Meta Ethics
‘Ethical language has no purpose as it does not provide any answers.’ Discuss.
‘Understanding ethical language can help in making moral decisions.’ Discuss
‘Prescriptivism means that words such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have absolute meanings.’ Discuss
‘Learning what ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ mean is the most important purpose of ethical language.’
Discuss
To what extent is ethical language meaningful?
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of emotivism.
Virtue Ethics
‘The problem with Virtue Ethics is that it gives no definite answers to moral problems.’
Discuss.
‘Virtue ethics is not the best approach to ethical decision making.’ Discuss
‘Modern virtue ethics is very different from those taught by Aristotle.’ Discuss
Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Virtue Ethics.
‘The weaknesses of Virtue Ethics outweigh its strengths’
Conscience
Assess the view that conscience should always be obeyed.
‘Conscience is innate.’ Discuss
‘Conscience is vital when making moral decisions.’ Discuss.
Assess the view that conscience is not a reliable guide to ethical decision making.
‘Conscience need not always be obeyed.’ Discuss
‘Conscience is a reliable moral guide.’ Discuss
Assess the view that conscience need not always be obeyed.

Evaluate the claim that conscience is the voice of God.
Sexual Ethics
‘Sex and relationships are matters of personal choice.’ Discuss.
‘Virtue ethics is a good approach to the issues surrounding sex and relationships.’ Discuss
‘No ethical theory offers a satisfactory approach to issues of sex and relationships.’ Discuss
‘Some ethical theories are of more help than others when making decisions about sexual issues.’ Discuss.
Critically assess the view that Natural Law is of no use when discussing sexual ethics.
To what extent are ethical theories helpful when making decisions surrounding homosexuality?
Environment
‘Kant’s theory of ethics is of no help when applied to the environment.’ Discuss
‘Utilitarianism helps us to focus on the needs of the environment.’ Discuss
‘Virtue ethics is of no use when solving environmental problems.’ Discuss
‘Relativist ethics are the best approach to the environment.’ Discuss
‘Utilitarianism is not the best approach to environmental issues.’ Discuss.
To what extent is it true to claim that people have an individual sense of moral responsibility for the environment?
Free Will and Determinism
‘Soft determinism can easily be justified.’ Discuss
‘We are free to make ethical decisions.’ Discuss
‘Only hard determinism can be justified.’ Discuss
To what extent does belief in free will contradict determinism?
‘Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion.’ Discuss
‘God will know what decisions we make.’ Discuss
‘We do not possess any genuine freedom to act ethically.’ Discuss
To what extent does belief in free will contradict determinism?
Critically assess the claim that people are free to make moral decisions

Business Ethics
‘Kantian ethics is the best approach to the issues surrounding business.’ Discuss
‘Virtue ethics may be ideal, but not practical in business ethics.’ Discuss
Assess the view that religious ethics are of no use when it comes to matters of business.
Assess the usefulness of Religious Ethics as an approach to business

Virtue theory
The focus is on character development and 'living well' (happiness). Individuals are important but also the community made up of individuals. It argues that people must develop virtues and use practical intelligence to make moral decisions. This develops happiness, the 'telos' (final purpose / highest good) of human life. The highest good is 'good' because it meets the absolute standards of the forms not because of God’s commands. It is the only thing that is intrinsically good and is not good because it is a means to some other end.
Aristotle (384-382 BC)
We can find out what good behaviour is by finding the mean between vices of excess and deficiency. We can discover virtues (good character traits). (eg The virtue of courage lies at the mean, the half way point, between the excessive extreme of rashness, and the deficient extreme of cowardice.) By developing virtues and using 'prudence', rational, practical intelligence people can train themselves to find out what good behaviour is and aim for it (though being 'incontinent' they may not always hit the target.)
The characteristics of good behaviour can be seen in the behaviour of good people.
Good behaviour is deliberate voluntary action guided by virtues and rational, practical intelligence. Virtuous behaviour is always at the mean between vices of excess and deficiency. Virtues and practical intelligence produces behaviour that considers personal and community welfare and develops individual happiness and the good society. (Even though humans are 'incontinent' and will fall short of virtue.)

Many ideas seem realistic and humanitarian. As Alasdair MacIntyre argues, it is very important to think about the meaning of a good life and being a good person; this is what virtue theory does. It seems practical and down to earth. It's rational but recognises human weaknesses. Virtue theory doesn't lay down laws of behaviour but it provides clear guidelines.
It isn't entirely practical, lots of people aren't as rational or as prudent as Aristotle!
People don't really agree about what virtues are, or that they are at the mean.
Robert Louden has highlighted weaknesses. It's impossible to know when someone's internal character is truly good; so ethics should focus should be on actions and consequences not character. Supposedly 'good' people can do bad things. 'Incontinence' could excuse some very bad behaviour. There are no clear rules in virtue theory; hence the rise of more normative ethical theories. Some of
Aristotle's ideas seem elitist, xenophobic and sexist to a modern person.

This Christian ethic developed from Aristotle's virtue theory. It argues that the 'telos' (final purpose / highest good) of the world is found in God. The natural function of humans is to develop in the image of God towards perfection. We cannot understand God's Eternal
Law but can, and must, follow Divine Law and Natural Law as these are true and binding reflections of God's Eternal Law. Humans are only truly happy when they are living as
God requires this is, 'to reproduce, to learn, to live harmoniously in society and to worship
God'.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
We find out what good behaviour is by grasping the logic of natural order, human nature, and that the natural function of human inclinations is to develop in the image of God towards the ultimate goal of perfection. We use our rationality and intuition. Standards for good behaviour are given to us as laws 1. 'Divine law'. This is expressed in Bible teachings. It is a supernatural reflection of God's eternal moral law 2. 'Natural law'. This is expressed in 'primary precepts' and 'secondary precepts' derived by ‘excellent reasoning’ from primary precepts. It is a ‘natural reflection’ of God's eternal scientific law. Divine law and the primary precepts of Natural law are always true and binding. (Secondary precepts of Natural law may not always be true and binding, because humans can make mistakes in their reasoning.)
Good behaviour is based on rational decisions that do not break Divine law or Natural law. By obeying Divine law we follow God's moral law. By obeying Natural law we follow
God's scientific law. Divine law is expressed in Bible teachings, Natural law in rational
'primary precepts' and in 'secondary precepts' derived by ‘excellent reasoning’ from primary precepts. Breaking Divine law or primary precepts of Natural law is is always bad, as God 's laws are always true, and binding. (Secondary precepts may not always be true and binding, because humans can make mistakes in reasoning.) Good behaviour is always rational and follows our natural human inclination to develop in the image of God.
Natural laws are God's laws because they are moral, not moral because they are God's laws.
It seems obvious and reasonable. It allows for rationality and intuition eg it seems 'natural' for us to care about people, animals etc. It provides absolute rules for deciding on personal and community morality. It's also flexible there are secondary precepts as well as primary ones. We aren't expected to follow laws just because they are laws.

It fails to recognise that situations are different and times change. Universal unchanging laws aren't practical. It is a Christian morality, when it's boiled down to its essentials it depends on belief in God and becomes a divine command theory of morality that is very unattractive to most people. Defining the 'final' cause (purpose) of something leads to controversy e.g. is procreation really the final cause of sex?

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
By recognising our good will, and exercising our personal freedom. We can rationally weigh up alternatives and reach a reasoned understanding of what our absolute duty is. We can understand categorical imperatives and test our intended behaviour against them. A good act will not break categorical imperatives ie. it can be universalised as a universal law, treats others with respect, is made as if it was a law for the ideal society.
A good act is one that is prompted by good will, freely chosen by someone who rationally weighed up alternatives and reached a reasoned understanding of what their absolute duty was. It shows understanding of categorical imperatives; it can be universalised as a universal law, treats others with respect, was made as if it was a law for the ideal society.
His ethic doesn't depend on belief in God (He made God a ‘postulate of pure reason’). He recognised that people do have some in built sense of duty... but also saw that reason was a better guide towards good behaviour than personal feelings.
He recognised that to use rationality was not easy. He emphasised that personal freedom was very important. He realised the importance of motives in determining when an act was 'good'
He reduced God to a ‘postulate of pure reason’. His categorical 'imperatives' are man made and are really only 'hypothetical' statements. He was unrealistic to think that after careful consideration people will always become aware of what they ought to do and would do it. He was wrong to claim humans never have a sense of 'ought' about things they shouldn't, or cannot, do. He gave too much importance to motives, and too little to consequences, when deciding if an act was 'good'. It's wrong to suggest you need freedom of choice and rationality to do a 'good' act.

Virtue ethics is also known as aretaic ethics, this comes from the Greek word arete which means excellence or virtue.
Virtue ethics is associated with Aristotle, however Virtue Ethics has undergone a modern revival through philosophers such as
Alasdair Macintyre, Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot.
Virtue ethics differs from Natural Law and the other theories we studied in Year 12 because they concentrate on what we need to do in order to be moral.
Virtue Ethics however, argues that morality is not about duties but it is about the type of person we are.
Virtue ethics is about ‘who we are’ and not ‘what we do’.
This means that Virtue Ethics is ‘agent centered’ and it focuses on the qualities of the person making the moral choices rather than the actual moral choice that they are making.
According to Virtue Ethics, morality is about becoming the right sort of person, so it is not asking “what should I do?”, but it is asking “what sort of person should I be?”
Virtue ethics concentrates on Being – rather than Doing
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
Aristotle was an Ancient Greek philosopher and his main work on morality is called the Nicomachean
Ethics. In this book Aristotle begins his ethical philosophy from the assumption that everyone wants to live a full and happy life, this is known as eudaimonia.
According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is the highest good, this is because we desire it for its own sake and not as a means to an end. A good life is something inherently worth having, unlike justice which is worth having because it leads to a good life.
There are three main forms of happiness:
1.
Happiness of life as enjoyment
2.
Happiness as free member of society
3.
Happiness as a philosopher
Eudaimonia is a combination of these three types of happiness.
The best context in which to achieve eudaimonia is by living in a community or society where we all regard each other’s interests alongside our own. We should then develop and use the qualities that are most productive for living in society.

