ........................................................................................................................................... 40
Ethical Theories and War and Peace................................................................................................................. 41
2
Teleological and Deontological Ethics
Is it possible for something to be always right or wrong? Consider the ethical
issues below and give your opinion if it is possible for them to be always right
(moral) or always wrong (immoral).
War
Abortion
Murder
Euthanasia
Animal experimentation
Divorce
Suicide
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethic as it focuses on ends or results rather than something being right or
wrong intrinsically, or by merit of action alone (which is deontological).
A deontologist might say ‘you should never kill, because the act of killing is wrong.’ For a deontologist the
end never justifies the means.
For a teleologist the end justifies the means. A choice that results in a good end is morally better than one
that results in a bad end – for example, if a thief steals to feed a starving family – or a lie conceals a secret
from a spy. Qualities such as love, honesty and kindness are not good in themselves for a teleologist – they
are only good in relation to the results they bring.
Consider torture: A deontologist may argue that torturing prisoners is always wrong no matter what the
situation.
On the other hand a teleologist will wait to look at the consequences of either choosing to torture or not
torture before deciding if it is right or not. For example a prisoner has secrets that, once revealed, will save
the lives of many innocent people. The prison guards know this. The teleologist thinker will maintain that it
is right to go ahead and torture to discover the truth as it will save the lives of many innocents.
Try this One: The American West
Early European settlers of the U.S.A. were in constant danger from the Native Americans. There was once a
‘caravan trail’, which was hiding from the natives. There were 200 people in the caravan trail. One woman
could not get her baby to stop crying and to prevent the Native Americans finding them, she strangled her
child.
Things to do:
1.
2.
3.
What factors would decide whether the woman was right or wrong in doing this?
What would Immanuel Kant think? See below to help you.
How might a teleological ethicist react?
3
?
Absolutist and Objective
An absolutist (or deontologist) thinks about what is the right action intrinsically (of itself), regardless of the
consequences of an action or the variable results that may occur. Absolute ethics are often rule based, or in
Kant’s case ‘test based’. The attempt of this kind of ethics is to remain objective and think about whether
something is moral ‘in itself’ irrespective of the consequences.
For example: For an absolutist to remain objective a rule is needed.
‘You shall not kill.’ This is an absolute command and remains objectively true (true in itself regardless of
the consequences). So if a person has killed someone, then that rule has been broken, irrespective of the
situation’s circumstances. Sometimes, for some absolutists like Immanuel Kant, the intention (or good will)
is just as important as the action. Although he was an absolutist he was concerned with what was right or
wrong intrinsically and this included the good will or intent.
The main weakness with any absolutist or attempt at an objective ethical theory is that they cannot and do
not consider the circumstances involved in deciding what is right or wrong.
Things to do:
Think about and make a list of circumstances where ‘You shall not kill’ may be difficult to apply.
?
Relativist and Subjective
Relativist ethics are concerned with outcomes. Something is either right or wrong in certain circumstances
or situations. Relativist or subjective ethics are concerned with taking into account what has happened to
discern whether something is right or wrong. They are called subjective as personal feelings may be
involved, or because they analyse the end results of an action completely.
The weakness with Relativism is that it sometimes does not question whether something is right or wrong
in itself.
Example:
• For an absolutist it is wrong to lie, and this will always be the case.
• For the relativist, even though the relativist may consider lying wrong, the circumstances may dictate
that this course of action may do the greater good.
?
Things to do
Think about situations where an action may be wrong but there are ‘mitigating circumstances’ that
could be taken into consideration. Make a list and explain what the circumstances are that would need
taking into consideration.
4
Moral Relativism
(With Reference to Fletcher’s Situation Ethics)
Moral relativism is often taken to mean that there can be no moral absolutes. (Remember that the word for a
person who is an ethical absolutist is a deontologist and for an absolutist something is either right or wrong,
there is no middle ground or ethical compromise.)
Protagoras said that: ‘Man is the measure of all things’. This is sometimes taken to mean that there are no
moral absolutes. Values for the moral relativist are therefore personal and subjective opinions. Moral
relativism does not rely on any belief system such as a religion. That does not mean to say that an ethical
relativist is always an atheist. But there are many ethical relativists like Dostoyevsky who claimed that if God
was dead, everything was permitted. He possibly meant that if there are no God given moral absolutes, then
it is up to humans to decide for themselves, subjectively (personally), what is right or wrong.
Cultural Relativism
This means that morals are subject to the culture of the relevant country, religion or culture.
For Example:
In book III of his ‘histories’, Herodotus describes the cultural awareness of King Darius of Syria. Darius asked
the Greeks if they would eat the dead bodies of their parents for payment, but they refused. Darius reminded
them that there was a tribe called the Callatiae that refused to cremate the bodies of their dead because in
their culture it was accepted that eating the dead was the norm, and as such was morally acceptable. It was
instead the practice of cremation that the Callatiae objected to. Herodotus concludes: “custom is king of all“.
Therefore cultural relativism states that right or wrong is determined by the culture that we have been
brought up in. For example, there may have been a tribe in South Africa who sacrificed some of their young
males to the fire god upon their 18th birthday. This culture will not question whether their actions are right or
wrong and will simply perform the actions that are culturally their tradition and therefore something that
they will value. (This example isn’t a real one it is made up to further illustrate the point of what cultural
relativism is.) The point of these examples is that cultural relativism refers to practices that may seem wrong
to certain cultures, but absolutely moral to the cultures to which the practices belong.
Naïve Relativism
This is the ethical system whereby everything is either right or wrong by personal opinion. It is an attempt to
be relative, but without stating any reasons for its ethical view it is an ethical non-starter.
Liberalism
This is a term given to a situation in which everyone respects each other’s moral opinion. Everything is a
matter of moral opinion. On the positive side, this view respects everyone’s right to an opinion in a plural
society. On the negative side, this wouldn’t work as the basis for a society by itself, as there would be too
many moral opinions in play. However, to some extent right or wrong in our society seems to be a consensus,
or collective opinion, and as such may be considered relative. Like all relativist ethics, liberalism negates the
possibility of objective moral truth.
?
Things to do:
1.
2.
Explain moral relativism.
What are the ethical problems which arise from the cultural relativist view? (What issues of right or
wrong could there be?)
i. What is naïve relativism?
ii. What are the strengths and weaknesses of liberalism?
5
Thinking About Right and Wrong
Make a list of actions that you would personally consider to be:
Always right
Always wrong
Sometimes right
Sometimes wrong
Minority Report
Activity
Watch 20 minutes of the film (from the beginning).
1. Is the criminal justice system in the film justified in its use of the ‘Precogs’? Put two
headings for and against this system of justice and list arguments for and against.
2. Is the use of ‘Precogs’ deontological or teleological? You may need to find out what
deontological and teleological mean.
There Are Two Approaches to Ethics:
1.
Descriptive Ethics:
•
2.
Simply describes the way people in different societies actually behave. (Similar to
sociology/psychology.) It doesn’t examine issues of right and wrong.
Normative Ethics:
•
•
•
Examination of issues of right and wrong and how people justify the decisions they make when
faced with situations of moral choice. This is the main ethical study for AS level, although we may
use descriptive ethics to ‘set the scene’.
Does our behaviour follow from reason/principles, or are we socially conditioned?
If we had complete freedom to do what we liked with no fear of consequences would we behave
differently? Here is a link between descriptive and normative ethics – using insights from psychology
to challenge the reasons people give for what they do.
The Ring of Gyges
•
•
•
•
Plato’s ‘Republic’ tells of a shepherd who discovers a ring that would make its bearer invisible. Behaving
‘Like a god among men’ he is able to do whatever he likes without being caught. The question is: ‘Would
there be any difference between a moral and an immoral person given the same ring?’
Is there value in being ‘moral’ irrespective of whether or not you might be caught? Is there value in being
‘moral’ apart from the benefits of doing right? If you had absolute freedom would you still obey moral
principles? (This is a key theme in The Republic – Plato thinks it is better to be moral than immoral.) Give
your opinions:
This introduces us to another major question: Do you judge actions to be right and wrong on the basis
of ‘duty’ or of ‘consequences’?
A good ethical argument has facts and examples at its disposal. However, those facts are only relevant if
they are linked to ethical theory.
6
Key Terms:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Moral: An action is moral if it conforms to the set of values of the person performing the act – or to
the ethical norms which may be personal, religious or professional.
Immoral: An action that goes against a professed set of norms – however, an action may be moral by
one set of values and immoral by another. For example, the unwritten law that one does not grass on
one’s mates at school is considered to be moral by the populous and ‘to be honest’ is to behave
morally as far as society’s moral values in general are concerned.
Amoral: An action is done without reference to moral norms or values, e.g. falling over accidentally
may have painful results but is amoral because the person did not choose to fall.
An action may be seen as moral or immoral depending on circumstances. What may be thought of as
moral for one person may be immoral for another depending on cultural and religious norms.
Ethical theories that are based on rights or duties are termed deontological – in other words actions
are judged good or bad according to rules and principles – if you have a duty to do something it is right
regardless of consequences.
There are theories that depend on the expected results of an action – for example the idea that it is
right to seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarianism). All such theories are
teleological (Greek: Telos means end or purpose.)
Ethical Arguments: These lead from premises – the facts about the particular ethical issue – including
what the law says or what society expects, etc. and also the principles upon which you are going to
base your argument, to a logical ethical conclusion.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What does ‘moral’ mean?
What does ‘immoral’ mean?
What does ‘amoral’ mean?
What is a ‘deontological ethic’?
What is a ‘teleological ethic’?
What are ‘ethical arguments’?
7
Natural Law
What do you think are a human being’s natural instincts?
Origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law
The Natural Law idea started in Aristotle’s idea that everything has a purpose in its design and that
supreme good is to be found in fulfilling that purpose.
Natural Law isn’t based on the natural world as we would observe around us. It is based on nature as
observed by human reason.
Christian morality is based on the Bible and Natural Law or God’s Law. This is because St Thomas Aquinas
believed that morality is created in human beings and divinely ordained by God.
