Ethics Flashcards
How would Utilitarians view genocide (link to Darfur) ?
The more powerful nations may be able to prevent huge numbers of deaths in genocides, but a very careful calculation is needed. This includes the extent of the genocide (how many lives) as well as the number that might die in stopping the genocide, the certainty (how certain it is that these deaths will occur) as well as the likelihood of the success of any intervention. Singer believes any such interventions should go through the UN.
What is the issue with the conditions of Jus in Bello?
Firstly, those concerned with the proportionality with which the war is fought overlook the millions that die annually due to third-world debt in proportion to the vast amounts of money spent on warfare
Secondly, drawing a line that distinguishes an innocent civilian from the initiating minority in power directly responsible for war is difficult. And in any case, those believing they are going to war on justified grounds will consider themselves guiltless. Who can judge which side is guilty?
How are innocents in warfare defined?
The Just War Theory says that innocent people should not be targetted. However, military leaders have long sought to include a very narrow definition of ‘innocents’. Various alternative definitions have been used, such as non-combatants, but no agreement is reached. This may be because many military leaders believe that the end justifies the means, and that it is actually acceptable to target innocent people if it means the war will end sooner.
Why did Augustine develop the Just War theory?
When the Roman Empire became Christian, Augustine had to convince a pacifist religion that it was sometimes necessary to go to war.
What does Jus ad Bellum mean?
Jus ad bellum refers to the rules concerning the declaration of war
What happened in the case study of the Gulf War?
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN authorised a military response. The war was swift and brutal, with over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed (according to the US- more according to other sources). The US claimed that smart bombs meant fewer civilian deaths, whilst others claim that only a minority of bombs hit their targets. Although there were heavy casualties during the war, far more civilians died in the following decade of sanctions–the UN estimates between 500,000 and 1.2 million children died between the two Gulf Wars due to hyperinflation, widespread poverty and malnutrition.
How would virtue ethics view the use of landmines?
Justice requires treating all people fairly. Any weapon that is indiscriminate will lead to
civilian fatalities. Whilst innocent people di
e in every war, using weapons like landmines is similar to targeting individuals. Aristotle would see this as unjust
What are the conditions of Jus in Bello?
‘Discrimination’ - that innocent people should not be targetted. As explained in the definitions of key terms, some commentators speak of ‘civilians’ or ‘non-combatants’ here
‘Proportionality’ - as above, that military force should be proportional to the wrong endured and the outcome sought. Minimum force should be used to achieve the desired ends
How would Utilitarians view pacifism?
Some pacifists disagree in principle with the idea of war. Utilitarianism is teleological, so will look at the consequences of going to war to see if it is right. Some utilitarians would also be pacifists if they believed that the consequences of war in the modern world will always be negative. Non-violence was effective for Ghandi and Martin Luther King, so a utilitarian maybe attracted to non-violence because it works.
How would situation ethics view child soldiers?
The Rights of a Child state that children should not be used as soldiers. These rights are seen by many as being intrinsically good. Situation Ethics rejects this–only love is intrinsically good. As such, a 15 year old child might give his life fighting for freedom in his country, and Situation Ethics would support this if it was the most loving thing.
How would Kantian ethics view Hiroshima?
In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 220,000 innocent people were killed to bring an end to the war. What if we made this killing of innocents a universal law? We would all be targets, and there would be no-one left to fight. The man responsible for the explosions, Oppenheimer, famously said “I am become death, destroyer of worlds”. Kant would concur–by acting in this way, you have created a standard of behaviour that amounts to total annihilation.
What does Kantian ethics say about landmines?
Kant believes we can work out moral rule
s by just sitting in a chair and thinking about it. Landmines may be used in a war and remain active for decades of peace that follow. This results in innocent children losing limbs or lives long after the conflict finishes. Any rational person can see
that these sorts of indiscriminate weapons that kill innocent people are wrong.
How would virtue ethics view human rights (like to Geneva convention)?
Aristotle’s view of a good soldier was of a person whose character was so well-formed that their courageous nature would lead them into battle against corrupt dictators. The inhuman behaviour of soldiers in Abu Ghraib shows how far from Aristotle’s ideas
we are. Eudaimonia involves development of all virtues, such as nobility, justice, courage, patience etc. This means having respect for all people’s human rights.
What would Kant’s view on pacifism be?
You might think that Kant would be a pacifist, as it makes perfect sense if everyone behave that way. However, we need to ask how Kant would have responded to Hitler’s attempts at world domination. One option is to allow such dictators to do what they choose–
that doesn’t work well as a universal law. The good will does its duty, following the rational path. Many Kantians see this as requiring us to fight in self defence and defence of others.