This brings us to the Golden Mean. Aristotle believed that the only way to achieve eudaimonia was to cultivate who we are as a person. This means we should develop qualities that are not extremes, as these are unhelpful in society. For example, being shy is one extreme and being aggressive is the other extreme, however neither of these are good qualities according to
Aristotle. The Golden Mean is when we have a balance- qualities that fall between extremes, so the Golden Mean of shyness and aggressiveness could be confidence.
The extremes of behavior are called Vices.
For Aristotle, we should work to develop our character so that we avoid adopting vice like characteristics. Aristotle also argues that once virtuous characteristics are natural to us then we will automatically do the right thing. So, he is saying that good people perform good actions.
Aristotle differentiated between moral and intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues, such as speaking foreign languages are the result of talent and good education. Moral virtues however are leaned by living them. By making an effort to live a virtuous life we are developing virtuous characteristics. These moral virtues are things that we are taught and not things that we are born with. This means that no one is born good or bad, but we become good or bad depending the qualities we develop.
The best way of learning about the virtues is to follow the example of virtuous people.
In today’s society people try to follow the example of Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, all of who are seen as having many virtues.
Modern approaches to Virtue EthicElizabeth Anscombe wrote an article in 1958 called ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’. This is often seen as the start of the virtue ethics revival.
 Here she argues that all other moral theories such as Natural Law, Kant and Utilitarianism are based on the concept of moral duty. She claimed this approach is flawed as we need to look at the character of people.
 She argues that morality based on duty is flawed because the obligation to keep moral rules only makes sense if you believe in a God or an ultimate being who will judge you. Without this belief there is no real reason to keep ones promised or to follow any other form of moral duty.
 Anscombe argues that the way forward is to develop characteristics which lead to eudaimonia, not dependent on any notion of God.
 Philippa Foot argues that although virtue ethics cannot guarantee happiness it can be an important part of achieving it.
According to Foot, virtue ethics is not a new or separate approach to ethics as virtues play a key role in the moral theories of most philosophers such as Aquinas and Kant.
 Alisdair Macintyre agrees with the main aims or Virtue Ethics, but he takes it further by arguing that philosophy is often too irrelevant to real life. Virtue Ethics is away of equipping people with the characteristics to deal with modern moral dilemmas?
 Richard Taylor argues that religious ethics has lead people away from using their reason and that
Virtue Ethics is a way of encouraging everyone to achieve personal excellence, He argues that
Christianity has prevented this as central to Christianity is the belief that the poor, weak, stupid and evil will all go to heaven if they accept Christ into their lives. Taylor agues that this does not encourage people to become better people, all it does is encourage blind faith.
Teleological or Deontological: Relative or Absolute?
Virtue Ethics is neither relative nor absolute. It cannot really be categorized into either of these because Virtue ethics is about who we are and not about how to be moral. However, Virtue Ethics has characteristics of teleology, deontology, absolutism and relativism.
Teleological and Relative

 Virtue Ethics can be seen as teleological because it is based on the out comes of following virtues. If we all follow the virtues and avoid the vices then we will achieve eudaimonia. Aristotle is not saying that we should develop virtues just for the sake of it, he is very clear that only by developing virtues can we achieve eudaimonia.
 Aristotle acknowledged that the virtues may differ from city to city (ancient Greece was made of many autonomous city states). This allows for a certain amount of relativity and subjectivity.
Deontological and Absolute
 However, eudaimonia seems to be a priori for Aristotle. This is because he believes that everyone wants to live a full and happy life, we do not need any prior experience to tell us this.
 This would then mean that eudaimonia is a deontological approach to ethics as the Golden Mean is a rule that all should follow.
 The virtues are just the same as absolute moral rules as we are being told that without following them the good cannot be achieved
 Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics relies on the concept of duty as it is assumed that we all have a responsibility to act in a certain way.

Advantages and Criticisms of Virtue Ethics
Advantages
 It encourages us to take responsibility for our behaviour and it makes us realize the extent to which our behavior has in impact on society as a whole.
 Virtue ethics therefore encourages us to be self aware and pro-active.
 Virtue ethics is compatible with other ethical theories. It can be incorporated into secular and religious moral theories.
 Virtue ethics takes the whole community into consideration
 James Rachels argues that virtues such as honesty and courage are essential for us to be able to cope with life’s struggles.
 All the modern virtue ethics philosophers put forward their own case in favour of virtue ethics .
Criticisms
 It does not provide answers to specific moral dilemmas (Robert Louden).
 There is not always a midway point between two evils as the Golden Mean would suggest
 Aristotle does not explain how we go about finding the golden mean, especially for those without virtuous role models?
 Being cannot be more important than doing. It is by doing that we make a difference.
 If virtues are relative and can be adapted to different societies then surely this makes virtue ethics far too relative to be a useful moral theory

 Autonomous Agents - Traditional Judeo-Christian view that God gave humans free will and we are autonomous (free)
 Predestination- Some Christians think that God has already decided who will be saved (go to
Heaven) and who will not.
 Theistic Determinism – Actions determined beforehand are determined by God.
 Hard Determinism – Humans are not to blame for their actions as everything is determined
 Naturalistic (scientific) Determinism – Actions determined beforehand are not determined by
God, they are determined by cause and effect, every action has a prior cause. beforehand
 Soft Determinism- Human actions are determined but we still have moral responsibility.
 Libertarianism- Our choices are our own. We are totally free.
Libertarians claim that we have total free will. Therefore we have complete moral responsibility. All of our actions are based on the assumption that we are free. Are choices are not influenced by outside factors like upbringing or other outside forces.
A kleptomaniac may be inclined to steal, but has the choice not to, therefore they are still morally responsible for stealing.
Peter Van Inwagen uses the analogy of a choosing which route to follow when travelling along a road, whereas determinism is only one route with no alternative routes.
Libertarianism Determinism
Libertarianism claims we can always choose to do something else, unlike Darrow’s claim in his court case that we are influenced by other factors and therefore do not always deserve blame.
Soft Determinism/Compatibilism
Soft Determinism accepts that all of our actions are determined. However, there is a difference between Ghandi choosing to fast, and a man being locked up without food. In both cases, the actions are determined, and the men could not do otherwise.
However, what determines Ghandi's actions is internal, where as the man locked up has been externally caused to be without food.

A compatibilist or soft determinist, who believes that determinism and free will are compatible, would draw a distinction between actions caused or determined by our personalities ('free' actions) and actions with external causes (where we are
'coerced'/forced)
Compatibilism or soft determinism, unlike hard determinism, moral responsibility. If a person does not save a drowning because they cannot swim, he is not morally responsible. if he chooses not to because of his personality, a combination of his conditioning, an event in his childhood he is to be held responsible. allows for child
However, etc, then
If hard determinism is correct, then,




There can be no freedom in the sense required for morality.
There is no point in punishing or blaming or putting down those who do “wrong,” since they cannot help it. Indeed, there is no point in making value judgments of any kind about other people. People are not “better” or “worse”; they are only different. If you change, it's because you “have it in you” already to change; if you don't change, you simply “don't have it in you” and can't be blamed.
The notion of sin becomes incoherent. If sin is incoherent, then fundamental doctrines of
Christianity (e.g., redemption from sin) are pointless.
Persons cannot be thought of as in any way “special” or “higher” than other animal species or physical objects. Thus, the interests of humans should not necessarily automatically be thought to override the interests of animals or plants.
If pre-destination is true then...
 Does it make a difference how we behave?
 What about the teachings of Judaeo-Christianity that God provided us with free will? (contradiction)
 Would a benevolent God allow this?
 This is a fatalistic argument
The Churches’ response-
 The Lutheran Church has criticized Calvinist predestination on the grounds that
"God wants all to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4)
 The Roman Catholic Church calls predestination God's Plan and states that this plan also includes free will for mankind. Catechism of the Catholic Church #600

says:
 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: 'In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.' [Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2] For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.[cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18]
In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass”

defined conscience as an awareness of what is good and bad, but that it can sometimes be weak or mistaken
(147240 CE) referred to conscience as a ‘spark’ that allowed us to discover right from wrong
‘Conscience is thus …the voice of our true selves which summons us… to live productively, to develop fully and harmoniously. It is the guardian of our integrity’ –
St Thomas Aquinas
5. There are two parts to making moral decisions
1. Conscience is not an inner knowledge of right and wrong.
It is a device or faculty for distinguishing right from wrong
Synderesis
– The awareness of the moral principle to do good and avoid evil. Conscientia
- The faculty that distinguishes between right and wrong and makes the moral decision.
4. The reason why people do evil deeds is because they have made a mistake. The person had actually believed what they were doing was good, but the moral principles that informed their conscience were mistaken.
This means that Aquinas thinks that it is not the conscience itself that makes us do evil, but it is the moral principles that informs the

2. This means that
Aquinas is arguing that conscience is based on reason
3. The Synderesis
Rule is where people basically tend towards the good and way from evil
Criticisms of Aquinas
 His theory implies that if you do something evil then you as a person as such are not evil, you just have not been informed as to the correct moral principles
 Does this mean that murders and rapists re not aware that it wrong to rape and murder?
 This theory also asserts a strong link between the Bible and the conscience. Therefore if your conscience tells you to do something that the Bible does not approve of then according to Aquinas you are devoid of the correct moral principles and your conscience is misguided.
Joseph Butler (1692-1752 , Anglican Priest)
1. Conscience is a inner feeling that acts as our final decision maker.
2. Humans are influenced by two principles: Self Love and
Benevolence (love of others).
Conscience directs us towards benevolence and away from self -love
3. Similarities with Aquinas.
Conscience can judge the rightness and wrongness of actions

4. Differs from Aquinas as
Butler says that Conscience is instant and based on intuition and does not require introspection.
5. Conscience is our natural guide, put there by
God. It is our duty to follow our conscience
6. We must obey our conscience without question
 Giving conscience supreme authority over moral judgements is highly questionable as its possible that our conscience could be misled
 He is assuming that ones conscience will always tend towards the good
 Giving the conscience such authority could lead to all sorts of horrific acts being justified
 However it allows the individual to make personal choices over the authority of the Bible
 Conscience is the voice of reason and the voice of God
 The persistent nature of conscience implies that there is someone or something that our conscience is answerable to.
 This someone must be God, who is the giver of moral law
Sigmund Freud (1856-19)

1. The human psyche is inspired by powerful instinctive desires that need to be satisfied
2. As young children, we learn that society restricts the extent to which our desires can be satisfied.
3. The human mind is composed of an Ego which is the self, who we are and where we are going. The Super
Ego is where we store the anger and disapproval of others, in addition to the rules of society. The super ego reflects upon these feelings and as result a guilty conscience is created.
4. The conscience then develops into a power of its own and is independent of the rational thought process of an individual.
5. Conscience is the result of conflict and aggression
6. Since Freud, psychologists have developed his theory into a mature and immature conscience. These consciences often conflict as one tells us what we ought to do to maintain good social relationships with others and the other
conscience tells us what would be self -fulfilling.
 Offers an alternative to the religious theories of conscience where God is central.
 However, Freud sees the conscience as something that is oppressive and therefore not a reliable basis for making moral choices
 Recent development s in psychological theories on the consciences offer a more realistic view. Often people’s consciences do not instantly tell them what to do, people often have to deliberate between the mixed messages of their conscience.