For Example:
“What does the worker gain from his toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made
everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what
God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better than for men to be happy and do
good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink and find satisfaction in his toil – this is the gift of
God. I know that everything God does will endure for ever, nothing can be added to it and nothing taken
from it. God does it so that men will revere him.” Ecclesiastes 3: 9-14
Natural Law is deontological: Everything is either right or wrong in itself. As Ecclesiastes says that God has
set eternity in the hearts of men, Aquinas believes that the natural destiny of humanity is to be reunited
with their creator or God. To do this is to follow the rules or laws of God and not those of humanity.
The law states that good is to be done and all evil is to be avoided.
Through reason humanity could reach God and fulfil its divine purpose to be reunited with God through
Christ. God has created in humans the ability to reason or be rational. To do this, humanity must take the
leap of faith, reason will only guide humanity so far. Ignoring reason is to ignore God’s commandments.
Aquinas’ Five Precepts
•
•
•
•
•
Preserve life
Educate children
Reproduce
Live as part of society
Worship God.
Good acts are those that are judged in accordance with the primary precepts. These good acts are called
the secondary precepts.
8
In accordance with the character of Jesus, Aquinas’ Natural Law is concerned with both the intention of an
act and the act itself. An example of this can be found in the widow’s mite story in the Gospels. Jesus
describes how a woman who gave a mite (a fraction of a penny) gave more than the Pharisees who poured
gold coins into the collection for their own self gratification because both the widow’s action and intention
were right.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is ‘Natural Law’?
What is Christian morality based on?
What does Ecclesiastes 3:9-4 say about ‘eternity’?
What are St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Precepts?
9
Value and Usefulness of Natural Moral Law
Natural law gives clear guidelines on how to behave based on living to please God and loving one’s
neighbour. Love thy neighbour is called the ‘Golden rule’ and would be a good way to exist in society.
Many cultures in the world would agree with Aquinas’ precepts but may not necessarily be Christian and
may have developed these ideas without any knowledge of Aquinas’ work or teachings.
The idea that humans have a fixed nature seems simplistic and goes against modern thinking on the nature
of personal identity and practices (like homosexuality, transsexuality, contraception, cohabitation, etc.)
What is considered be ‘perfectly natural’ for some people today would be contrary to Aquinas’ laws or
precepts as the practices contradict the laws of God, as laid out in the Bible. For example homosexual acts
are condemned in Deuteronomy and 1 Corinthians 6:9
“…nor homosexual offenders …will inherit the Kingdom of God.”
Natural Law cannot take into account the situation or the consequences of actions (since it is Deontological
and based on precepts or laws).
The Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century would apply Aquinas’ precepts in their teaching on things
like marriage and procreation (contraception is forbidden as it goes against Natural Moral Law). Sexual acts
that are not designed for procreation are considered to be ‘deviant’ or against Natural Moral Law.
Aquinas’ Natural Law only really works well when a society reasons or considers what is pleasing to God,
both through actions as well as the intentions behind the actions. Aquinas believed that the conscience or
inner voice was placed there by God and it was wrong to act against this as it was placed there by God the
Creator. However, it is possible, due to sociological factors, that a person could have an inverted sense of
right and wrong based on an immoral upbringing.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the ‘golden rule’?
How is the concept of a ‘fixed nature’ contrary to modern thinking?
Why can’t natural moral law take into account situations?
Which Church would apply natural moral law in the 21st century and to what issues would they
apply it?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Explain Aquinas’ natural law.
1b. ‘Natural Law is a good model of ethics for modern society’. Discuss.
10
(25 marks)
(10 marks)
Kantian Ethics
Kant and the Categorical Imperative
•
•
•
•
Kant’s moral theory was based on principles of ‘pure reason’, rather than on a utilitarian assessment of
the expected results of an action.
He started with a moral ought and aimed:
“To seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality.”
Kant’s starting point with ethics (right or wrong) is with the good will.
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world or even out of it which can be
regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.”
Kant is not starting with anything that can be demonstrated ‘out there’ in the world (either through
anticipated results, or a final cause or purpose), but only with the internal experience of morality – the
fact that a person wants to make a moral choice expressing their ‘good will’.
Duty
Kant considers the important thing for morality is to do your duty. That is a matter of conscious moral
choice and mixed motives will not do. ‘Morality’ for Kant is about consciously deciding to do what is right
irrespective of consequences. (Kant was a deontologist – concerned with whether something is
intrinsically right regardless of consequences or ‘ends’ of moral actions.)
•
He considers that an action can not be called ‘good’ unless it comes as a result of the ‘good will’ of the
person performing it. Therefore even a failed attempt to do something can be considered a good and
right act. On the other hand, to achieve accidentally a useful result with evil intent would not be
considered morally right.
Our aim in acting morally is not necessarily to be happy but to be worthy of being happy. The highest good
– ‘summum bonum’ – for Kant is this joining of virtue and happiness, but for him virtue has to be the
starting point because it is the virtuous person who possesses ‘the good will’ which is necessary for
morality.
Kant thought that to be moral you should do your duty irrespective of consequences or personal
inclinations.
Kant would argue that your actions are irrelevant for morality (or don’t count as moral) if:
• You do something from which you yourself expect to benefit.
• You are motivated by natural interest (selfish motives).
• You act because ordered to do so by someone in authority – obedience may be a virtue but you choice
to obey is not the same as making a decision whether your action is right or wrong.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is Kant’s starting point with ethics?
What does Kant say about ‘duty’?
Explain ‘summum bonum’?
What three things ‘don’t count’ as moral for Kant?
11
Categorical and Hypothetical Imperative
Kant sought an objective criterion for morality, some logical way of determining right and wrong.
Kant has two kinds of moral duty or obligation to act in a certain way:
• Non Moral Duty: is always introduced by the word ‘if’ and refers to very specific times where a certain
situation requires a very specific action. For example, if a salesman thinks, ‘if I give my clients a good
deal then it will be good for trade’, the salesman is being generous not out of moral duty but because
he will benefit. Kant called this a Hypothetical Imperative.
• The Categorical Imperative is the test which determines whether your desire is moral or not, and this
is quite different to the hypothetical imperative.
The naturalistic fallacy is when a person makes the ethical leap between ethical statements and ethical
commands. David Hume made this distinction between making an ethical statement, for example, “Stealing
is wrong”, as a statement in itself, and then making the ‘ethical leap’ to an ethical command saying that
people ought not to steal.
Hume then calls for writers to be careful against such inferences, if they cannot give an explanation of how
the ought-statements are supposed to follow from the is-statements. But how can you derive an “ought”
from an “is”? In other words, given our knowledge of the way the world is, how can we know the way the
world ought to be? This question has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is
usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible. The complete severing of “is” from
“ought” has been given the graphic designation of “Hume’s Guillotine”.
Kant’s moral theory is therefore a way of judging whether an action is in accordance with pure practical
reason – the test he used is called the Categorical Imperative. This is expressed in three formulations:
1.
“So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle of establishing
universal law.”
• Kant seeks to universalise rules – because he wants each person to be free and rational and if
rules are universal, then other people will enjoy the benefit that the person putting forward the
rule is able to claim. (Kant’s Theory of Universalisability in the first formulation of the Categorical
Imperative could take ethical statements such as, “Stealing is wrong,” and then attempt to
universalise the statement inferring that one ought not to steal.)
2.
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.”
• The second form of the Categorical imperative follows on from the first. If I am prepared to
acknowledge that everyone else should be free to make that same moral choice that I now make,
I have to allow that all the others are free autonomous moral agents. So they must be ends rather
than simply means. To treat another person simply as a means to an end that I have chosen is to
deny them the very thing that I am claiming for myself.
3.
“Act as if a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”
• The third form is less often used in outlines of Kant’s work but it follows from the first two. It
proposes that one should only act in a way that is compatible with being a legislator in a kingdom
where everyone is treated as ‘an end’ and ‘not as a means’ – in other words your moral choices
should be compatible with a society of free and autonomous moral agents. The principle upon
which I act should be one that I can, without contradiction, set down as a law in such a society.
12
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
What did Kant seek ethically? (lines 1-2)
What is the ‘hypothetical imperative’?
What is the ‘categorical imperative’?
What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?
What is Kant’s theory of universalilty?
What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?
What does it mean to treat people as ends rather then means?
What is the third formulation of the categorical imperative?
What do you think it means to be a legislating member of the Kingdom of ends?
Evaluating Kant
(In contrast to utilitarianism)
• For utilitarianism you start with ‘the good’ (happiness) and something is right if it maximises this.
• For Kant you decide on grounds of pure practical reason what is right and your duty and you should
follow this irrespective of your inclinations or of the results of your actions.
• For utilitarians the starting point is the welfare and happiness of all.
• For Kant it is the recognition of everyone as free, autonomous moral agents to be treated as an end
and never simply as a means.
Advantages of Kant’s Moral Theory:
•
•
•
Very straightforward, based on reason.
Criteria by which to assess universal principles of morality.
Makes clear that morality is a matter of doing one’s duty not following inclinations.
Disadvantages of Kant’s Moral Theory
•
•
•
It is abstract and general principles may seem far removed from the immediacy of moral situations.
General principles don’t always help where there are choices to be made between options each of
which could be justified.
Motives are seldom pure, people seldom act from pure practical reason (people bring ethical baggage
to ethical situations – personal feelings, values, or religious standards or teachings).
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
How does utilitarianism judge morality?
How does Kant decide what is ‘right’?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Kant’s moral theory?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1.a. Explain Kant’s viewpoint on universal maxims
1b. ‘Kant’s view of universal maxims cannot be defended’. Discuss.
13
(25 marks)
(10 marks)
Utilitarianism
Considering Ethics:
’No Ethical System is perfect.’ Do you agree?
Consider the strengths and weaknesses of deontological and teleological ethics.
(Points for and against each.)