How would Natural Law view human rights (link to Geneva convention)?
Many people argue that the torture of potential terrorists can be justified if it leads to the prevention of an attack. If the motivation is pure, Natural Law might describe this as a good interior act but a bad exterior act. In fact, the existence of torture can lead to bad interior acts such as in Abu Ghraib, where soldiers delighted in the suffering of prisoners of war. Natural Law would never see torture as a good exterior act.
How would situation ethics view landmines?
Cluster bombs, with 40% left unexploded, were recently used by Israel. A situationist may have criticised Israel, but they would decide on which weapons to use on a case-by-case basis. Landmines aren’t intrinsically wrong, it would depend on the individual circumstances.
Who was the originator of the just war theory?
Augustine. His thinking was developed by Aquinas and then more recently by other Catholic theologians.
How would virtue ethics view pacifism?
Aristotle said “We make war that we may live in peace.” He would not have supported
pacifism. E.g. Anger is one of the spheres of moral virtues, and the golden mean applies.
This means being angry at the right time, not just to a specific degree. Excessive anger, or irascibility, means being easily angered. However, anger in the face of injustice, rape, murder etc. may be entirely appropriate. ‘Good temper’ doesn’t mean never getting angry.
Why would Kant support the Just War theory?
Due to the principle of Universalisability. A rational person would agree that wars should not be fought without a just cause, and must be declared by the appropriate authority. It makes sense to say that innocent people should not be targeted, as I would not want to be targeted myself. In fact, all of the Just War Criteria might be supported by a Kantian.
How would Utilitarians regard human rights (like in Geneva convention)?
The Geneva Conventions set out how to treat prisoners of war, and do not allow the torture of prisoners. The UNDHR also rules out torture. However, the principle of utility allows that torturing an individual may lead to the greater good. This is no doubt the reasoning that justified Guantanamo Bay. Rule utilitarians may disagree, pointing to the horrors of Abu Ghraib as an example of the consequences of allowing the ill treatment of prisoners of war.
How would Utilitarians view Hiroshima?
The Utilitarian calculations need to treat all people equally, and enemy soldiers must not be seen as of less worth than our own. To justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where 220,000 died, there must have been a good chance that more people than this would have died if the bombs hadn’t been dropped. In fact, the US were ready to drop another 7 such bombs, as they were so convinced of the prolonged loss of life through war if they did not.
What does Kantian ethics say of genocide (link to Darfur) ?
All ethical theories condemn genocide, but in practice no-one stopped the Rwandan
genocide, and 300,000 have already died in Darfur. Would we want a law of nature where people allowed genocide or fought it? If you imagine being a victim of genocide, we would clearly want someone to step in and help us. Kant’s theory would demand that the UN (Kant’s idea–a League of Nations) should act to prevent genocide.
How could situation ethics be used to decide whether to go to war?
Situation Ethics demands that we do the most loving thing. This may mean going to war - Augustine said that while we may go to war, we should love our enemies (as Jesus instructed) even as we kill them. However, situation ethics would be against the use of excessive force, using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons etc.
How would Virtue ethics decide to go to war?
War is not part of eudaimonia. However, it may be possible to go to war in order to achieve peace, which would be part of eudaimonia. Virtue Ethics focusses on character, and may argue that soldiers are brave and just, as they stand up for the poor and weak. However, the realities of being a soldier are that you just follow orders - not an example of wisdom, one of the cardinal virtues
What happened in the case study of child soildies?
30,000 child soldiers are being used in the Congo. Many under the age of 10. 1/3 are girls. Most were abducted from their villages. Shot if they say no. Girls often end up as sex slaves. 1/3 will never be reintegrated into their communities.
What weapons are seen as a violation of Jus in Bello?
Due to the nature of these weapons, it is generally agreed that the Jus in Bello criteria above cannot be met if chemical, nuclear or biological weapons are used. Obviously a lot depends on the nature of these weapons, and the term ‘nuclear weapon’ can apply to a broad range of devices. Where weapons kill indiscriminately, there are real concerns.
How would Natural Law view the recruitment which exploited poor people in America?
In America, soldiers were recruited to go to Iraq from poor black neighbourhoods where
they had no other choices. The money was an efficient cause that got them to Iraq.
However, the final cause is different. What is the end or purpose of a soldier? There is a lot of disillusionment around Iraq, and many believe that the end or purpose of the war, to
establish peace and democracy, has been lost or compromised
What happened in the case study of Darfur?