People should take notice of their conscience because…
 The law and religion is not always right and does not always reflect changing society. For example many young Catholics use contraception when the Church does not allow it. They have made this decision because their conscience tells them that protecting themselves from unprepared pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is the right thing to do.
 Martin Luther King followed his conscience and went against the laws to fight for civil rights. The outcome of this was a new set of laws which were fairer than the previous racist laws that had been in place.
 The conscience can give you an alternative to established norms and rules
 Religious people view the conscience as the voice of God therefore it should be followed as it will always lead to the good.
 People are conscientious objectors to war, meat eating, testing on animals etc. this shows that the conscience can lead to positive social changes.
People should not rely on their consciences because…
 Even Aquinas said that the principles that guide a conscience might be misleading if the person did not have the correct faculty of reason, so the conscience cannot always be relied

upon to make the correct decisions. A Catholic Christian might argue that the Bible is as important if not more important than the conscience when making moral decisions.
 If you give conscience supreme authority then what about all those people who would say that their conscience told them to kill or do other harmful acts.
 If the conscience really is the voice of God then why do so many people feel torn when making moral decisions, one would expect the voice of God to be clear.
 The conscience should not really be relied upon, as its existence is not proven. The conscience could just be norms and values of a particular society and not an inner voice. Or as Freud argued, conscience is associated with guilt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 It would seem that conscience is irrational and that there are better ways of making moral decisions such as the principle of utilitarianism, doing the greatest good for the greatest number
 However, instead of viewing the conscience as the voice of God, one could argue that our conscience is a stream of thought that allows us to reflect before making decisions. In this light then the conscience can only be a positive tool in moral decision making.
 Emphasis on the conscience could allow for a more relative approach to ethics, as one cannot predict how our conscience will direct us.

1) The key issues in environmental ethics.
2) Key terms and concepts in the debate on environmental ethics
3) Specific environmental issues
4) Christian responses to environmental ethics
5) How the ethical/philosophical theories we have studied can be applied to environmental ethics
6) Essay writing tips
1) The key issues in environmental ethics
 Environmental ethics is concerned with our attitudes towards the planet and to what extent these attitudes and actions are having a negative and threatening impact on the biological and geological dimensions of our planet.
 Most people would agree that technological advancements have improved society, however at the same time these advances are having a negative impact on the long term survival of humans and the planet.
 The question is, should we care about the long term survival of our planet? Or should we just be concerned about the quality of human life in the here and now?
 Does the environment have rights?
2) Key terms in the debate on environmental ethics
 Deep Ecology – This is a secular (non religious) based theory led by Aldo Leopold that argues that there is value in all life forms. Arne Ness argued that the environment should be cared for and protected for its own sake and not for the sake of humans (this is very similar to Kant’s view). This theory argues that the environment has an intrinsic value. Deep ecology would also encourage an altruistic attitude to the environment
 Shallow Ecology- We should care for the environment because it will benefit society
(this is very utilitarian). This theory argues that the environment has
extrinsic/instrumental value. This is Singer’s argument.
 Egoism - Humans will always do what is their best interest and if this means destroying the environment for short term gain then so be it.
Absolute and relative rights – The deep ecology approach would give the environment absolute rights, because every aspect of the environment has intrinsic value. However, the problem with an absolute approach to the environment is that it

 does not allow for variety in a situation. The absolute approach would mean that killing for food or using animals or the environment for human need would always be wrong. Most people would find it impossible to advocate this approach; so many people favour a relative approach. This means that the rights we give to the environment and animals will depend on our society and the ethical principles which we use to make moral decisions. A relative approach would also support the violation of animal and environmental rights in certain situations. However, the problem of this relative approach is deciding who decides when rights should be suspended. For, example who should decide if a forest that is about to be destroyed to build a new road has more rights to life then the benefits that the road would bring to humans.
3) Specific environmental issues
A.
Climate Change and Global Warming
 Climate change can have and is having a serious effect on the quality of life on the planet.
 Climate change is linked with a change in life forms. It is argued that warming. This is where the pollution caused by human technology thickens our ozone layer, allowing sun light in, but not allowing it out again.
 Our atmosphere is designed to effectively trap a certain amount of solar energy which we use as heat, just as the glass in a greenhouse does.
 However, global warming, which is a result of most previous extinctions of life on earth were the result of climate change.
 It is argued that if we want to maintain life on earth then we need reduce the rapid changes in climate.
 The most recent from of climate change is a direct result of global the greenhouse effect is an issue because at the moment the atmosphere is trapping too much heat, which can have and is having negative consequences
 Heat is trapped by certain gases in the atmosphere called greenhouse gases.

 Greenhouse gases are Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapour, Methane and Nitrous oxide.
These are all naturally occurring gases, however if their concentration is increased by drastic amounts in a short space of time then the effects can be very serious.
There are many possible causes and effects of global warming -
 Humans contribute to the greenhouse gases through polluting the atmosphere with added amounts of these gases. For example we contribute to vast amounts of CO2 by the amount of fuel we use which is carbon based. We contribute to Nitrous Oxide through the fertiliser used in agriculture. We contribute to methane by the waste produced by live stock. Humans also produce CFC gases which do not occur in naturally, they occur when humans produce them as a direct result of chemical processes.
 There is a dispute as to whether or not humans are contributing the greenhouse gases to such an extent that it could alter all life forms as we know them to be.
However, climate records show that the earth’s temperature has shown an increase since the industrial revolution in the 19 th century.
Effects
 The significant change in climate can alter the water cycle as some places become much drier and others become wetter.
 Unpredictable weather
 The alteration of the growth of plants and thus an alteration to the food chain, this would in turn have economic effects.
 Rise in sea levels and melting ice caps which would flood many inhabited parts of the world and cause people to migrate to higher land.
 The effects of global warming will extend to animal, human and plant life.
 The effects are unpredictable, this in itself puts us at risk
The Kyoto protocol
In 1997, 55 Industrial nations including the UK signed the Kyoto Protocol under which they agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 per cent a year. Since 1997 many more countries have joined the Kyoto protocol including all members of the EU. However when George Bush became President of the USA he withdrew America from the protocol because he felt that it would have a negative impact on the economical and industrial lives of the American people. Bush wanted to develop his own ways of reducing pollution. India and China refused to sign the protocol as they felt that they needed to produce emissions to in order to catch up with the developed world industrially.
Decline of the earth’s resources – Key Points
The earth has a limited amount of natural resources that we have come to depend on, so what happens when these run out? Should we keep using them until they run out or should we be looking for alternative sources of energy?

With increased industrialisation humans depend on raw materials which are finite.


We are dependent on fossil fuels, for example: Coal for generating electricity in
 power stations, oil for petrol and plastics, gas (which is drilled for) for heating.
The ecologist David Bellamy suggests that if we continue using fossil fuels at the current rate then our coal, oil and gas reserves will run out by 2636 and we will see a
5% decrease by 2047.

It is agreed that human consumption of energy is likely to increase rather than decrease and some people argue that we should use alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind, wave and water power. However, other people argue that the drawbacks of these alternative forms of energy outweigh the benefits.

However, humans could be more energy efficient by walking more and using bicycles rather than cars. People could use cars with smaller engines so that they use less fuel. People should recycle aluminium cans as aluminium is also mined. Companies should avoid using plastic packaging and use packaging that is recyclable.
C: Conservation issues and Land Rights.
Peter Singer, a lecturer in ethics wrote a book in 1979 called ‘Practical Ethics’. In the chapter on The Environment, Singer describes a beautiful forest with great tumbling waterfalls. The natural beauty of this forest is enjoyed by many bird watchers, water rafters and nature enthusiasts. The forest is home to thousands of rare species of wildlife and trees that are thought to be nearly a thousand years old. However the local hydroelectricity department see the waterfall as an excellent source of alternative and natural energy. They want to build a dam through the forest. The dam would provide enough water for at least a decade and it would provide jobs for many.
The ethical question is: Should the dam be built?
Singer is a utilitarian and he argues that the dam should not be built for utilitarian reasons. This is because the dam will only be useful as a temporary measure, after a decade or two there will be new inventions that will make the dam out of date. This will mean that a forest with over a thousand years of history will be lost just to further economic growth. Singer also argues that if the dam was built than this would deny current and future generations the chance to appreciate natural beauty.
Singer is arguing against the dam being built not because the forest has intrinsic value but because it has extrinsic value. Singer goes on to consider all the non-human species

that would suffer as a result of the dam being built; therefore he is arguing that we should extend utilitarianism to non-human animals. The example of the dam being built in a forest is a conservation issue and we have had many real examples conservation issues and land rights in Britain recently.
Many people argue that new roads built to supposedly improve our quality of life in fact reduce our quality of life. This is because each time a new road is built many people have to sell their homes; this means that towns are destroyed. This is because if the houses are gone then all the small business have to close down. Also, the continuous building of roads reduces the amount of countryside land and new roads often destroy forests that are home to many animals. Land conservationists would also argue that the building of new roads has a direct link to global warming. This is because the easier it is for people to use their cars, the less likely people are to use alternative methods of transport. Many environmental activists have campaigned to prevent new roads from being built. One of the largest campaigns was the Newbury Bypass in 1996 where people made tree houses and lived in underground tunnels to stop a new road from being built and destroying a forest. Also in 1992-94 protesters campaigned against the M3 being built through the ancient landscape of Twyford Down, near Winchester
B.
Animal Rights – Key points
Some people would argue that animal rights are not really part of environmental ethics as the issue of animal rights has arguments that need to be looked at independently of environmental issues. However, for Peter Singer animals are an important part of environmental ethics. Although Singer is in favour of preserving the environment, he is sceptical of deep ecology. This means that he does not agree that nature has intrinsic value. According to Singer, the problem with deep ecology is that is difficult to view plants and trees as having interests in themselves when they are non-sentient. For example, we could imagine what it would be like to be a rabbit drowning as the rabbit is a sentient creature that would experience the same physical discomfort that a human would experience if drowning. However asking someone to imagine a tree drowning would be meaningless as there is no comparable human experience. Singer follows on to argue that is difficult to ascertain what interest a plat or tree would have in staying alive other than for the benefits of animals or humans. Therefore, Singer is questioning whether non-sentient life forms can have intrinsic value. However, Singer is adamant that animals are sentient and do have intrinsic value, thus environmental issues should consider the effects that pollution, global warming and conservation issues have on animals as well as humans.


Animal rights is a key issue in environmental ethics, as many people would argue that ethical issues should go beyond anthropocentric arguments.

Peter Singer argues that animals experience pleasure and pain, therefore they have interests, which, means that they want to avoid suffering.

For those that would argue that it does not matter of animals feel pain as they are just animals, Singer would argue that there have been times when certain groups of people have been excluded from human rights. So, in the same way that we have now realised that sexism and racism is wrong we should now recognise that speciesism is wrong.

Singer’s arguments have many practical implications. One of these implications is for modern farming conditions where cows, pigs and chickens are kept in over crowded, dark and unhealthy condition ns.
Singer’s argues that this is a violation of the animal’s interests. Singer argues that the pleasure humans get from eating meat is outweighed by the pain so many animals
 suffer in the process.
Singer would object to the killing of animals as he argues that animals have interests and thus have an interest to stay alive.

Singer argues form a utilitarian perspective. This means that he argues that if we can prove that the pleasure we gain from eating a chicken outweighs all the pain and suffering endured by that chicken then it is Ok to eat the chicken. However, Singer argues that he does not believe that a Utilitarian approach to animal rights could come to the conclusion that eating the chicken is justifiable.