“What then could be more plausible than that the right is to promote the general good –
that our actions and our rules, if we must have rules, are to be decided upon by
determining which of them produces or may be expected to produce the GREATEST
balance of good over evil.” (Frankena 1973)
Different Kinds of Utilitarianism
•
•
•
Act Utilitarianism: Principle of utility must be directly applied to each individual situation.
Rule Utilitarianism: General rules to bring about the greatest good or utility for that community.
Preference Utilitarianism: To take into account the preferences of all concerned in order to maximise
utility (except when those preferences come into direct conflict with the preferences of others). The
right thing to do is to maximise the chances that everyone’s preferences will be satisfied. *(cf. Practical
Ethics… Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryo experimentation, cloning, etc.)
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
The theory of utilitarianism was devised by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham worked on legal reform and wrote
ethical theory.
We can divide his theory into 3 parts:
1. His view on what drives human beings and what goodness and badness is all about.
2. The principle of utility (from the Latin ‘utilis’ meaning useful), which is his moral rule.
3. The hedonic calculus, which is his system for measuring how good or bad a consequence is.
The Motivation of Human Beings
Bentham maintained that human beings were motivated by pleasure and pain and so he can be called a
hedonist (‘hedone’ is Greek for pleasure).
He said:
”Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for
them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.“
Bentham believed that all human beings pursued pleasure and sought to avoid pain. He saw this as a moral
fact, as pleasure and pain identified what we should and shouldn’t do.
Bentham’s utilitarianism is called ‘hedonistic utilitarianism’.
14
The Principle of Utility
•
Once Bentham had established that pleasure and pain are the important qualities for determining
what is moral, he developed the utility principle. The rightness or wrongness of an action is
determined by its utility, or usefulness. Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure or happiness
caused by the action. The theory is known as the ‘greatest happiness principle’, or ‘theory of
usefulness’. When faced with a moral dilemma, Bentham argued that one should choose to act in such
a way that brings about the maximum possible happiness for the most people. However, the possible
consequences of different actions must be measured clearly to establish which option generates the
most pleasure and the least pain.
•
To measure this Bentham proposed the hedonic calculus: this weighs up the pain and pleasure
generated by the available moral actions to find the best option.
It considers several factors:
1. Its intensity.
2. Its duration.
3. Its certainty or uncertainty.
4. Its propinquity or remoteness.
5. Its fecundity (or profile), or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind:
that is, pleasures if it be a pleasure: pains if it be a pain.
6. Its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind: that is,
pains, if it be a pleasure: Pleasures, if it be a pain.
And one other, i.e.
7. Its extent: that is, the number of persons to whom it extends, or who are affected by it.
Consider These Examples:
•
•
Sadistic guards torture a wrongly imprisoned man. What difficulty does this pose for Bentham’s
theory?
Would it make any difference if the prisoner enjoyed sadistic treatment as far as Bentham’s theory is
concerned?
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Mill maintained that the well being of the individual was 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. While Mill accepted the utility principle of the greatest good for the greatest number,
he was concerned about the difficulty raised in the example of the Sadistic guards. If the greatest good for
the greatest number was purely quantitative, based on the quanities of pleasure and pain caused, what
would stop one person’s pleasure from being completely extinguished if the majority gained pleasure from
that act? To address this difficulty… Mill focused on qualitative pleasures: He developed a system of
higher and lower pleasures, preferring the higher pleasures to the lower ones. “It is better to be a human
being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Mill maintained that the pleasures of the mind were higher than those of the body. There is a link between
the two, as to be able to enjoy poetry or art, we need to eat and drink in order to survive. Nevertheless,
Mill clearly believed that to pursue purely bodily pleasures – food, drink, drugs and sex – was not as high an
objective as those that are intellectually demanding. When confronted with a choice between a pleasure of
the body and a pleasure of the mind, that of the mind is preferred.
15
Activity
Consider: Are bodily pleasures lower than intellectual pleasures?
1. Arrange these in qualitative order from higher to lower:
Eating, listening to music, going to the opera, watching a good movie, viewing beautiful
art work, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, spending time with family, spending time
with friends, eating chocolate, reading or hearing poetry, writing songs, playing sport,
achieving fame.
2. What issues does this activity raise for Mill’s utilitarianism?
Act Utilitarianism
Maintains that, whenever possible, the principle of utility must be directly applied to each individual
situation. When faced with a moral choice I must decide what action will lead to the greatest good in that
situation. If I am in a situation where lying will bring the greatest pleasure (as opposed to pain) then I
should lie. Act utilitarianism has the benefit of being flexible; it is able to take into account individual
situations in a given moment, and the actions that it justifies may change. This form of utilitarianism is
more closely associated with Bentham. It can be criticised for the fact that it has the potential to justify any
act, providing the act or result generates the most happiness. A second problem is that it’s impractical to
suggest that we should measure each and every moral choice each time, especially as we may not have all
the information required by the hedonistic calculus.
Rule Utilitarianism
Focuses on general rules that everyone should follow to bring about the greatest good for that community.
Rule utilitarianism establishes the best overall rule by determining the course of action which when
pursued by the whole community leads to the best result. This form of utilitarianism is more closely
associated with John Stuart Mill.
R.M Hare notes a weakness in rule utilitarianism. Suppose a maniac is chasing someone who hides in my
shop. The maniac runs into the shop and asks me where the person is. Our gut feeling would be to lie. A
rule utilitarian would state that I had to be honest, because I am not allowed to break a rule, even if, as in
this instance, the result isn’t the greatest good.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
Strengths:
•
•
•
•
It’s reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain and misery.
(Bentham)
It’s natural to consider the consequences of our actions when deciding what to do.
Utilitarianism offers democratic morality that promotes general happiness and opposes individual
pursuits. (Mill)
It is a commonsense system that doesn’t require special wisdom.
Weaknesses:
•
•
•
•
Utilitarianism relies on knowledge of consequences, but predictions may be mistaken or not apparent
until years into the future.
It is difficult to quantify pleasure (like the person who likes to self harm for example).
The problem of justice: utilitarianism doesn’t set out how that pleasure is distributed.
Utilitarianism remains persuasive due to its practical dimension, which provides organisations with
clear-cut systems for decision-making.
16
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
What is ‘act utilitarianism’?
What is ‘rule utilitarianism’?
What is ‘preference utilitarianism’?
What are the three parts of Jeremy Bentham’s theory?
What did Bentham say motivated human beings?
Explain the ‘hedonic calculus’.
Explain how Bentham’s theory both can and cannot work in the example of the sadistic guards.
What are John Stuart Mill’s ‘qualitative pleasures’?
What does R.M. Hare say about rule utilitarianism?
Give three strengths and three weaknesses of utilitarianism.
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism.
(25 marks)
Plan: You could mention all the different types as well as tell the examiner you are familiar with the
teachings of Bentham and Mill.
1b. ‘Utilitarianism can be applied well to genetic engineering.’ Discuss.
(10 marks)
Plan: You will need to consider genetic engineering, changing the DNA of cells, cloning, use of stem
cells (both personal and embryonic cells) and whether utilitarianism would support genetic
engineering and therefore be a good ethical system to use when considering the morality of genetic
engineering.
17
Christian Ethics
Was Jesus a Deontologist or a Teleologist?
The person of Jesus is a good starting point when it comes to Christian ethics. We will compare, later, the
ethics systems of Kant and Bentham and Mill with the religion of Christianity.
Jesus accepted the 10 Commandments as a Jew. However, he was not an absolutist. For example: healing
on the Sabbath breaks one of these absolute laws.
Exodus 20: 8-11 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your
work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you,
nor your Son or Daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your
gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and the all that is in them, but then
he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
Jesus, taking into account the situation of the crippled woman in Luke 13: 15-16 says to those who criticise
him for healing the woman:
“The Lord answered him. ‘You hypocrite! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from
the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan
has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”
Again in Mark’s Gospel the disciples are criticised for breaking the absolutist rules of the decalogue (10
Commandments) by ‘working’ on the Sabbath by plucking ears of corn whilst in the cornfields. Mark 2: 2327:
“One Sabbath Jesus was going through the cornfields and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick
some ears of corn. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’
He answered, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
In the days of Abiathar the high Priest he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is
lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
Jesus also takes into account the situation in the example of the ‘woman who was caught in adultery’.
John’s Gospel 8: 3-11.
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand
before the group and said to Jesus, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law
Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They were using this question as a
trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him,
he straightened up and said to them, ‘If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her.’ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
18
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with
the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one
condemned you?’ ‘No one Sir.’ She said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared ‘Go now and leave
your life of sin.’”
Jesus here rejects the absolutist approach to the punishment of the woman and adopts a more
compassionate response and considers the situation. The old testament laws were deontological and
therefore absolute when it came to punishment for adultery.
Jesus’ teaching with regard to adultery is given in Matthew 5: 27- 28:
“You have heard that it was said: ‘Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman
lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Jesus fulfils the law of the Old Testament by looking at the intention behind an action, or whether a person
is truly repentant for what they have done, in which case he offers forgiveness.
The Golden Rule
The Jewish laws were full of absolute commands or rules. Jesus said that could be summarised as thus:
“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good
answer he asked him, ‘Of all the commandments which is the most important?”
”The most important one’, answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love
the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and with all your strength. The second is
this ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no greater commandment than this.“
In many ways Jesus’ ethics were a mixture of deontological commands and the law of love, which requires
the ethicist to look at the situation and the intention of the person involved. Jesus respected the torah or
Jewish law, but felt the people were crushed by many impractical religious rules and could not live their
lives easily. He certainly was against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees who were deontologists
and expected the law of the torah to be followed absolutely; no exceptions could be made, even in relation
to the Sabbath and healing and forgiveness of sins. Jesus healed on the Sabbath as he considered that the
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. He also healed the paralysed man by declaring
that his sins were forgiven. This was forbidden by religious law, as God alone could forgive sins. In both
instances Jesus takes into account the needs of individuals and the circumstances. Note that Jesus still
respected the Sabbath, but believed that all too often the rigid religious codes of behaviour made everyday
life and a relationship with God more difficult than it needed to be for the people.