It is on the above grounds that Singer is also against Vivisection for the purposes of cosmetics, shampoos and household products. In the case of vivisection for human medicine Singer would argue that since we can never tell if the medicine will be successful we should not cause suffering to s many animals for something that might work.
Problems with animal rights

However, Singer does recognise that very simple animal life forms are not equal to a human life form. However he does insist that we give the same rights to animals of
 higher mental capacity
However, some might argue that the idea that we give more consideration to a monkey then a worm is just the same as saying that we should give more rights to a rich person than to a poor person. Hence all animal rights is about is transferring anthropocentric bias on to animals.

Descartes denied that animals could feel pain

Peter Carruthers argues that consciousness is a mental experience which allows creatures to think things to itself. Thus, according to Carruthers feeling pain, or living a sophisticated existence as many animals do does not mean that consciousness is present. Carruthers argues that animals are aware of their world but they do not think things to themselves in the same way that humans do. From this argument Carruthers concludes that animals feel pain in a non-conscious way.


However, there are many problems with Carruthers’ argument. Firstly, ignoring the suffering of animals because of their non-conscious mental activity, this could then justify cruelty to babies as there is no evidence that babies are aware of their out thought process. Secondly, surely it is irrelevant whether the pain of animal is conscious or non-conscious? Pain is still pain. Carruthers‘ argument would seem to imply that we should not reprimand a child who is pulling the legs off a spider?
However, the child is still committing wilful damage to another life
4) Christian responses to environmental ethics
The traditional response
 Many Christians would argue that environment was given to humans by God (as stated in Genesis) and this means that we can use for the benefit of human development. The book of Genesis encourages humans to have ‘dominion’ over the earth
God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground
(Genesis 1: 28)
 This is backed up is Psalm 8:6-8 where it describes how God placed humans in charge of animals
 God gave us intellect and would want us to use the environment to better society.
 Aquinas said that all animals must be ruled my man, implying that so should the entire natural world.
 The Bible implies that nature is a tool for humans.
 The Bible is anthropocentric; humans are at the centre of moral debates.
 Some Christians refer to the Garden of Eden (pre-fall) as a perfection, which was destroyed as result of human sin. Therefore, current environmental problems can be seen as a direct result of human sin.
However……
 Other Christians would argue that the world was given to humans by god. This makes the earth sacred and therefore we should look after anything that is sacred.
 Stewardship: God put us here not as rulers but as stewards. This is not our world; it is Gods world on loan to us. As stewards we must look after the world and pass it on to the next generation in a good condition
 Jesus’ teaching to ‘Love thy neighbour’ means caring for the environment because mistreating the environment will result in a decline in the quality of life for our neighbours.
 Humans are part of nature as humans, animals and the environment are all parts of God’s creation.
 The actions of a good Christian should reflect God’s own love for his creation.
 In the Old Testament (Exodus 23: 10-11) there are rules on letting the land rest. It said that a farmer should let his land rest and not grow crops every seven years. It is also said that on the Sabbath day animals must also be given a day of rest.

 In the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 20:19) it says “ Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard: if you do, then not only the cops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard
will be defiled” . This is often taken to mean that farmers should not be too greedy and want to grow too many things at the same time. This encourages respect for the land and also a fairer distribution of wealth.
 Both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have published document encouraging people to take care of the environment as it is a gift from God.
5) How can the ethical/philosophical theories we have studied be applied to environmental ethics?
Kant is not very useful on environmental ethics because…
 There is no evidence to suggest that Kant would want his ethical theory extended to the environment and animals. This is because Kant’s ethics as with most ethics is anthropocentric and for this reason Kant would be deeply critical of deep ecology.
 According to Kant only rational creatures can be the proper object of direct moral concern.
 Only rational beings are entitled to be treated as end in themselves, so according to
Kant we may treat animals and the environment as we wish.
 However, Kant did argue that being cruel to animals could lead to people to developing cruel tendencies, which would not benefit society in general
 Regan argued that Kant’s view that his ethics only applies to conscious beings is a flaw in his argument. This is because, babies and people with mental disabilities do not have the same level of consciousness as other humans. This would then mean that we could treat these groups of people as a means to an end. Regan argues that
Kant is unlikely to have wanted this. To solve this problem and make Kant’s ethics more compatible in contemporary society Regan argues that Kant’s definition of a conscious being could be replaced with creatures that are ‘subject to life’.
 One aspect of the categorical imperative is universalisability. Therefore, if I contribute to global warming or go fox hunting would I be happy for this to become a universal law? One could expect that most of the people who did these things probably would not care if anyone else did them too. So Kant’s theory of universalisablity might not help environmental ethics.
However, Kant’s ethics may be useful as a moral guideline because….
 Kant also argues that we should not treat others as a means to end. People were not aware of environmental issues in Kant’s time so there would have been to reason for
Kant to extend this principle to non-human life forms. Although the principle itself is very much in line with deep ecology and the claim that we should preserve and care for the environment not because of the benefits that it may generate for humans but because the environment is an end in itself.

 Kant’s theory could be useful for global warming. Part of Kant’s moral philosophy is his notion of good will and duty, meaning to have a good will is doing one’s duty.
For example, we have a duty to tell the truth not because of the outcomes it could generate for us but because it is simply the right thing to do. On this basis one could argue that because Kant favours rational/conscious life forms, we have a duty to preserve life and because global warming will eventually have a detrimental effect on our lives we have a duty to stop it.
 Kant’s absolutist moral theory has similarities with the ethical approach of deep ecology.
Utilitarianism

In general Utilitarianism would not ascribe any particular rights to the environment.
However, Utilitarianism as consequentialist and relative ethical theory would argue that we should aim to preserve the environment only when it would benefit the majority of the greatest number of people. This means that that we should care in the environment to the extent that it has extrinsic value.
 Surely it is in the interests of the majority to address global warming. Therefore,
Utilitarians may argue that global warming is a key issue for utilitarianism. This is because despite the fact that burning fossil fuels may benefit humans here and now, in the long term it will not benefit future generations.
 Therefore, we could advocate a reduction in the use of cars and increase in the use of bicycles on utilitarian grounds.
 However, Bentham and Mill’s versions of utilitarianism (act and rule utilitarianism) could lead us to different conclusions on how useful Utilitarianism is for environmental ethics
 Bentham’s is associated with act utilitarianism, which is more likely to weigh the amount pleasure generated for the majority in a particular and isolated situation
(using the hedonic calculus), rather than looking at the issue in a holistic way. Thus, an act utilitarian might argue that the burning of foil fuels actually generates the greatest pleasure for most people in the here and now, as opposed to taking a more long term and holistic view.
 In relation to animal rights an act utilitarian might argue that if there is one pig and five starving people then killing the pig would be justified to produce the greatest happiness for the five people, as opposed to looking at the long term damage meat eating could cause humans and animals.
 Mill, however is associated with Rule Utilitarianism, which focuses on general rules to bring about the greatest good for the community. Mill believed that intellectual pleasures should override physical pleasures. Regarding environmental ethics, rule utilitarianism would argue that global warming is a direct result of people choosing to make their physical lives easier here and now instead of taking an intellectual approach to the long term decline of pleasure that would be caused as a result of global warming. Mill also advocated the view that there should be general rules established to facilitate a utilitarian approach to life.
 Thus, a utilitarian would have to ensure that any environmental damage actually had long term benefits to humans.

 The utilitarian approach does not see the environment as having intrinsic value. We should only care about the environment because of it’s extrinsic/instrumental value to humans. This is Peter Singer’s argument.
 Peter Singer argued in favour of animal rights from a utilitarian perspective. It could be argued that it is utilitarian NOT to eat meat. This is because as a source of food meat does not feed as many people as grain does. If we were being utilitarian in our approach to agriculture we would not waste grain that is desperately needed in the third world, feeding our cattle and we would convert all pasture land into arable land.
Situation Ethics – Not useful in environmental ethics
 Taking this approach on an issue such as global warming would require us to have in depth knowledge of the cause and effects of global warming as each action would have to be judged on its own merits. It could be argued that this does not make situation ethics a useful approach to environmental ethics as it is far too relative and teleological. Environmental ethics needs universal rules as issues such as global warming is an issue for everyone.
 Situation ethics is teleological and it is about performing actions that will produce the most loving results. However, we do not really know what would produce the most loving results regarding the environment as the environment is unpredictable
 Because situation ethics takes a relative position this means that it could used to argue for or against environmental issues. It is impossible to come to any clear conclusions with environmental ethics as it is situationist.
A situation ethics argument in favour of environmental ethics

Where there is direct evidence of harm, we should do what ever we can to avoid it.
So, if environmentalists and climatologist have evidence that changing temperature of our planet is having and will continue to have a detrimental effect on life on earth then the most loving thing to do would be to stop global warming to avoid suffering in the future
 Regarding use of the earth’s resources situations ethics would argue that if we are using finite resources so carelessly that it will cause problems for future generations then we are obliged to seek alternative forms of energy.
 Regarding new roads being built such as the Newbury Bypass in 1996, situation ethics could have argued that although this new road would have saved some people time in their journey to work, it actually caused many small businesses to go out of business, many species of wildlife to lose their home, the loss of forest space that many people enjoyed walking in and in the long run the road would just encourage more people to use their cars, which in turn would contribute to global warming and the increased use of the earth’s finite resources. Therefore, building the dam would not be the most all round loving thing to do.
 In relation to animal rights, situation ethics may argue that using animals for medical research is the most loving thing for humans as medical research can cure dieses and thus improve the quality of life for humans However, the problem here is that situation ethics may be extended to animals and thus it would be very difficult assess

whose right to the most loving thing would take precedence.
A virtue ethics response –
 Virtue ethics emphasises the importance of acting in accordance with what it means to be human and concentrates on what qualities we can cultivate to become a better person.
 “You are what you do”, therefore we should perform actions that cultivate the qualities we want to possess, we are judged by our actions
 In relation to environmental ethics, from a virtue ethics point of view it could be argued that global warming is a result of destructive qualities that we should not want to cultivate
 Also mistreating animals involves the quality of cruelty which we should not want to cultivate
 Aristotle argued that although good outcomes should be our final goal, the only way to do this is to cultivate the skill of virtue.
 Being virtuous involves the mean between excess and deficiency; this is known as the Golden mean. Aristotle listed 12 virtues that fall in-between deficiency and excess
 Insensibility is considered to be a deficiency. It could be argued that those who test on animals are lacking in sensitivity to life.
 Over ambition is an excess and it could be argued that global warming is a direct result of human’s over ambitious nature to always want faster and better things. This will has a detrimental effect on the environment and the quality for life for humans.
The Golden Mean here would be right ambition, which could be taken to mean that people’s ambition should take into consideration the effects that their ambition has on the environment
 Rashness is also an excess, thus it could be argued that global warming is a direct result of our continuous use of the earths natural resources in rash and thoughtless way.
 Go back to your notes on virtue ethics from Y12 to help you make other links with virtue ethics and the environment.
6. Essay writing tips
Remember! Any essay question on environmental ethics will not ask you about specific environmental issues. You will have to make sure that you pick one or two environmental issues as the focus of your essay or use these specific environmental issues to back up your arguments. You will be awarded marks for being able to APPLY ethical theories to environmental issues

• Business ethics – discusses the moral justification of economic systems and practices, the responsibilities of businesses and the rights of workers.
• Capitalism – the idea that companies are privately owned (not owned by the government) and exist to make profit eg- Tesco’s exists to make money. Whereas the NHS is owned by the government and does not make a profit.
• Corporate responsibility – businesses have a responsibility to consider the interests of their customers and investors
• Ethical investment – investment should only be made in businesses that trade ethically like
Fair Trade
• Profit – money made after sales after taking away the costs involved
• Profit motive – the whole point of a business is to make profits, without profit the investors, workers and owners will not gain anything
• Transnational corporation (TNC) – a business that is registered and operates in more than one country- eg Coca Cola
• Stake holders – people who are interested in businesses eg- investors
• Share holders – people who invest money into a business in order to gain something back from the business eg- money
• Consumers- people who buy from businesses
Most businesses have to consider the impact of their activities on stakeholders.
Coca-Cola is no exception but their operations in the southern Indian state of Kerala have caused widespread concern and a string of claims and counter-claims by residents of the local community and the company.