For Joseph Fletcher, in Christian Ethics, the Golden Rule should be observed at all times when considering
ethics. The Golden Rule is, “Love your neighbour as yourself.” So for Joseph Fletcher it is the outcome of the
situation (teleological ethics) that has to be considered to decide whether the Greatest Agape, or love of
one’s neighbour, has been met. A weakness in Fletcher’s Situation Ethics is that it omits the, “Love the Lord
your God with all your heart and soul and mind.” In other words, living to please God, for the Christian. Yes
Jesus looked at the situation to decide on a course of action, like the woman who was caught in adultery, or
the healing of the paralysed man for example. But in no way did Jesus ever act in a way that would be
unacceptable to God.
19
Kant’s ethic of intentionality bears some relation to the ethics of Jesus. For example, for Kant the ‘Good
will’ is all that matters irrespective of consequences. A person must act as if they are treating people as
ends and not as means. Similarly, Jesus looks at the intention behind an action and treats people as ends
rather than means. However, Jesus also takes into account the situation.
Jesus does not look at the greatest good for the greatest number of people like John Stuart Mill’s Rule
Utilitarianism or the amount of happiness produced as a result of certain actions.
In many ways he looks at individual situations. Perhaps Act Utilitarianism is similar to Jesus’ ethics only in
the sense that each individual situation is looked at. Jesus did not negate the law or rules but felt that the
law must not be used as a millstone around people’s necks.
For the Christian there must be Testamental balance between the Old and New Testament. For example, a
study on a modern issue like abortion may be different if one only looked at the teaching of one Testament
or the other. The Old Testament is deontological and the New Testament is a mixture of the deontological
Jewish law and an ethic of intentionality. Rules like the 10 Commandments and the rules of the Pentateuch
were absolute rules. Jesus clearly wanted to update these.
With regard to the Bible it is also inaccurate to quote only a verse in support of a claim to an ethical issue.
One must look at the view of both the Testaments and get an overall view. For example, to quote Ezekiel
23:20 may be shocking in isolation, but in the context of its chapter it makes more sense even if it is still
rude. The same is true of modern, ethical issues.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Was Jesus a deontologist or a teleologist?
How does Jesus break absolute command (of Exodus 20) when he heals on the Sabbath?
How is Jesus a teleologist in Luke 13:15-16?
How were the disciples criticised for breaking absolute commands in Mark 2:23-27?
How is Jesus a teleologist in John 8:3-11?
What is Jesus’ command to the woman caught in adultery?
What is the ‘golden rule’?
What is ‘testamental balance’?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
?
1a. Explain how the ethics of the religion you have studied might be considered to be absolute.
(25 marks)
1b. How far do you think religious theory of ethics is justified?
(10 marks)
20
Practical Ethics
Some very quick summaries of ethical theories that you will need to apply to a number of issues. You will
need to learn these. (For more detail you will need to look back at your notes on ethical theories, or look at
each section of practical ethics where the ethics of each thinker are applied for you.)
Kant
•
•
•
•
•
Kant thought that doing your duty was to achieve the highest good, (summum bonum).
His test to see if something was right or wrong was the categorical imperative. Kant was an absolutist.
The first formulation tests if something can be universalised for all time, for everyone. Something is
therefore either right or wrong.
The second formulation tests if a person’s intentions are pure and treating people as ends rather than
means. In other words it is the intention behind an action that matters.
The third formulation means we should all act as legislating members of the kingdom of ends. In other
words we are all free autonomous moral agents and should act as a society for the good of all.
Natural Moral Law
St Thomas Aquinas thought that morality was inbuilt or created by God. We all desire to worship God,
prolong the species and to be educated.
Utilitarianism
•
•
•
Act Utilitarianism: Principle of utility must be directly applied to each individual situation.
Rule Utilitarianism: General rules to bring about the greatest good or utility for that community.
Preference Utilitarianism: To take into account the preferences of all concerned in order to maximise
utility (except when those preferences come into direct conflict with the preferences of others). The
right thing to do is to maximise the chances that everyone’s preferences will be satisfied.
Jeremy Bentham
Hedonic Calculus: His test to see whether something brought pleasure or pain, or how good or bad a
consequence is based on the pleasure/pain principle.
John Stuart Mill
He focused on the qualitative pleasures (or higher intellectual pleasures), to decide what was the greatest
utility for the greatest number.
Christian Ethics
There are many individual teachings that can be applied to each issue. The golden rule for Christians is to
love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbour as yourself.
Note: There has to be balance between what is acceptable when trying to live to please God and treating
your neighbour in the best way possible.
21
Abortion
Abortion is the premature expulsion of a foetus from the womb or terminating a pregnancy of up to 24
weeks, or up to 30 weeks in special cases, e.g. where the foetus threatens the woman’s life.
1.
2.
3.
In the case of a foetus, when would you personally consider that human life
begins and why do you think this?
Is it a woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?
Stacey is 14 and has become pregnant; what are her options and the
consequences of these?
Often students respond to the issue of abortion by saying: “it is killing a baby”. However, a ‘baby’ has the
status of ‘personhood’ and is protected, normally, by law from the 24th week of gestation onwards, except
in special cases where a foetus’ development is not normal then termination can be after 24 weeks.
There are Two views: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. These are as follows:
The Pro-life Argument
The Pro-Life argument is that a foetus is not simply a potential human but a human being with potential.
Often the argument is that human life starts at conception when the sperm and egg fuse. Choosing to
accept or reject this belief is often the deciding factor for anyone determining their view on abortion or
terminating a pregnancy.
If life starts at conception then the foetus has the status of a human being from that point in time. This
belief also has effects in other medical ethics such as fertility treatment and the issue of discarded embryos
and in any experimentation involving human embryos. Also, the morning-after method of emergency
contraception would be considered unethical as it kills the fertilised egg.
The Pro-Choice Argument
‘Every child is a wanted child.’ Therefore Pro-Choice would argue for a woman’s right to choose what she
does with her own fertility. The issue is over the right of a woman and not the status of the foetus. ProChoice would argue that it would be unethical to carry a foetus full term, if the baby was unwanted or
unloved.
British Law on Abortion
The Abortion Act came into being in 1967. Before this, terminations were carried out illegally and
sometimes with damaging consequences for the woman, as the place they were carried out in was not a
sterile clinic. These illegal abortions were often labelled as ‘back street abortions’ due to the conditions in
which terminations were conducted.
The Abortion Act of 1967 allowed terminations up to 28 weeks, given the approval of two doctors and if
continuing the pregnancy threatened the life or physical or mental health of the mother or existing
children, or if there was substantial risk of the child being handicapped. The upper limit means that after
such time it is ‘viable’ for a child to be born.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1991 reduced the upper limit of an abortion to 24 weeks,
except if the mother’s life or health was in danger or there was a serious risk of foetal handicap. The change
came about due to the development of medical technology that would allow a child to survive from 24
weeks of gestation.
22
Ectogenesis
An idea put forward by Peter Singer and Deane Wells (1990: The Reproductive Revolution) was one of an
artificial womb. The idea was that the issue of a woman continuing the pregnancy could be separated from
the killing of the foetus, since the foetus could simply be transferred to an artificial womb for the
remainder of the gestation. It’s not yet possible to do this but raises important questions with regard to
abortion and the argument does tend to favour the rights of the mother to do what she wants with her
fertility rather than the rights of the foetus. If every child is to be a wanted child, from a Pro-Choice
perspective, the artificial womb wouldn’t satisfy this point of view; although ectogenesis tries to take into
account both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life it may not fully satisfy both perspectives, if it were viable.
Christian Perspectives on Abortion
The key issue is, when does human life begin? Christians believe in the sanctity of human life: Genesis 1:
27.
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them.”
Human life is sacred or special and above all other created life forms; however, the question remains: when
does a human life start?
Conception
Roman Catholics believe this is at conception. Humane Vitae states this. Therefore Abortion is unethical
except in the case of the mother’s life being in danger, for example in the case of an ectopic or tubal
pregnancy. The foetus is conceived in the fallopian tubes and if allowed to develop to full term both mother
and foetus would die. In this case the double effect is allowed: the intention being to save the life of the
mother, not kill the foetus, although if this does happen as a result it is not the primary ethical intention.
The same view is shared by most evangelical Christians or any Christians who believe that human life starts
at conception.
Church of England or Anglican Christians would accept a termination, ethically, in the case of rape, as the
recipient has not intentionally had sexual intercourse and the pregnancy is a forced situation and not one
that had been chosen. This would be the compassionate Christian response borne out of ‘love of neighbour’
(the golden rule).
Most Christians would not support abortion on demand, except if the viewpoint is taken from a Christian
pro-choice perspective, where the focus is on women’s rights and not foetal rights.
Personhood
The Bible does not state that abortion is wrong. Abortion is not mentioned as a subject as such. However, it
does state that: “You shall not Kill” (Exodus 20). The status of the foetus as a person or human depends,
again, on when a human life begins or starts.
Psalm 139: 13-16 mentions the foetus:
“For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I
am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was
not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths
of the Earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your
book before one of them came to be.”
From the perspective of the Psalms an Omniscient God knows human life in the womb and the potential of
that life. Roman Catholics would argue this from a natural moral law perspective.
23
Natural Moral Law and Abortion
For St Thomas Aquinas, actions were intrinsically right or wrong and as such, he was a deontologist. Good is
to be done and evil avoided. The law is revealed in the Bible or scripture, or can be deduced through
reason.
For Aquinas a person must behave in a way that their actions are in accordance with divine will or purpose.
This is deduced though reason.
With regard to the termination of a pregnancy the act itself is in contradiction of his five primary precepts
which define human beings’ purpose:
1. Preserve life: Abortion contradicts this, depending on when it is that human life is thought to begin. If
human life begins at birth, Aquinas’ first precept applies to all abortions.
2. Reproduce: The second precept is against terminations as they are in direct contradiction of this Godgiven law. It is for this reason that Roman Catholics are opposed to abortion and also other practices
such as contraception and masturbation that are sexual acts without the possibility of pregnancy.