Coca-Cola has become one of the most popular drinks in India.
In 1998, Coca-Cola set up a bottling plant in Perumatti in the southern state of Kerala.
Since it opened, local villagers have complained about the fall in the amount of water available to them and have blamed the fall in supplies on Coca-Cola who, they claim, use up to a million litres per day at the plant. Coca-Cola claims that the shortage in the water is due to the lack of rains in the region. Coca-Cola even sends round tankers of water to the region to help the local community. Local farmers are claiming that their livelihood has been destroyed since the building of the plant and that the number of people working on the land has dropped considerably because they cannot survive.
Following the cleaning of the bottles, a waste sludge is produced that Coca-Cola have been disposing of on the land of local farmers, claiming it was a useful fertiliser.
Following a BBC Radio 4 programme, samples of the sludge were analysed by scientists at Exeter University in the south-west of England and found to contain toxic chemicals including lead and cadmium - both of which can be harmful to humans - and further suggested that there was little or no benefit of the sludge as a fertiliser. Recent tests by the local state laboratories find that the levels of toxic chemicals are within safety levels but that it should not be used as a fertiliser.
In a separate development, sales of Coca-Cola have been hit by suggestions that its drinks produced in India contained higher levels of pesticide residues than was healthy!
A large number of bodies have joined in the local community's campaign demanding the plant be closed down and that tests be carried out on Coca-Cola to assess its safety.
A lawsuit to this effect was thrown out in August, which prompted Coca-Cola to issue an angry comment claiming that the reports were outrageous, unnecessarily scared large numbers of Coca-Cola's customers and put thousands of jobs in its plants throughout
India at risk.
Coca-Cola claims to employ in excess of 5,000 people in the country, not to mention the many thousands that are linked in some way to the product.
There are a number of issues relating to this incident that demonstrate the ethical and moral issues surrounding business.


Coca-Cola has become one of the most popular drinks in India.
Coca-Cola's business in India leads to a wide range of direct and indirect employment related to the business as a result of $1 billion (£520 million) worth of investment by the company.



Coca-Cola claims that its activities are entirely legal.
How honest are the claims that Coca-Cola is making?
 How reliable are the claims made by those who oppose Coca-Cola's activities?
 What conflicts arise between the responsibilities that Coca-Cola has to the environment and the local community, and to its shareholders, suppliers and
 employees?
How much pressure would local council officials be under to give Coca-Cola a clean bill of health, as some would suggest?
Fair Trade Bananas
Big companies can produce bananas cheaply and many small farmers are forced into poverty because they cannot sell their bananas for enough to live on. After a long campaign, supermarkets started selling Fair Trade bananas. These bananas cost a bit more than other bananas, so that the growers get a fair price.

What is sexuality?
Sexuality refers to one’s sexual identity. This includes whether we are attracted to the opposite sex (heterosexual), or to the same sex (homosexual) or to both sexes (bisexual).
 Sexuality also refers to the way in which we conduct our sex life. For example: promiscuity, polygamy, monogamy, virginity, fidelity, infidelity.
Why is sexual ethics important for philosophy and ethics?
Human relationships and how we treat each other is a key issue in ethics. This is because it is sexual relationships which, for most people form the most significant of all human relationships. However, how we should act within sexual relationships and which types of sexual relationships are appropriate, is the subject of much debate.
A) The Pythagoreans and Stoics
 Humans should abstain from physical pleasure as the intellectual life is superior.
 Our soul is imprisoned by our body and we needed to free our souls to move to our next life. This means that being bound to our body’s physical needs can prevent our soul moving on. Thus sex cannot be holy. This is a dualist approach as it is believed that body and soul are separate.
 The Stoics believed that sexual passions were a lack of control and a sign animalistic desire
B) The Cyrenaics (5 th Cent BCE)
 In direct opposition to the Pythagoreans and Stoics, the Cyrenaics were a group of people who believed that physical pleasure led to a life of enjoyment.
 They believed that immediate physical pleasure could lead to the good, thus sexual pleasure should be pursued.
C) The Ancient Hebrews
 They had a fairly positive attitude to sex considering this was 3000 years ago. The book Song of Songs in the Old
Testament is an expression of erotic attraction between two people.
 The Ancient Hebrews (and Jewish people today) place importance on sex in marriage
 However, early Hebrew society saw a wife as purchase and hence the property of her husband. This is still the view of many cultures today, where a dowry system is practiced.
D) A contemporary view
 In today’s Western society sexual pleasure is often for immediate gratification and commitment is no longer a necessary pre-requisite for sex. For some people this attitude is a problem, but for others this is a sign of liberty and autonomy.
E) Christian approaches to Sexuality

 St Augustine considered sex to be a sin, except for when used for reproduction.
 Aquinas agreed but placed less significance on non-reproductive sex as a sin.
 Early Christian views were patriarchal (male dominated); the role of women was restricted to the home and children.
 Early Christians did not really understand the female body and woman were not thought to experience any sexual pleasure (the clitoris was unheard of) this view continued until the 1960’s.
 Early Christians raised the status of celibacy as a holy state preferable to marriage; this view was not something advocated by the ancient Hebrews.
 In Corinthians, St Paul recommends celibacy as Jesus was unmarried. However, one can question this view as in
Genesis God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply.
 Some important Christians have shown that celibacy is not practical. Martin Luther left the monastery to marry and
Erasmus praised marriage and the importance of sexual pleasure in marriage.
 Today marriage is the norm for lay Christians and in the Catholic Church it is a sacrament. However, sex outside marriage, masturbation, homosexual sex and adultery are not permitted.
 These views come from the Bible or the natural law approach, both claim that humans have a specific purposes and sexual activity should be in line with these purposes, which is to reproduce.
 However, in the 20 th century the Church of England and the Catholic Church modernized their stance on sex and they stated that sex can be an expression of love between a married couple. This is called a unitive approach.
 Jack Dominion, a Catholic psychologist argues that a new Christian definition of marriage and sexuality is needed, one which represents contemporary psychology.
F: A Libertarian approach to sexuality
 This is the view that any type of sex is morally acceptable if it occurs between two consenting adults.
 This is a relative and subjective approach to sexual ethics.
 This is also known as the contractarian approach, as the libertarian view maintains that as long as there is some kind of agreement between two people then people are sexually free.
 There are no religious views at the heart of this approach so sex is not linked to marriage or reproduction.
 Human freedom and autonomy are the most important values.
 Libertarians also adopt the ‘harm principle’, which maintains that sexual activity should avoid causing harm directly to those involved and to third parties. Therefore, under most circumstances this would rule out adultery.
 This is because libertarians argue that our freedom should not be taken to the extent whereby it infringes upon the freedom of others.
 Advantages of the Libertarian approach – It does not discriminate against gay and bisexual people, it allows consenting adults to do as they please without feeling guilty, after centuries of patriarchal attitudes to sex the libertarian view gave women the freedom to be seen as sexual beings and not just as baby making machines.
 Criticisms of the Libertarian approach – some would argue that sexuality is a complicated issue that needs some universal rules other than the ‘harm principle’. Others would argue that is impossible to keep to the ‘harm principle’ as some
Christian would argue that consenting sex among unmarried adults harms the moral fiber of society. Thus, Libertarians do not give an adequate definition of harm. Also, the Libertarian approach seems to rule out sado-masochism, what if two consenting adults agree to harm each other as part of their sexual pleasure? Is this still harm if they are getting pleasure out of it?
G: Feminist Approaches to Sexuality
 The general aim of feminism is to ensure that the voice of women is heard and incorporated into philosophical and moral debate.
 This approach is essential reactive, meaning that the feminist approach to sexuality was born out of women’s oppression. Much of the feminist approach is a critique of the traditional religious views of women and sexuality.
 Feminists criticise the traditional Christian approaches for defining women as submissive child-bearers. Implicit in the Judeo-Christian view is that woman was created for man.
 The Christian notion of women’s role as mother and wife dis-empowers women
 Christianity relies on Natural Law, but this is not natural at all, it is a result of social conditioning. This is because Natural Law developed out of the Ancient

Hebrew and Greek view of women as second class citizens.
 Most sexual crimes are committed by men, which reflect the view that men see women as their property.
 Because of women’s role as mother and wife they are unable to nurture their own sexual desires, woman are socialised to satisfy male needs.
 Liberal approaches are criticized as they assume that men and women are in a position to enter freely into relationships, when realistically society does not see women as equal to men.
 Existential Feminism – This provides the most radical criticism of Christian attitudes to sexuality as, existentialists would argue that there is no such thing as human nature. Therefore, there are no such things as male and female natures. We are not born with a particular nature or essence. Our nature and essence is developed out of free and conscious actions.
According to Sartre, an inauthentic life is where a person is not able to act freely or where they slip into stereotypical roles. The implications for feminism is that there is no predetermined female nature, women are as responsible for their actions as men, and all social structures that inhibit women to exist an authentic life must be removed.
 Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre’s life long partner argues that women for centuries have allowed themselves to become the
second sex by acting the role of wife, mother, lover etc – this means that women for the most part lead inauthentic lives as they are allowing themselves to be used as objects by men
The Christian argument against homosexuality
 Many Christians view homosexuality as unacceptable. Firstly, because it does not a have a procreative outcome, so it is wrong from a natural law point of view.
 Gay marriages are not recognized by the law or the Church, therefore any gay sex has to take place outside marriage, which is sinful.
 Homosexuality is currently under fierce debate in the Church of England as a gay vicar has recently been made Bishop.
However, the attitude of some Christians who claim to accept homosexuality is to ‘hate the sin but not the sinner’. What this means is that the person themselves cannot be blamed for having gay feelings; it is the act that is sinful and not the person. Therefore gay people are asked to be celibate. So, some Churches are accepting of people who admit to being gay, but they require that these people never engage in homosexual relationships.
 The Catholic Church argues that homosexuality is contrary to scripture and natural law and thus homosexual sex is not permitted. However, they say that there is no sin involved in the sexual inclination towards a member of the same sex and people with gay inclinations should be treated with respect.
 Natural law comments on acts that are unnatural and do not lead to procreation.
The Bible and homosexuality
 Most of the Christian views against homosexuality are based on an interpretation of the Bible
 Leviticus 18 – “ You shall not lie beside man as you lie beside woman, that is an abomination”,
“this is punishable by death” (Leviticus 20)
 God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for a variety of sexual crimes, one of which is homosexuality. However, Lot and his family are the only ones saved. When the angels appear to tell them this, the men in the town try and rape the angels. Lot offers his daughters to these men it return that they do not touch the angels. This illustrates the way in which the Bible treated women as the property of men. It would also imply that Biblical ethics cannot be taken literally
 Leviticus 18-120 also lists the sexual acts that result in being cut off from the people of Israel. This includes incest and homosexuality.
 St Paul in Corinthians and Romans states that people who commit immoral sexual acts will not inherit the Kingdom of God
The Liberal Christian response
 This view argues that the Bible has many teachings that are not strictly adhered to. For example, St Paul says that women do not make suitable religious teachers, but the C of E now accepts women vicars and is now discussing the issue of women bishops.

 The liberal Christian response argues that the Bible is a guide that should be interpreted to apply to modern society. This is a relative approach.
 Jesus only condemns one type of sexual sin and that is adultery. He does not comment on homosexuality.
 The main focus of Christianity is love for they neighbor and the Golden rule. Excluding gay couples from the community or asking them to be celibate while heterosexual couples are free to enjoy a loving relationship is not in accordance with these two teachings.
 The Bible mainly refers to male homosexuality, doe this mean that lesbianism is acceptable?
 It is the quality of the relationship that determines its moral value and not its homosexual or heterosexual nature.
 Everyone is made in the image of God; this means that God created gay people. Why then would god create gay people and ask them to be celibate?
 If the Catholic Church agrees that some people cannot help being gay, then this implies that their homosexuality was determined and is part of God’s plan. So how can something that is part of God’s plan be condemned?
 Gareth Moore argues that Christianity is a religion that makes room for those outcast by society.
 The Methodist Church argue that gay couples should have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.
 However, the Church of England does realise that some people may find it hard to be celibate and try and accept those who are in gay relationships. Although, any clergymen who are gay must abstain form sexual activity.
 Burton Leiser argues that sexual organs have many purposes, one of which is for reproduction. However, this is not the only purpose, sexual organs are used for pleasure, if this were not the case then what would be the point of elderly people getting married or couples who are known to be infertile. Surely the Natural Law approach would not prohibit these couples from consummating their marriage? Therefore, Leiser goes on to argue that it is illogical to condemn people for using their sexual organs for pleasure.
A Kantian response to homosexuality
Kant in favour
 There would appear to be no sound evidence to suggest that Kant’s ethical theory could be used against homosexuality.
 Kant’s concept of universalisability would mean that as long as one were happy that their actions become a universal law, then it is morally acceptable. So, there does not appear to be anything wrong with saying that all people who have feelings for the same sex should be allowed to pursue these feelings free of persecution. However, for the Catholic
Church the whole point is that they do not want homosexuality to be universalisable.
 A very radical reading of the second part of the Categorical Imperative would actually seem to condone homosexual sex over heterosexual procreative sex. This is because Kant argued that people should not be treated as a means to and end.
However, The Catholic view is that procreation is the purpose of sex. This implies that women (and men) are being treated as a means to end and the sexual act itself is not being appreciated as an end in itself. Homosexual sex however, because it cannot produce children is an act of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
 Kant argued that sex should take place in the context of marriage as this means that the sexual act is taking place within a broader contract between two people, a contract not focused on sex. It would appear that Kant’s main concern was that people did not get used for sex and then be discarded. Sex is acceptable in marriage as a commitment has been established which means that the couple have a duty to each other above and beyond sexual pleasure. On this basis one could not find any objection to homosexuality as gay couples are fully capable of having relationships as devoted and committed as heterosexual couples. Needless, to say Kant writing in the 18 th cent did not think of this.
Kant Against
 We could read the categorical imperative as an argument against homosexuality as the person becomes an object of desire. This would result in treating the person as a means to an end.
 In his book Lectures in Ethics Kant argues that ‘homosexuality is contrary to the end of humanity’. This shows that he does not approve of homosexuality because goes against our duty to preserve and continue the human race.
 In his books The Metaphysics of Morals and Lectures in Ethics he argues that sex should only take place in the confines of marriage. This is because Kant argues that sexual desire is not desire for another person but a desire for another person’s sex, this risks reducing human nature to animal nature.

A Utilitarian Response to homosexuality
The arguments in favour
 The basis to utilitarian ethics is that the happiness of the majority is maximized. There is sufficient reason to believe that
Mill and Bentham would condemn homosexuality. This is because utilitarianism stems from the liberal tradition, which believes that the state should not interfere with the private sphere of society.
 Utilitarians would probably argue that society is a happier, fairer and a more liberal place if adults are free to choose the sexual life style they wish.
 The emphasis for utilitarians would be to do with harm and happiness. Utilitarianism would want to ensure that homosexuality did not harm the happiness of the majority.
 Bentham wrote many unpublished manuscripts about the ethics of homosexuality and its compatibility with utilitarianism.
He argued that consent is the first point to consider, if there is consent then there is nothing wrong with pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Therefore, homosexual sex between consenting adults is acceptable.
 The second point to consider is whether homosexuality harms society and causes unhappiness. This is very different to arguing that homosexuality is wrong because people simply do not like it. There was a time when the majority of people would have argued that black people living alongside white people were making the white people unhappy, yet in today’s society this would not be considered as a sound or moral opinion. Bentham argues that those who condemn homosexuality do so out of prejudice and religious indoctrination as opposed to reason.
 Bentham’s Hedonic calculus would seem to support to homosexual relationships as homosexuality can adhere the seven criteria of the hedonic calculus; Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Extent, Remoteness, Richness, Purity. A loving homosexual relationship would be as long lasting as a heterosexual one, there would no more or less certainty then in a heterosexual relationship and the relationship would have the richness and purity of love that a heterosexual relationship would have.
 Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is known as act utilitarianism as each act is judged on its own merits. Therefore, it could be argued that rather than referring to all gay people in the debate on homosexuality, each relationships needs to be looked at on its own merits.
 Utilitarianism is a consequentialist and teleological moral theory, meaning the morality of a situation is assessed by virtue of its outcome. Utilitarianism would need empirical objective proof that homosexuality had negative consequences before it would be willing to condemn it. Utilitarianism would reject the idea that religion is a sound argument against homosexuality.
 Mill distinguished between higher pleasures associated with the mind and lower pleasures associated with the body. This could be used to argue that Mill would encourage us to think intellectually and rationally about the relationship in question as opposed to focusing on the sexual content of a relationship. Mill might ague that as long as a gay couple had a relationship with mutual understanding and intellectual appreciation then it cannot be condemned. Mill would not be concerned with the sexual content of a relationship but with the quality of it.
 Mill also believed that in order for utilitarianism to work all societies we need to accept the basic principle of telling the
 Homosexuality could not be condemned on utilitarian grounds as it would very difficult to prove that it was harming society. Most rape is committed by heterosexual men; does this mean we should make heterosexual sex illegal? truth, as this is the first step for securing the greatest happiness. If there were laws against homosexuality then this would force people into living a lie about who they are.
The Utilitarian argument against
 Some may argue that homosexuality does not maximize the happiness of the majority because; it undermines the value of marriage, it could contribute to a drop in population, it alters the traditional roles of men and women in relationships and it offends some people.
 Mill said that authorities should only intervene to prevent harm to others. Some people could interpret this to mean that homosexuality should be made illegal as it would prevent the above things from happening. Some people (wrongly) believe that homosexual sex poses health risks and should therefore be made illegal.
 The hedonic calculus only looks at the quantity of things and it does not measure the quality. Some may argue that because a homosexual relationship cannot produce children that its quality is not equal to a heterosexual relationship.
 Because utilitarianism is a relative moral theory, some societies could ague against homosexuality from the point of view that it does not maximize the happiness of their particular culture.
 One must ask whether sexuality is private business to the extent that Mill thinks it is?
 Some might argue that all sexual relationships have some effect on the moral fiber of society.

A Situation Ethics/ Moral Relativist response to homosexuality
 There are two forms of relativism; Moral relativism argues that there are no absolute rules of right or wrong. This means that there cannot be a law that applies to all situations. Instead each situation should be looked at on its own merit. Therefore moral relativism would be against any laws prohibiting homosexuality as it is up to individuals to decide what is right for them.
 However, cultural relativism argues that moral codes will vary according the culture of each society. This could then mean that a society based on religious principles would be justified in making homosexuality illegal.
 It is important not to confuse moral relativism, which looks at the individual situation and believes that morality differs from person to person with cultural relativism, which believes that morality will differ between different cultures.
 The situationist approach of doing the most loving thing is very useful on the issue of homosexuality, as the most loving thing would be to allow and accept consenting adults to fulfill the sex life that they feel most comfortable with.
 It would be against the core principle of situation ethics to make gay people sad, lonely and isolated by demonizing homosexuality.
 Relativism is one of the four working principles of situation ethics. This principle argues that we should avoid words like never and always. Therefore, saying that homosexuality is always wrong would be against situation ethics.
 Personalism is another one of the four working principles of situation ethics. This argues that we should put people first and not rules. Therefore, even if you believe that your religion prohibits homosexuality, you should put the feelings of the gay person first.
 Fletcher rejected the Natural Law approach to ethics; this implies that he would also reject Natural Laws condemnation of any sex that does not lead to procreation.
Marriage and Divorce - Key Issues
 Should marriage be for life?
 When is divorce acceptable?
 What is the purpose of marriage?
 How many times should someone be allowed to remarry?
 Is marriage an outdated institution, is cohabitation better?
General Christian responses
 St Paul (in Corinthians) only reluctantly acknowledges that sexual desire is an aspect of marriage. He acknowledges that a husband and wife have sexual duties to each other which should not be denied incase it leads to frustration which make people less able to concentrate on their spiritual duties.
 The early Church and St Paul regarded monasticism as superior to marriage.
 Sex is associated with sin and marriage is a way of containing that sin.
 Promiscuity is forbidden.
The Bible and Marriage & Divorce
 In the Old Testament – only once the couple has sex was the marriage official as sex makes a couple become ‘one flesh’
 The Book of Proverbs states that the role of the wife is in the home and to her husband and children.
 In the Old testament divorce was/is permitted but only the husband has the right to begin a divorce
 The New Testament – In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus explicitly states that he does not approve of divorce, although in other
Gospels Jesus’ allows divorce in the case of adultery.
 St Paul took the view that Jesus did not permit divorce, although St Paul (in 1 Corinthians. 7:11) stated that separations were acceptable.
Marriage and Divorce – A Catholic / Natural Law Response