3. Educate Children: Again this would be impossible if a foetus were to be terminated at any stage during
gestation.
4. To live in society: The laws of modern society accept abortion as a legal possibility since 1967,
although this is not an act in accordance with the 5th precept and that is to:
5. Worship God: Love of God would dictate the following of divine precepts and would render abortion
immoral.
Kant and Abortion
As a deontologist Kant would be opposed to abortion, based on the Biblical precept of ‘You shall not kill’ in
Exodus 20. Although Kant did not write about abortion we can still apply his thinking to the ethical subject.
According to Kant, the heart of ethics is to consider whether an action is intrinsically good. The fact that we
are moral beings means that we will choose to do good rather than evil. Kant talks about a person doing
their duty despite personal self-interest or feelings.
With regard to abortion we can apply Kant’s Moral Test: the Categorical Imperative which is a
universalising test and for Kant can decide right or wrong for all people for all time.
‘So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle establishing universal law.’
Taking this into account, Kant could not agree to aborting a foetus because this action could not be
universalised, as it would, from the foetal rights perspective, be taking away the potential of human life to
be realised. It is therefore immoral.
In the second version of the imperative, (sometimes called the practical imperative), Kant expresses that
people should not be treated as a means to an end but an end in itself:
‘So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means but always as an end.’
In relation to the second formulation of the categorical imperative, it could be argued that the person
considering abortion is not treating the foetus as an end, as it has the potential to become a fully rational
human being, but the act of abortion as a means to an end. So Kant could argue that abortion is a selfish
action.
24
Utilitarianism and Abortion
Utilitarians would neither argue for or against abortion but argue for the autonomy of the mother to
decide for herself the greatest utility of happiness. Certainly in circumstances such as rape, foetal handicap
and threats to the mother’s life, utilitarians would argue this way:
One could adapt Bentham’s pleasure or pain theory to abortion in the case of rape, concluding that the
emotional pain and unhappiness would not be in the interests of the mother’s own utility or happiness.
Mill and Bentham would extend rights and ethical consideration to the foetus after fourteen days; foetal
rights would be considered and increasingly so as the foetus develops. Given Mill’s emphasis on the higher
pleasures, this right can only be extended to an adult and not to a foetus at any stage of development.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What is ‘personhood’?
What is the ‘Pro-Life’ argument?
What is the ‘Pro-Choice’ argument?
Why are some Pro-Lifers against I.V.F. treatment?
What does U.K. law say on abortion in the 1967 and 1991 Acts?
Explain ‘ectogenesis’:
What are the Christian views on abortion?
The Bible:
Roman Catholic:
Church of England:
8.
9.
10.
11.
How would natural moral law, as an ethical theory, feel about abortion?
Explain how Kant’s ethics are against abortion?
Explain how Bentham and Mill’s ethics apply to abortion.
How would each ethical theory respond to the case study of Stacey, who is pregnant and is 14 years
of age?
Kant
Utilitarianism
Natural moral law
Christian Ethics (Take into account the Bible and different Christian viewpoints.)
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Explain the objections to abortion in the ethics you have studied.
(25 marks)
1b. ‘A foetus is a person and should be protected at all costs.’ Discuss.
(10 marks)
25
Euthanasia
Euthanasia comes from the Greek ‘Eu’ and ‘Thanos’ meaning a ‘good death’.
There are different types of euthanasia:
• Active Euthanasia: This can only be carried out by a doctor. It is illegal in the U.K., as doctors must
swear the Hippocratic Oath, which says that they must prolong life and relieve suffering. The only
doctor to be charged with attempted murder in the case of active euthanasia was in 1992. Dr Nigel Cox
injected his elderly patient Lillian Boyes with a lethal dose of potassium chloride. She was suffering
from acute rheumatoid arthritis and was in a living hell, and she, allegedly, begged Dr Cox to end her
suffering. This is what Dr Cox’s defence argued, that he was not attempting to kill her but to relieve her
suffering. Despite the verdict of Winchester Crown Court, he was given a suspended sentence and the
General Medical Council allowed him to continue his medical practice. He is the only doctor in British
history to be charged with active euthanasia.
• Voluntary Euthanasia: This is where a person makes a personal statement of their wish for their life to
be ended. It is illegal in the UK and even if a person lodges such a request with a law firm, they cannot
act upon it legally in Britain.
• Involuntary Euthanasia: This is where the person’s family will decide the fate of a loved one if they are
unable to make the decision themselves. Cases where there is still brain activity are different from, for
example, a case where a person is in a permanently vegetative state and there is no activity in the
brain (brain death). In such a case the person is technically already dead, according to the law, as the
lungs and heart are kept alive by a machine. When the machine is switched off it is not classed as
murder as the person is already dead. Involuntary euthanasia is illegal in the U.K. Personhood in this
case is linked to brain activity.
• Passive Euthanasia: This is where a person refuses medical treatment prescribed to prolong their life,
or refuses to self medicate. It is legal as the medical profession, ethically, have offered medical help.
Arguments for and Against Euthanasia
For Euthanasia
•
•
•
•
•
•
It can end the life of a terminally ill person.
A person has the right to decide on their own death.
Voluntary euthanasia is not murder as the terminally ill person is already dying.
It is compassionate to allow an easy passage out of life.
Euthanasia maintains a quality of life, allowing for a dignified end.
It could be argued that in the final stages of terminal illness the painkillers, such as morphine, tip the
balance between life and death anyway, even if this ‘double effect’ is not intended to kill but to relieve
suffering. Could this not be extended to voluntary euthanasia?
Against Euthanasia
•
•
•
•
•
Some patients could recover after being ‘written off’ by Doctors. Mistakes do happen and the medical
profession is not infallible.
It makes human life disposable and could open the ‘flood gates’ if legalised.
From a Christian perspective, it is wrong for doctors to ‘play God’. Job 12: 10 states: “Every man’s life
is in his power” and would indicate that only God is the life giver and life taker.
Life is a sacred gift from God and should be preserved.
Motives: Is the person who asks for death fully informed? Will they change their mind? would there be
pressure from family, friends, doctors (if it were legalised)?
26
•
The individual’s right to die must be weighed up against the community that they exist in. (Whether or
not euthanasia is accepted within a society or country may be a case of ‘Cultural Relativism’. In other
words what is right or wrong for one culture or country may be accepted in another.)
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is ‘Active Euthanasia’?
What is ‘Voluntary Euthanasia’?
What is ‘Involuntary Euthanasia’?
What is ‘Passive Euthanasia’?
Choose three of the best arguments for and the best three against, in your opinion, and try to say
why you have chosen them.
Case Study: Calling Dr. Death
In the 1980s Dr. Jack Kevorkian wrote a series of articles outlining his views on euthanasia and assisted
suicide.
Dr Kevorkian assisted in the deaths of over 100 patients in the U.S.A., even though his medical status as a
doctor had been revoked. He gassed patients in a van and the patients operated the switch themselves.
Prior to this, when he was a certified doctor, he had injected patients; when his status was revoked and he
could no longer get the chemicals he started using the van. These patients had acted of their own free will
and were compus mentis (of all their mental, rational faculties). Kevorkian would not act if a person was
unable to make their own rational choice. All the ‘victims’ were dying of various medical conditions.
Kevorkian was sentenced for injecting a patient called Youk, to 10-25 years in prison.
Discussion Point
Do you think Kevorkian was right or wrong for his actions? Try to argue for and against.
Christian Perspectives on Euthanasia
The Bible
•
•
•
•
•
‘You shall not kill’ (Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5) refers to the taking of human life. Euthanasia is the
ending of human life and as such could be classed as murder.
‘God made man in his own image’ (Genesis 1: 27). Human beings are special or sacred because they
have been made by God.
‘Every man’s life is in his power’ (Job 12: 10). Only God has the right to give or take life.
In the cases of suicide in the Bible such as Samson, King Saul and Judas Iscariot, the Bible does not
seem to condemn each case for the taking of their own life. King Saul threw himself on his armour
bearer’s sword on Mount Gilboa, Samson pushed the pillars apart on the temple of Dagon, killing the
Philistines within, and Judas either hung himself or threw himself on a fire (depending on whether you
are reading the Gospels or Acts).
These cases could only be used with reference to assisted suicide and not active euthanasia; however
the issue of the taking of human life remains.
27
Roman Catholic
The teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas on natural moral law could be applied to euthanasia. A person would
not be able to worship God, be educated or to prolong the species if their life were to be ended. If a slight
increase in dosage kills the person, for Catholics the double effect would be morally viable, as the intention
is not to kill but to relieve a person’s suffering. The important thing to remember is that the dosage could
not be sufficient enough in itself to kill the person. For the Catholic, human life is sacred, sacrosanct and
holy and cannot be taken away by a doctor or nurse in the case of euthanasia.
Church of England
Opinion may be varied within membership of the Church of England. Many members may take the Biblical
view against euthanasia, others may agree with the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas in natural moral law.
Some Church of England members may be in agreement with the proposal to legalise voluntary euthanasia
and could be members of V.E.S. (the Voluntary Euthanasia Society).
Other Christians
Many Evangelical Protestant Christians may take the Biblical line against euthanasia as it is against the
teachings of the Bible.
Other Christians could argue that in the late stages of a terminal illness, it could be seen as compassionate
to end unnecessary suffering.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What does the Bible teach that could be applied to euthanasia?
What do Roman Catholics think about euthanasia?
What do Church Of England Christians think about euthanasia?
What do Evangelical Christians think about euthanasia?
What do ‘other Christians’ think about euthanasia?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Explain what religious believers mean by the sanctity of life.
(25 marks)
1b. ‘The idea of the sanctity of life is not useful in understanding the issues surrounding Euthanasia.’
Discuss.
(10 marks)
Ethical Theories and Euthanasia
Fletcher’s Situation Ethics
Although the Bible emphasises the sacredness of human life, as being made in the image of God, Joseph
Fletcher argues from a Liberal Christian perspective. He argues in his ethical theory that the greatest Agape
or love of one’s neighbour is shown to result in certain situations.
In the context of euthanasia or assisted suicide he would argue that the greatest Christian compassion
should be shown to the sufferers in the final stages of terminal illness as well as the greatest Agape for the
family, who are also suffering. In this sense, situation ethics seems to support active, voluntary and
involuntary euthanasia, as it shows the greatest Christian compassion in the circumstances.
28
Kant and Euthanasia
Given Kant’s ethical theory in the case of euthanasia, the main question that we need to ask is:
‘Can the practice of Active Euthanasia be universalised for everyone and for all time?’
The main thought here is that Kant is an absolutist and would argue that to kill is wrong. It will always be
and has always been wrong, regardless of circumstances and this will never change.
Take also the idea of duty. If a Doctor is to do his moral duty, Kant would argue that according to the
Hippocratic oath, this is to cure or alleviate pain, not to kill. Only if a Doctor or medical practitioner does
their duty would summum bonum or the ‘greatest happiness’ occur.
Natural Moral Law and Euthanasia
Natural moral law, as set out by St. Thomas Aquinas, tends to be opposed to active euthanasia, as, like
abortion, someone can’t worship God, procreate or be educated if their lifespan were to be cut short by a
doctor. This would violate the natural moral law that God has created in human beings.
Utilitarian Perspectives on Euthanasia
Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus can be used to sanction euthanasia (the pleasure/pain test). The
pain suffered by a terminal patient is extreme and intense and there is no chance of balancing pleasure.
John Stuart Mill might argue that the higher pleasures such as the right to die with dignity and autonomy
might qualify a patient for the right to die. The main issue is whether that means that the greater good is
met. The greater good, i.e. the patient’s best interests, could be difficult to determine and mistakes could
be made if a utilitarian perspective were applied, particularly in the case of involuntary euthanasia, where
the family decide.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
How would Fletcher’s situation ethics respond to euthanasia?
How would Kant respond to euthanasia?
What would St Thomas Aquinas, (in natural moral law), respond to euthanasia?
How would utilitarianism respond to euthanasia?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Explain a relativist approach to euthanasia.
(25 marks)
Plan: Any relativist ethical theories could be used: Fletcher, utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill.
1b. ‘An Absolutist approach is the best way to approach medical ethics.’ Discuss.
(10 marks)
Plan: This question requires you to debate the issue, agree or disagree with the quote and clearly
explain you viewpoint backed up with ethical theory, show counter arguments and conclude.
29
The Right to a Child
Does everyone have the right to have a child? Jot down your own arguments for
and against to discuss.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that men and
women of the right age have the right to marry and found a family. This article
could imply the right to a child. But article 16 could be ambiguous in many ways.
Does this mean that a couple need to be married to have a child? Be heterosexual?
Need to be competent parents? Have the right to have a child by any means
including fertility treatment? Write down your views, for and against these
issues.
Surrogacy Issue: Case Study
Erin wants a baby but the I.V.F. treatments have failed. Her sister Diane has volunteered to have the baby
though I.V.F. for her and the eggs are Erin’s and the sperm her partner’s. No intercourse is involved.
Discussion Point
Think of arguments for and against this case study.
Christian Perspectives
As far as fertility is concerned the Biblical view seems to be that fertility is seen as either a reward or a
punishment from God.
For example, Hannah in 1 Samuel 1: 6 is made infertile as a punishment: “And because the Lord had closed
her womb.” Later in Chapter 1 of 1 Samuel Hannah does conceive and this is seen as a blessing from God.
Michel, King David’s wife, is similarly punished for mocking him as he dances in front of the Ark of the
Covenant as it is returned to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6:21-23:
“David said to Michel, ‘It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his
house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel – I will celebrate before the Lord. I will
become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls
you spoke of, I will be held in honour.’ And Michel daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.”
In the New Testament, Elizabeth is rewarded in her old age with a son, John the Baptist, who is Jesus’
cousin.
Discussion Point
Does everyone have a right to have children and if there is a right, where does such authority
come from?
In the Bible there is a command to ‘Go forth and multiply.’ Does this denote that everyone has the right to a
child? What if someone cannot have children, do they have the right to adopt or to care for other children
in a fostering capacity?
30
Surely not everyone will be the greatest parent on Earth but does this mean that anyone has the right to
stop them from having children? Such extreme arguments may lead to sterilization, an action taken by the
S.S. on Holocaust victims.
Discussion Point
Does Chinese society have the right to ensure that its citizens only have one child? Argue both
for and against.
If a couple cannot conceive naturally, the NHS could provide them with a course of I.V.F. treatment. Is this
because everyone has the ‘right’ to a child?
Many Christians are against fertility treatment as it is unnatural and against natural moral law.
Right to A Child and Applied Ethics
Natural Moral Law
St Thomas Aquinas did say that human beings have an intrinsic morality. The desire to worship God, be
educated and to reproduce.
However, Catholic Christians are against I.V.F as this is unnatural reproduction. It also, for many Christians,
raises the issue of the discarding of unwanted embryos if more than one embryo develops. Many Christians
would be opposed to this as they believe that a person begins at conception (same issue as abortion for
them).
I.V.F. raises other parental issues as the egg or sperm may be given by, safeguarded, anonymous donors
and the child will never know at least one of the natural parents.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the Bible’s perspective on fertility? Give two examples to explain your thinking.
What does natural moral law say about reproduction?
Why are Roman Catholic Christians opposed to I.V.F. treatment?
What other ethical issues are raised by I.V.F.?
Kant and the Right to a Child
The main issue for the application of Kant’s theory of universality to the right to a child is: ‘what action or
ethical intent is one trying to universalise?’
In the Categorical Imperative Kant states that one should act as though the maxim of your will can at the
same time be made into universal law.
In other words, what action can be intrinsically right or wrong not just for one person but for all and for all
time? As far as the right to a child is concerned it would be impossible to apply Kant to a particular
circumstance because, as a deontologist, he looks only at the ethical intentions, not the circumstances or
situation.
A good question one could ask is: what is the intention behind the desire for a child? Is it to fulfil the selfish
desire to ‘have a child’ simply because other people have them? If this were the case then Kant would
argue that the perpetrators of the action were not acting as legislating members of the kingdom of ends
and were treating the child as a means and not an end in itself. In other words, the intention should be to
have a child to love, bring up responsibly and care for completely, thinking of the child’s best interests, not
simply as a means to fulfil a desire.
31
Fletcher’s Situation Ethics and the Right to a Child
With Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics the main question with the right to a child is: ‘is the greatest Agape
met given the circumstances?’
The main ethical issue is: is the AGAPE (or love) for the needs of a parent or the needs of the desired child,
or both? A child is not simply an object of desire, even if the child does meet the most desperate needs of a
parent or parents to have a child. The Christian compassionate response would be to show compassion
towards the parents who are desperate to have children.
The main weakness in Fletcher’s ethics in this case is that the question of whether it is ethical for certain
parents to have children is not assessed, despite the Christian compassion shown. On the other hand, it
would not be compassionate for a child to be born into an unwanted or abusive situation; in this case you
could argue that the greatest Agape would not be met and that there is greater Agape in a situation where
the child is wanted.
Utilitarianism and the Right to a Child
As far as Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian perspectives are concerned one could consider the hedonic calculus
and apply it to the right to a child.
The pleasure/pain principle must be applied to both parents and child. In an ideal world the pleasure, (and
therefore right action), would be for elated parents at the conception and birth of a child, given that the
child was wanted for the right reasons.
The pleasure may only bring happiness if it involves the natural parents and child through natural or
assisted fertility methods. The same may not be true if there are anonymous donors or if the situation
involves surrogacy and the surrogate parent finds misery in handing over a child once the mother has
bonded with the infant.
For John Stuart Mill, the interests of the parents and their happiness at the conception of a child may fulfil
his preference for higher pleasure where the child has been conceived naturally, or through I.V.F. or
surrogacy. Conception through surrogacy would only lead to happiness when the greatest utility is met for
the most people. In the case of surrogacy, it could be that more people do not gain the greatest utility.
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes Taking
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What is the main issue for Kant’s universality and the right to a child?
Why is it difficult to apply the first formulation of the categorical imperative?
What are the key issues for Kant’s 2nd and 3rd formulation of the imperative, when considering the
right to a child?
What is Joseph Fletcher’s key question when applied to the right to a child?
How could Bentham’s ideas be applied to the right to a child?
How could John Stuart Mill’s ideas be applied to the right to a child?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Explain an absolutist approach to the right to a child.
(25 marks)
Plan: You could use St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant.)
1b. ‘It is everyone’s right to have a child.’ Discuss.
(10 marks)
Plan: Agree/Disagree. Look at opposing points of view. You may use ethical theories that are your
point of view or the opposite. Then conclude your argument.
32
Genetic Engineering
Genetic Engineering is a wide area of ethics that involves changing the genetic code by artificial means.
What are your views on the following?
1. Genetically modified crops.
2. Cloning: Therapeutic cloning, human cloning and animal cloning and
cloning human organs through reproductive cloning.
3. Gene Therapy.
G.M. Crops
This is where the crops are genetically modified to produce a greater yield or to withstand harsher
environments. G.M. crops could be used to help feed people in the developing world. Some people may
argue that this is meddling with God’s creation and that we do not know what the long-term health effects
would be from consuming G.M. crops.
Therapeutic Cloning
In this method of cloning, stem cells are created by taking the nucleus of a cell from a patient and putting it
into a human egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The egg is then made to divide and then
taken apart and the stem cells removed. They can then be programmed to form any tissue cells that are
required.
This would work better than the donation of organs as the DNA is the same and there is less chance of
rejection than with organ transplantation.
Reproductive cloning
The process is the same as above but the embryo is allowed to develop. The cloned person could provide
full bodily organs, blood and tissues and could be of use to cancer sufferers, where the cells have gone
‘rogue’, or in the case of accidents. Also, it could replace a person killed prematurely or be used as a
solution to the problem of childlessness. One of the main issues with the full cloning of humans is the risk
of mutation. A sheep called ‘Dolly’ was successfully cloned but she died later of massive internal organ
failure and sheep D.N.A. is far less complex than human D.N.A., therefore cloning humans could be
disastrous.