 St Augustine believed in original sin and sex was the manifestation of this sin.
 Because he was a dualist he saw the body as sinful and the soul as good.
 However, Agustin did recognize God’s commandment to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis), this links to the Natural Law approach that sex is to reproduce. Therefore marriage is good because it is ordained by God.
 St Augustine stated that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, marriage is a sacrament, and is a method of providing fidelity between husband and wife. So marriage is about faithfulness and commitment and not really about sex.
 Aquinas adapted Augustine’s Natural Law philosophy. Aquinas put less emphasis on sin and more emphasis on the procreative purposes of sex and that marriage provided the best environment for children.
 Aquinas’ dependency on Natural Law led him to argue that marriage should be a life long commitment. He argued that wife needs a man to control her has men have a more developed faculty of reason.
The Catholic Church today
 Marriage is a sacrament which forms a new ontological (state of being), this makes marriage an unbreakable bond.
 Since Vatican 2, The Catholic Church has stressed the marriage is for love and not just procreation. It is asserted that sexual intercourse is the deepest expression of love between a man and a woman. This is also known as the unitive approach.
 The family is considered as an extension of the Church.
 However, the modern Catholic Church still believes that humans live in the fallen world. This means that no relationship is based on pure love and because of our sinful existence we are prone to jealousy and conflicts which can lead to separations.
However, a Catholic marriage ceremony involves Jesus’ presence and blessing which allows marriage to be dominated by love, thus divorce is not needed. Jesus Said “What God has joined together let no man put asunder” (Matthew).
 One of Aquinas’ purposes is to live in an ordered society and divorce disrupts the order of society.
 According to the Catholic Church if a couple marry in a Catholic Church and divorce via state divorce and then remarry in a registry office, this is adultery.
 There are no grounds for divorce in the Catholic Church, however separation and annulment is permitted in certain cases.
 An annulment means that the marriage never happened and it can be given for a variety of reasons (see p83-84 in the
Wilcockson handout)
 In the cases where an annulment is not given (annulments are not easy to obtain) a couple may separate, but they are still bound by their vow of fidelity so remarriage and dating would be adultery.
Evaluating Annulments
 Some argue that annulments are just the Catholic Church’s way of avoiding using the term divorce.
 Some modern Catholics argue that the system of annulments does not show an interest in the human and emotional aspects of a marital breakdown.
 An annulment means that the marriage was never valid in the first place; this puts huge difficulties on couples who have had many years of a good marriage before marital breakdown occurs. If they are successful in obtaining an annulment then this means that there marriage never happened, which denies these existence of the successful and happy years that the couple had together. If annulment is not give the couples are forced to remain together.
 Many Catholics approve the annulment system as it sets boundaries as what is necessary for a successful marriage
 This means that the Catholic view on marriage is absolute because marriage becomes a matter of duty and rules. The
Catholic Church sets out guidelines on what constitutes a worthy marriage, whereas a more subjective approach would allow the couple to decide what constitutes a worthwhile marriage.
Marriage and Divorce – The Protestant Church
 Martin Luther’s Protestant reformation was a rejection of Catholic doctrine.
 By 1522 he had established certain grounds for divorce, offering a more human and liberal side to Christians sexual ethics.
 Luther also said that priests did not need to be celibate. This was a very radical attitude as it placed marriage on an equal level with celibacy.
 Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, it is a part of human nature for couples to want to be close and live together, marriage is simply the term given to the procedure which gives legal status to this.

 There is no religious obligation to marry and the Church does not have special control of marriage as marriages are valid with or without Church approval.
 The only part of a marriage that makes it Christian is the priests blessing. However this blessing itself does not invoke God’s grace. It is the couple’s faith as expressed through their vows that receive God’s grace.
 Divorce is permitted in cases of impotence, refusal to have sex or live with the person and adultery.
 Luther’s Biblical starting point was in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus permits divorce on the grounds of adultery. Luther argue that by committing adultery the marital bond is broken.
 Helmut Thielicke argues that the fact that marriages can and do fall apart shows that it was not really God who joined them together in the first place.
 The Protestant Church recognizes divorces authorized by the state.
 Regarding remarriage, the Protestant tradition is essentially subjective and relative. This is because it believes that re-marriage should be decided by looking at the individual case and reasons that led to divorce. However, if one partner who was the victim in the marriage they should not be prevented from re-marrying. This is a fierce contrast with the Catholic view that remarriage is the same as adultery.
The Anglican Church today.
 In 1991 The Bishops in the Church of England produced a report called Issues in Human Sexuality acknowledged that for many people today the idea that sex can only be experienced within marriage is unrealistic and that there are many types of committed and loving relationships which are similar to that of marriage. However, Christian marriage is still the most stable way for people to enjoy life long commitment.
 Marriage makes us more Christ like in dealing with the world around us and the aim of all marriage should be a lifelong commitment.
 Regarding remarriage and divorce, this is left up to the individual priest to decide by looking at the pastoral needs of the couple.
 Christianity is based on forgiveness; therefore remarriage keeps within the spirit of forgiveness.
Contraception – Artificial means of preventing pregnancy – Condemns, the pill, the coil, diaphragm, injection, implant
The Catholic Church does not permit contraception. This is because all sexual acts should be open to procreation. Contraception is artificial and prevents a married couple from fulfilling their purpose to procreate. The Catholic Church does allow natural avoidance of pregnancy such as the rhythm method.
 The Catholic Church’s position on contraception was set out in the Pope’s 1968 letter Humane Vitae. This document stated
“God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, or themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of natural law… teaches that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”
 Hence all contraception is wrong as it goes against Natural Law
Weaknesses of the Catholic Natural Law position
 It is unrealistic to think that a married couple will want the possibility of a child every time they have sex.
 The use of contraception shows a responsible and moral attitude to sex and the Catholic Church does not acknowledge this
 It does not recognize the important role that condoms play in the avoidance of sexually transmitted diseases.
 Many Catholics use their conscience and still use contraception, hence the unrealistic nature of the Catholic Churches sexual ethics is forcing Catholics to break the Church’s rules.

 Catholic psychologist Jack Dominion argues that four purposes of sex are love, procreation, pleasure and relief of tension.
Dominion argues that love is the most important
The Protestant and Other Churches
 For along time all Christians shared the Catholic view on contraception. However now the Church of England allows the use contraception as it differentiates between the unitive purpose of sex and the procreative purpose. The unitive purpose is given first place, this means that the first purpose of sex is to bring a couple together in a loving way and thus procreation is the second purpose.
 Contraception is also permitted as families need to be able to financially provide for their children. The ban on contraception will increase poverty and decrease the quality of life. Couples are asked to use their conscience to guide them in matters of family planning.
 In Genesis God calls humans to take care of his creation. This could be taken to mean that we should not use the earths resources in abundance, hence very large families would radically decrees the resources available for families in generations to come.
Linking ethical theories to marriage, divorce and contraception
Utilitarianism
 Utilitarian ethics would lead to a libertarian view of sex.
 The Greatest good for the greatest number- It could be argued that marriage ensures that children are brought up in a stable environment with two parents. Regarding contraception it may be argued that contraception prevents diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Contraception also allows the individual to exercise their autonomy when it comes to reproduction and it also avoids families becoming to large. All of these purposes of contraception can be seen to contribute the happiness of society as a whole as people are free to choose when they start a family and how large their family should be. However when it comes to promiscuity it could be argued that utilitarianism would be against this as it could increase unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases which would not benefit the majority.
 Teleological- as a teleological theory utilitarianism would not be concerned on prescribing certain duties of marriage.
Instead marriage should be focused on making the couple happy and the outcomes of the marriage would be more important that certain duties with in the marriage. On the topic of divorce, utilitarianism would argue that it would be necessary to evaluate the outcomes of divorce in each situation before rushing into something that could affect the lives of many people. For example, it may be argued on utilitarian grounds that a couple with young children should not get divorced because of the unhappiness, emotional and psychological disruption it may cause the children. However, a utilitarisn would weigh up the outcomes of a couple staying together with the outcomes of them getting divorced.
 Relative – as a relative theory utilitarianism would argue against the idea that marriage and sex should just be for procreation, as each couple should be left to decide whether or not they want children. It would argue that sexual ethics is not about absolute rules; this is because utilitarian ethics is not based on the notion of a law giving god or absolutist views. In
Utilitarianism, laws come from people and are based on reason. Therefore, regarding divorce, utilitarianism would not argue that a man and woman have a divine obligation to stay together, instead they would argue that each situation be looked at on its own merits.
 Mill – Favored intellectual pleasures of a physical pleasure. It could be argued that Mill would regard marriage as a loving relationship where intellectual compatibility and understand was as important as sex. As a libertarian Mill would probably advocate contraception as this would allow couples to have smaller families that they could cope with, hence devoting more time to intellectual pursuits.
 The Hedonic Calculus - Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus can be used to evaluate whether marriage, divorce and contraception are the right things to do.
 Many would argue that utilitarianism is not a useful approach to sexual ethics as it is too relative. Sexual ethics needs clearer boundaries for societies to follow; otherwise any sexual act could be justified. However, others would argue that utilitarian is the best approach to sexual ethics as it gives people freedom and autonomy.
Situation Ethics