The Island
Activity
Watch the film The Island (starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson). Then discuss the
following points:
1. What is “The Island”?
2. What really happens to the clones?
3. What are the ethical implications of the film?
4. Is this type of cloning ethical?
33
Gene Therapy
This is used to treat genetic abnormalities at the pre-embryo stage of development. Negative therapy is
the removal of genetic defects (such as the gene that causes cystic fibrosis, for example).
Positive Therapy
This is the improvement of an embryo’s genes according to gender, skin colour and so on.
Germline Gene Therapy
This altering of the human gene would eradicate genetic defects for humans and their offspring for future
generations. This is because it alters the DNA encoding that would cause the original defects in the embryo
and this would then be encoded into the DNA of every cell. Therefore these defects would not be passed
on to future generations.
One reaction has been to say that is it unlikely ever to happen. It might require dangerous and unethical
experiments on human beings. Indeed it is illegal in the UK under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Act 1990. From a utilitarian point of view, the eradication of a genetic disease, if this was desired, could
better and more cheaply be achieved by the means of therapeutic abortion of affected embryos or
foetuses. This poses as many moral problems as it would solve, because it dismisses the views of those who
think that termination of pregnancy under such circumstances would be wrong, or others who consider
that abortion has already become far to permissive.
Also it is considered dangerous, as mutations could result from tampering with the genetic code. No one
really understands what the long term effects will be, for the next and forthcoming generations, as well as
for the embryo, which would need to be destroyed if the germline therapy was to go wrong.
Somatic Gene Therapy
In somatic cell gene therapy, the gene is used only in somatic cells, especially in certain tissues that are
critical for a person’s recovery from a disease or to defeat terminal illness. The introduced gene relieves or
eliminates symptoms of the disorder, but this effect is not heritable as it does not involve germline. At
present, somatic cell therapy is the only feasible option, and clinical trials addressing a variety of conditions
have already begun. For example, the introduction of stem cells to cure certain types of Leukaemia is
presently undergoing clinical trials in the UK. Human cells are reprogrammed to grow as healthy white
blood cells and not Leukaemia cells that attack the body, as well as invaders to the body such as bacteria.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are ‘G.M. Crops’?
What is ‘therapeutic cloning’?
What is ‘reproductive cloning’?
What are negative/positive and germline therapy?
34
Christian Perspectives on Genetic Engineering
Christians believe that humans were created in the image of God (Imago Dei) as described in Genesis 1: 27:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them.”
For Christians, human life is sacred and since humans were created by God they should not be tampered
with. This would be considered by many Christians as blasphemous, as humans were created perfect.
On the other hand, other Christians might accept certain types of genetic engineering if they assist human
life, prolong life and relieve the suffering that many types of genetic diseases or conditions might cause,
provided these can be solved by therapeutic cloning.
Natural Moral Law would say that any tampering with the embryo is wrong, as it is not natural
reproduction, particularly in the case where gene therapy is involved (see gene therapy). St. Thomas
Aquinas was a Christian and would also be against any tampering with the embryo. Natural Moral Law is an
absolutist form of ethics as it is rule based.
As far as using embryo research to assist with genetic engineering is concerned, this will be acceptable or
unacceptable to Christians (or anyone else) depending on when they personally believe human life begins
and becomes ‘a person’ (look back at abortion for ‘personhood’). Many Christians will reject the notion that
the embryo only becomes ‘sentient’ after 14 days of conception and would argue that it is a living being
from ‘conception’.
Kant and Genetic Engineering
In the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (or Kant’s test to see if an action was moral or
immoral), Kant talks about treating humanity always as an ‘end’ and never as a ‘means’. In the case of
genetic engineering the foetus is treated as a commodity, as means and not as an end.
Kant may not rule out negative gene therapy as it could be universalised because all people may wish to
live with fewer disabilities and it could be argued that it is a parent’s duty to give a child the best possible
start in life; as such a parent would be thinking of the child as the end and not treating the embryo as a
means, unless there is a selfish motive involved in the desperate quest for the perfect baby.
Negative gene therapy is the removal of genetic defects. Kant may accept this if the person is being treated
as an end to a defect in themselves and not, as in the case with positive gene therapy, such as ‘designer
babies’, where the selfish motives of others are the driving force in the decision making process. Kant could
also argue that negative gene therapy poses the danger of creating a master race and an underclass of subhumans who do not have the same rights as others and as such it would not be an ethical intention to
universalise for all people.
Utilitarian Perspectives on Genetic Engineering
The potential hedonic gains for Bentham’s formulation of utilitarianism are considerable as they could
prevent the pain of many people as long as the use of the embryo is before the point of sentience (fourteen
days).
For John Stuart Mill the story is slightly different as far as genetic engineering is concerned. His concerns
would lie with germline therapy and the possible negative effects of genetic tampering on future
generations. Would the greater utility for all be met as far the higher pleasures are concerned? Or would
germline therapy create a disaster of nightmare proportions in which massive defects were produced in
future humans? Both Bentham and Mill would object to this terrible scenario, because of the pain caused
and in Mill’s case because of the lack of ‘higher pleasures’ or higher rational pleasures if genetic tampering
resulted in mutations.
Virtue Ethics and Genetic Engineering
Does genetic engineering lead to a flourishing society? Is genetic engineering used unselfishly or for the
profit of companies who would make billions out of an industry that would solve many genetic defects and
find cures for many terminal illnesses?
35
Discussion Point
1.
2.
Aquinas argued that the basic theological value is love, but who benefits?
Is the treatment for all and will it produce equally valued members of society?
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
What would Christians say about genetic engineering?
How would natural moral law respond to genetic engineering?
How do some Christians feel about embryo research?
How would the 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative be applied to genetic engineering?
What kind of gene therapy would Kant, perhaps, not rule out and why?
How would Bentham respond to genetic engineering?
How would Mill respond to germline therapy?
What question does genetic engineering raise for virtue ethics?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
1a. Explain how a follower of natural moral law might respond to genetic engineering.
1b. Genetic engineering is wrong as it is ‘playing God’’. Discuss.
36
(25 marks)
(10 marks)
War and Peace
When would you personally consider it to be fair and right to engage in warfare
with another country? (Explain your reasons fully to discuss with others in your
group.)
Is it always wrong to kill and are there circumstances in your view when you
would consider killing to be unavoidable?
The Just War
Key Words
Just War: a war which is moral (or right) to fight.
Pacifism: The belief that peaceful methods of resolving issues are better than resorting to using violence.
The Conditions or Principles of the Just War
St Thomas Aquinas set out the first three principles; a further two were added later as the nature of war
changed or developed.
• The war must be started or controlled by the proper authority (a ruler or government for example).
• There must be a just cause or very good reason for going to war.
• The war must be to promote good and avoid evil, peace and justice must be restored after the war is
over.
Two Later Conditions Were Added
•
•
The war must be the last resort. All other possible means of resolution must have been tried.
There must be proportionality in the way the war is fought: innocent civilians cannot be harmed as
they are non-combatants in the war.
Activity
For the following wars, try to say if the wars are moral given the conditions of a just war.
War 1: The First World War: Arch Duke Ferdinand is assassinated in Sarajevo; this spiralled into a world war
involving Germany, Britain, Russia, USA and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
War 2: World War 2 In Europe: Britain guarantees Poland’s western border against Germany in 1925 at a
treaty called Locorno. In 1939 Germany invades Poland. Prior to this Neville Chamberlain (Prime Minister of
Britain) had attempted to secure peace with Hitler in meetings in Munich and Berchtesgarten. Chamberlain
declared: “Peace in our time”. Hitler ignored these treaties and invaded Poland. Britain gave Hitler every
chance to withdraw troops and presented an ultimatum. This was ignored and Britain went to war. Both
Germany and Britain ‘blanket bombed’ cities (there was no target). Germany used the V1 and V2 rockets
against Britain. Cities were the targets.
War 2: World War 2 – Europe and the Far East
In 1941 Pearl Harbour is bombed and America declared war with Japan as well as involvement in the war in
Europe. To force Japan to surrender two atomic weapons were detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
37
War 3: The Vietnam War:
The USA fights against the North Vietnamese army (Vietcong) to prevent the spread of communism from
the north (A theory called the ‘domino effect’). Napalm was used to blanket sections of jungle as the enemy
could be anywhere. In the case of MyLai, hundreds of villagers were lined up and shot because intelligence
had suggested that there were Vietcong in the village.
War 4: The Falklands War:
Britain goes to war against Argentina in 1982 to win back British territory from the Argentinians who
believe they have claim to the islands in the South Atlantic that once belonged to Argentina (The Malvinas
Islands).
War 5: The Gulf War 1991:
Britain and America go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Ecomonic sanctions have not worked and the war
is sanctioned by the United Nations.
War 6: The Invasion of Iraq 2003
Britain and the USA believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is capable of destroying cities
within 45 minutes. The U.N. does not sanction the war and no weapons of mass destruction were found.
The dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussain, was removed from power and later executed. Many civilians were
harmed in the taking of Baghdad due to the ‘Shock and Awe’ tactics used. Peace is still unstable and the
allied forces remain in Iraq to try to establish security and government. Many civilians are killed by suicide
bombers.
Ethical and Religious Pacifism
Types of Pacifism:
Ethical Pacifism: Those who believe that violent methods of resolving conflict are wrong on humanitarian
grounds. For example a person could be an atheist and still believe that human beings have the right to life
and a right to live in a world where violence and bloodshed should not be used to resolve differences
between people.
During a war many pacifists refuse to fight, in terms of active duty, but would serve for example in the Red
Cross corps or drive ambulances or simply be with the troops and minister to them as many Priests did in
World War 2.
Absolute Pacifism
An absolute pacifist believes that it is never right to take part in a war even in self defence. They believe
that the value of human life is so high that absolutely nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. Often
absolute pacifists will logically argue that violence always leads to worse consequences than non violence.