 Joseph Fletcher would probably argue that marriage is important as his version of Situation Ethics is based on the notion of Christian love. Therefore, he would probably argue that marriage is the best place for a couple to express their love for each other.
 He was trying to find a balance between legalism (absolute rules) and antinomianism (no rules at all) therefore, on the topic of marriage and sex he probably would not advocate casual sex as this would symbolize unruliness.
 Fletcher’s relative and teleological philosophy of doing the most loving would probably lead him to argue that……..
 Divorce should not be prevented if the couple are very unhappy, it would be unchristian to force suffering onto people.
However, if a couple has small children then it must be considered whether a divorce would be the most loving thing for them. In some cases parents divorcing would be better for the children as this would at least ensure that they were not brought up in an environment here parents fought with each other. Fletcher’s situation ethics would condone divorce in these circumstances
 Re-marriage should be allowed if it is the most loving thing to do. For example it would be unfair to prevent a woman who had been abused by a previous husband from every re marrying.
 On the topic of contraception Fletcher would argue that if a family are poor, or if a person has AIDS or an STD then surely preventing them form using contraception would NOT be the most loving thing to do, as this would only cause more suffering.
Kant
 Duty – we are doing our duty when we act on the basis of well thought out and conscious moral choice and not because you will benefit from it. This could be used on the issue of divorce. Kant might argue that a couple who got married and have children have a duty to do the moral thing which would be to stay together out of duty to their children rather than get divorced because it would benefit the couple concerned. However, it is unclear what Kant actually meant by duty.
 The Categorical Imperative – This argued that we should make moral decisions based on what we ‘ought’ to do independent of the results they achieve. Kant wanted to instigate a moral code that was absolute and could be applied to all situations. This would lead us to conclude that he would not have a relative approach to sexual ethics. This means that sexual issues would not be up to the individual to decide, but everyone would have to conduct their sexual relationships in accordance with a universal moral code. This moral code consists of duty and the good will.
 Means to an end – Kant would probably advocate the importance of marriage as marriage would prevent people just using each other for sex. This is because marriage forces people to take responsibilities for each others well being. On the topic of contraception Kant’s ethical theory can be used in two ways. Firstly he might be against contraception as it could encourage people to be promiscuous and thus treat each other as a means to an end. However, on the other hand, contraception would prevent women form being used as means to having children.
 Universlizability – Before one makes the decisions to have casual sex, use contraception and get divorced Kant would argue that we should only act on a maxim that we would be happy for other people to act on. For example if you had sex with some one who you did not like very much and had no intention of talking to again, you would have accept the maxim that “anyone who is feeling sexual aroused can have sex with someone that they do not like and are never going to speak to again”. Most people although willing to do this themselves, would not be willing for this to become a universal maxim because this would mean that they could be on the receiving end. Thus, the concept of universalizability is not telling us exactly which sexual acts are right or wrong, but it does force us to realize that we are not just individual in society; we live in a community where often our actions affect each other.
 However, Kant also believes that we are free and autonomous moral agents and he wants everyone to have the freedom to choose. Yet at the same time he is trying to enforce absolute moral principles, so what he seems to want is that everyone uses their autonomy to choose his moral theory. This could cause problems for sexual ethics as people will be torn between following their conscience which might be relative to their particular situation and the need for the to universalize their actions.
Virtue ethics
 Aristotle focused on being rather than doing. Therefore sexual ethics would be about developing characteristics that allows us to be good people and make the right decisions rather than following an actual sexual moral code.
 Golden Mean – The process by which we discover the virtues. Aristotle had a list of vices and virtues. It could be argued that promiscuity would fall into the vice of shamelessness, whereas modestly would be the virtue. From this point it could be argued that the marriage offers the best framework in which to be sexually virtuous.

 Eudaimonia – Is the concept that everyone want to live a happy life and living in an ordered society is the best way of achieving this. Therefore it could be argued that according to virtue ethics marriage and sex are key elements of eudaimonia. Marriage would be highly valued as it is a way to ensure a certain amount of order in society and marriage would also ensure that people are sexually fulfilled within safe boundaries.
Many of the philosophical arguments we looked at on the issue of homosexuality can also be applied to marriage, divorce and contraception.
Meta – ethics
So far we have looked at statements that claim to be presenting facts (descriptive) and statements that make value judgements (normative), now we encounter meta-ethics.
Meta-ethics is a branch of philosophy that is not concerned with what is actually right or wrong or what people believe. Its main concern is the meaning behind the language we use when we make moral statements. For example, what do we actually mean when we say that something is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’? Therefore meta-ethics says we should stand back from moral statements and question whether or not saying something is right or wrong is simply expressing an opinion or is it saying something about the way the world really is.
When we make judgements or moral statements we have to use language and there are different ways in which we can make these moral statements, this is called ethical language.
There are three types of ethical language used. It is vital that you understand the difference between them (the last two are the most important).
 Descriptive Ethics
 Normative Ethics
 Meta- Ethics
Descriptive Ethics
This is simply a description of a situation and the choices made people. A statement that is descriptive ethics will simply present what it believes to be the facts of a situation and avoid any moral judgement or bias.
For Example:
Most teenage pregnancies are from teenage girls who leave school without GCSE’s.
The information in this statement may or may not be correct, but the point is that it can be checked and tested by looking at government data and other records. The point here is that this statement is not actually saying whether it is right or wrong that that teenage girls are having babies or, it is merely presenting what it thinks are the facts.

Normative Ethics
Whereas descriptive ethics is simply concerned with presenting facts, this type of ethics is concerned with making value judgements by analysing what is right and wrong.
For Example:
War is always wrong
This statement is not simply saying that wars occur; it is also saying that wars are always wrong.
Normative statements can be challenged with another normative statement
For Example
War is only wrong sometimes
Meta–ethics is a branch of philosophy that gained much popularity in the 20 th Century and it is
contrasted with normative ethics.
For example if we look at the statement “Killing is wrong”, there are many different responses to this statement, as some people would argue that in some circumstances killing is acceptable. However, can we even be sure what the term wrong means? What is wrong to me may not be wrong to you. This then shows how all ethical statements are fraught with difficulties.
A key issue in meta – ethics is whether ethical judgments are objective (realist), or subjective (or anti-realist),
This means, are ethical judgments based on personal preference or are they based on external facts that are
universal? If you believe that moral judgments are objective (or realist) this then means that you believe that there are moral facts, certain things are right and wrong and that this should be the same for everyone, but this does not seem to be the case as many groups of people disagree on what is right or wrong. However, if you think moral judgments are subjective (or anti realist) this means that you believe that there are no such thing as moral facts and morality will differ among various people.

Religious ethics is an example of objective / realist ethics. This is because for religion there is such a thing as objective truths, which are universal. Religions have holy books, which they believe contain objective moral codes. Religious ethics is also a form of normative ethics. For example the statement ‘adultery is wrong’. Religion would agree with this statement, because in Christianity and Islam their holy books say that it is wrong. This is a realist or objective approach. However, meta-ethics would not even attempt to agree or disagree with this statement as meta –ethics realises that morality cannot be reduced to facts of true and false.
Meta – ethics attempts to stand back from moral statements and ask
 What does it mean to say something is right or wrong?
 What is moral language? Does it reflect facts or opinions?
 Are there any universal objective criteria by which to judge moral statements?
 In what sense can a moral statement be said to be true or false?
Meta ethics does not try to tell us what actually is right or wrong as other ethical theories do. Instead Meta— ethics encourages us to analyse and question moral statements we make and moral opinions that we hold.
Meta–ethics stands above disputes such as war and abortion, this is why it is called meta- ethics. ‘Meta’ comes from the Greek word ‘above’ or ‘after’
Why would someone agree with meta-ethics?
The Philosopher David Hume (1711-76) answered this question by arguing that there is a difference between facts and values – this is known as ‘The Fact – Value Distinction’.
For example imagine that you read this in a newspaper headline
‘A man kills his wife by wilfully stabbing her with a kitchen knife’.
Chances are you will instantly form a moral judgement about this situation. You will probably think that the man has done wrong.
The facts are that the man took a knife and stabbed his wife. However, these are just facts, the values are not actually in the act itself but are contributed by the spectator.
What this means is that we often attach moral values to facts, when really facts and values are two separate issues. However, many people would disagree with this and argue that values are apparent in the facts, as the fact was that a murder took place and murder is always wrong.
Although Hume was not condoning murder, what he was trying to do was to show how we attach moral values to facts based on our views.
The fact – value distinction leads on to the ‘is–ought gap’. Hume went on to argue that moral statements often prescribe what we ought to do based on what is.
For example: ‘There is famine in Ethiopia, therefore we should help starving children in Ethiopia’.
What is happening in this statement is that facts are being established and then moral judgments are being made on how to act based on those facts. This Hume said was jumping from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’. Just because there is famine in Ethiopia why ‘ought’ we help them? This might seem like a very selfish attitude, but Hume was

not being selfish. Hume was trying to ensure that ethics followed a rigid system of philosophical logic and nothing
Ethical Cognitivism a)Ethical
Naturalism
A large number of philosophers!
Seatbelts are a good idea- a statement based on knowledge, suggesting there is factual, verifiable evidence that there are advantages to be gained from wearing seatbelts. (Advantages might be pleasure,
God’s approval or society’s approval) b) Ethical Non-
Naturalism
GE Moore (Principia
Ethica 1903)
Seatbelts are a good idea- a statement based on knowledge, evidence from intuition. One based on the knowledge of gut instinct not of observable verifiable evidence.
Ethical Non-
Cognitivism
Straightforward
Ethical Non
Cognitivism
(Emotivism)
AJ Ayer
(Language Truth and Logic 1934)
Seatbelts are a good idea- An emotive statement of a personal emotional reaction to seatbelts. (Hooray for seatbelts) b)Adapatations of
Ethical Non-
Cognitivism
C Stevenson
(Ethics and
Language 1944)
R Hare
(The Language of
Morals 1952)
Seatbelts are a good idea- A persuasive statement. One that is emotive (showing emotional approval of seatbelts) and which suggests there is knowledge of advantages associated with wearing them (eg- research shows they reduce injury in a crash)
Seatbelts are a good idea- A prescrptive and universal statement. One that is emotive (showing emotional approval of seatbelts) and which suggests there is knowledge of advantages associated with wearing them (eg- research shows they reduce injury in a crash) should be assumed or taken for granted.
Criticisms of meta –ethics
 You could become too obsessed with the meaning behind language
 Meta-ethics does not actually help us to come to any conclusions on practical ethical matters such as abortion and war
 If there are no objective criteria by which to judge moral statements/actions then how would we ever develop laws and rules?
 People may feel lost without with out universal rules and may fell that religious ethics offers more guidance.
 Meta – ethics avoids making any moral judgments, but surely rape and child abuse are things that are always wrong and you do not need to define the word wrong to know this.

Intuitionism
 .E Moore (1903) is the main philosopher associated with the theory of Intuitionism. Prichard and Ross are also Intuitionists
 Goodness cannot be defined, but it can be recognised
 Goodness is self evident
 Saying something is good is like saying something is yellow
 Moore argued that all other theories fell into the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ because it was assumed that ‘good’ was natural property
 However, ‘good’ is not a natural property
 ‘Good’ is like the colour yellow. You cannot refer to yellow without referring to an object that possesses the quality of yellow.
Emotivism
 A.J Ayer & C. L Stevenson are the main philosophers in this theory.
 Moral statements are an expression of someone’s feelings.
 This is why it is sometimes nicknamed the Hurrah – Boo theory as moral statements are similar to saying Hurrah! I like it or Boo, I dislike it.
 Moral statements are intended to sway people’s opinions.
 This means that the word ‘good’ is persuasive.
 All statements can be divided into tautologies and empirical statements of fact. Moral statements are neither.
 Ayer upholds the fact-value distinction.
 The problem with emotivism is that it means that it implies that there are no moral values to guide society
Prescriptivism
 Hare is the main philosopher of prescriptivism
 Hare sought to make moral statements objective
 Moral statements describe people’s beliefs
 Moral statements also have a persuasive quality, they try and persuade others to agree
 Moral statements are also universal
 Hare argued that we should only perform a moral action if we are prepared to universalise it
 Moral statements are also commanding a particular type of behaviour
 Reason plays an important role in moral statements
 Hare’s prescriptivism has similarities with Kant and Jesus