Question: How would an absolute pacifist respond to seeing an innocent person being attacked and
possibly killed? For example: Imagine you are at Mylai during the Vietnam War and hundreds are being
lined up and shot for no reason. How would an absolute pacifist respond? Do you think this ethical position
is tenable?
Conditional Pacifism
Conditional pacifists are against war and violence in principle but may accept that there may be
circumstances where war will be less evil than the alternative. For example, many Christians who saw
active duty during World War 2 believed that they were fighting against a moral evil – fascism – and that if
Hitler were allowed to take control of Britain, our freedoms, including religious freedom would be denied.
38
Discussion Point
What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of conditional pacifism?
Selective Pacifism
Other pacifists believe that it is a matter of degree and only oppose wars involving weapons of mass
destruction, like nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. They oppose such wars as they present no chance
of a victory or are not ‘winnable wars’.
Active Pacifism
These are pacifists who are actively involved in politics to promote peace and to urge against certain wars.
Some Arguments For and Against Pacifism:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pacifism cannot be a national policy, particularly when the security of a nation and the rights therein
are under threat by a hostile power.
In the case of the work of the United Nations, it aims to seek non violent solutions between nations,
although sometimes it will accept more force is required to maintain peace.
A pacifist might be less likely to provoke war when war is unnecessary.
Pacifism has no place in the face of extreme evil that would strip citizens of their dignity, their lives and
their rights.
It could be argued that a pacifist may be likely to try to resolve conflicts peacefully
Most societies regard going to war, if called to do so, as part of being a citizen and therefore will
remember the fallen and extend to them honour, respect and gratitude for their sacrifice.
A pacifist remains true to the intensions and teachings of Jesus if they are Christian.
Many absolute pacifists were labelled cowards or “conshies” (Conscientious Objectors) and were
imprisoned for refusing to fight or play their part for their country.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
What is ‘selective pacifism’?
What is ‘absolute pacifism’?
What are the arguments for and the arguments against pacifism?
Religious Pacifism
Religious pacifism is based upon the belief systems of a religious tradition. In Christianity there are clear
guidelines in the teachings of the New Testament regarding warfare. For example:
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5: 9)
“You shall not murder” (Exodus 20: 13)
“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high Priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear.
(The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away!” (John 18:11)
The Gethsemane arrest of Jesus is also in Matthew 26: 52: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to
him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
“You have heard it was said, ‘Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil
person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5: 38- 39)
These passages would suggest that Christians should be pacifists. They seem to indicate firmly that
Christians should resist evil but peacefully only, which concurs with absolute pacifism.
39
The Old Testament’s view of war is different from that of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, when
the Hebrews settled back in Canaan they took the land by force. For example, Joshua 6 describes the taking
of the city of Jericho and only Rahab the prostitute and her family are spared for helping Joshua.
In 1 Samuel 15: 3 the instruction is given to King Saul to destroy utterly the Amalekites:
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put
to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
The Old Testament view of God is of a righteous God and the people of Israel are fighting a holy war with
God on their side. Therefore the use of violence, if only based on the Old Testament, would be justified
today. However, a Christian would look at the view of both Testaments and see the Biblical picture or view
of the New Testament with regard to violence or war is very different, as indicated in the passages from the
Gospels.
Christians and War
Christians, like the Society of Friends (or ‘Quakers’) during World War 2 were absolute about pacifism,
refused to take any part in the war effort and were labelled Conscientious Objectors. Their objection to the
use of violence was based absolutely on the teachings of Jesus on violence in the Gospels.
Other Christians who may be against violence and war in principle may take part in a war for the greater
good of all, especially when it is to defeat evil and to preserve religious freedom or rights in the face of evil.
Many Christians resisted the evil of Nazism or Fascism and played an active part in the Second World War,
despite believing that violence is wrong. These Christians are conditional pacisfists. In the same way that
Jesus threw out the Temple Traders using force as he believed what they were doing was wrong, these
Christians believe in resisting evil and standing up for what is right.
Other Christians refused to kill and fight but played an active role in the war effort such as working in
armaments factories, ambulence corps, serving with the troops as priests or the Red Cross. These Christians
are active pacifists.
Some Christians may only be against wars involving weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons. These Christians are selective pacifists.
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is ‘religious pacifism’?
Recall three Bible passages, from the New Testament, that could be linked to a belief in pacifism.
What is the Old Testament’s view on war?
Why do you think some Christians decided to fight in World War II?
How might others have played their part without resorting to violence?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
a.
b.
Explain how religious teachings might be applied to the issue of war and peace.
‘A religious believer could not take part in a war.’ Discuss.
40
(25 marks)
(10 marks)
Ethical Theories and War and Peace
Kantian Ethics on War and Peace
Kant was a deonologist (an absolutist) and as such it would be easier to apply absolute principles against
war and in favour of pacifism, based on the teachings or principles in the Gospels, or the absolute
commands of the Old Testament such as ‘you shall not murder.’
Kant could on the other hand support taking part in a war effort if this was considered doing one’s duty to a
country or leader. We are rational and moral beings and it would be up to our conscience to do what we
thought was right. The problem with this idea, as far as Kant is concerned, is that different cultures have
different ideas as to what is one’s duty. For example, in Japanese culture, to surrender was considered
dishonourable, but for the allies that was what a soldier would do if so ordered during World War II.
The Categorical Imperative and War
By using Kant’s moral test and applying it to war one will see that killing, even if it is a soldier’s duty to do
so, cannot be morally universalised. The first formulation of the categorical imperative could be against
war and in favour of pacifism.
First Formulation: To act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle
establishing universal law. Could killing another person in a war be seen as right intrinsically for everyone
and for all time? The answer using Kant’s first formulation is no!
Second formulation: To treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always as an end. Killing a person in war, whether by sword, gun or missile is not
treating that person or group of people as an end but as a means.
Third Formulation: To act as if a legislating member of the kingdom of ends. Again it would be difficult to
treat humanity as an end if killing is intrinsically wrong, despite the greater good or circumstances behind
the moral action.
Due to the fact that Kant does not look at situations or circumstances it is difficult to justify violence, even if
the ends justify the means in terms of freedom or the protection of civil freedom. This is because as a
deontologist he is not concerned with outcomes but only if an action is intrinsically right or wrong.
Aquinas and Natural Moral Law and War
St Thomas Aquinas believed that humans were created by God with an intrinsic morality.
“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.”
(Ecclesiastes 3: 11)
Morality for Aquinas is inbuilt by God for the following end or telos:
• To worship God
• To be educated
• To procreate.
In the case of war, as with most criticisms of Natural Moral Law, it is difficult to define what is natural.
Certainly it could be argued that humans have a natural penchant for violence, but this is not what Aquinas
would argue. Humans should also live to please God and love their neighbour as themselves. This is an
absolute ethic and the Golden Rule that humans should live by.
41
Certainly war would not be loving one’s neighbour but Aquinas did consider what made wars moral or ‘just’
or fair. One could argue that if one’s right to worship God were threatened, is that not to be protected at all
costs, as well as education and the right to prolong the species? Certainly, it could be argued that, in the
face of a threat such as Nazi occupation, war is justifiable; in other words the ends justify the means. That
doesn’t mean that Aquinas thought it right to kill, but he did consider whether if wars were to happen,
there was such a thing as the just war.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a teleological and consequentialist ethic. Therefore as far as war is concerned a
consequential utilitarianian action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness or utility for the greatest
number of people. In the case of World War II, the war was justified as the result in defeat worldwide
would not have produced the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Teleological Utilitarianism: An action is justified if the end justifies the means. This was the justification
behind the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But was that action moral? What is your
opinion?
Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism and War
Bentham’s hedonic calculus defined utility or happiness in terms of pleasure or pain. The action that would
bring about the most pleasurable result is the moral one. War therefore, cannot be justified as the pain
suffered by the combatants must be greater than the pleasure that actively fighting the war might bring.
As far as defeating tyranny in World War II is concerned, the utility or pleasure would be greater and longer
lasting than the tyranny and oppression that defeat would have brought for the majority of people in the
world.
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and War
For Mill his ‘happiness’ or ‘utility’ is determined by what he called the higher or lower pleasures. The issue
is that war would not bring the higher pleasures and therefore happiness for the greater number of people
and would therefore be wrong. However, in the case of World War II, defeat would prevent the possibility
of the majority encountering the higher philosophical pleasures and therefore could be possibly justified.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism and War
For act utilitarianism every situation is different and therefore the specifics of each situation would need to
be considered before deciding if something was right or wrong. (Jeremy Bentham was an act utilitarian.)
For rule utilitarianism rules are needed to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers each
time. These rules must be tested each time to ensure that the greatest happiness is brought for most
people.
A weakness with utilitarianism is that it considers outcomes that are for the majority and may not
necessarily be right intrinsically. In the case of World War II in Europe, the greater utility may have been
met in that tyranny was defeated, but a lot of people suffered along the way. There is no way of judging an
outcome of a war until the war is over.
Also utilitarianism does not protect the minority in the case of war or genocide. From a Nazi point of view,
could the murder of six million Jews be justified if the greatest happiness is brought for the Nazis? Of
course Genocide is not ever justifiable, this example simply points out the weakness of utilitarianism in the
light of an event (the Holocaust) during World War II.
42
?
Things to do: Quick Quiz/Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
What is the view of Kant’s 1st formulation of the categorical imperative on war?
What is the view of Kant’s 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative on war?
What is the view of Kant’s 3rd formulation of the categorical imperative on war?
How would Aquinas’ natural moral law respond to war?
What is Bentham’s view of war?
What is J.S. Mill’s view of war?
How would act and rule utilitarianism deal with war?
What is the weakness of utilitarianism when applied to war?
Things to do: Exam Style Questions
a.
b.
Explain the strengths of the utilitarian system of moral decision-making.
(25 marks)
Assess the extent that utilitarianism is useful as far as making decisions about war is concerned.
(10 marks)
43