In Darfur, over 300,000 have died (according to the UN–most from diseases) and millions displaced. The UN called it ‘war crimes’ but without the ‘intent to commit genocide’. The problems are complex, both racial and religious tensions, as well as issues to do with oil and poverty.
How does the United Nations affect how war is fought?
The Just War criteria talks about ‘proper authority’. In the past, this has referred to the ruling authority of a nation state. Now many people think that wars should only happen with UN approval.
How would Natural Law ethicist decide to go to war?
One Primary Precept is that we should ‘protect and preserve the innocent’, which would justify going to war to defend others. However, Natural Law theorists would see this very much as a last resort. They would also criticise the way in which wars are fought, with a lack of respect for human beings. Another Primary Precept says that we should live in an ‘ordered society’. If an attack threatens the structure and authority of our society, this may justify our retaliation
Who added the last four conditions to Jus ad Bellum?
In the 1970’s US catholic bishops set out their own views on just war theory and built upon the foundations set by Augustine and Aquinas.
How would Natural Law view Hiroshima?
Natural Law cannot justify killing 140,000
people to end a war, even if this prevents millions from dying. However, if the intention was to destroy a military target in Hiroshima, and the civilian deaths were a by-product of this, then the doctrine of double effect comes in. The civilian deaths are proportionate, as millions of deaths are being prevented. However, many
commentators believe the intention was to kill innocent people, which would be evil.
Which three conditions of Jus ad Bellum did Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas come up with?
1) There must be authorisation form a legitimate authority; emperors were seen to be divinely appointed and thus were a legitimate authority
2) There must be a just cause for going to war
St Thomas Aquinas later added:
3) There must be a right intention
What is the issue with recruitment?
Fahrenheit 9-11 showed recruiters making false and misleading claims to recruit primarily poor, black youths to join the army. Many see them as ‘cannon fodder’, and feel that the support given to veterans, the families of dead soldiers etc. Is very poor.
How would Natural Law view pacifism?
Christian pacifism comes from the belief that it is wrong to kill. The early church was pacifist, and in WWI many soldiers conscientiously objected on religious grounds. Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek, and many believe that killing is an evil that we should not do.
What is the case study of Martin Luther King in terms of pacifism?
Martin Luther King is an excellent example of someone who stood up against war–
he advised his congregation not to support the Vietnam War. He also used peaceful methods of protest with great effect. He did not use violence even when his home was bombed. He felt you could challenge injustice effectively by standing up for
what you believe in without resorting to violence.
What happened in the case study of Libya?
Pro-democracy protests in February 2011 led to hundreds of deaths, sparking civil war. International military intervention in March 2011 followed a UN Security Council resolution allowing“all necessary measures” to establish a no-fly zone. Col Gaddafi was killed in October, and fighting ended. Estimates of deaths range from a few thousand to 30,000. Many see the intervention as an example of the UN’s
policy of “responsibility to protect”. Critics say that NATO was responsible for unnecessary deaths of civilians.
How would Natural Law view landmines?
There are many different forms of indiscriminate weapons that are still being used today. Natural Law may describe these as apparent goods– they seem to be effective, helping one side to ‘win the war’. However, they aren’t actually good because they kill innocent people.
What does the Jus ad Bellum include?
Proper Authority - War should be declared by the proper authority
Just Cause - A nation should have a justifiable reason for declaring war
Right Intention - The outcome being sought should be noble, generally to bring about peace
Last Resort - Every effort should have been made to resolve a conflict diplomatically, without the use of force
Proportionality - The damage caused by going to war must not be greater than the good achieved
Win Possible - there should be a good chance of success
Comparative Justice - neither side will ever be without fault, but you need to be more right than your opponents
How would situation ethics view Hiroshima?
Terror bombing killed 60,000 in Dresden. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 220,000 people. Kantians and Natural Law theorists see the targeting of innocent people as an absolute wrong. Situationists say that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. In these cases, the killings may have ended a war that would otherwise have killed far more people.
How would situation ethics view human rights (link to Geneva convention)?
After the horrors of WWII, it was decided that there should be standards for how prisoners of war are treated. For example, torture is never fair or just. Situation Ethics thinks that by making the world as good as we can, by helping as many people as we can, we make the world more just. This may mean sacrificing individual liberties in some cases, even torturing terrorists. Justice isn’t treating everyone the same, it’s helping as many people as possible
What happened in the case study of Hiroshima?
The 2 atomic bombs killed 100,000s. The decision to drop the bombs was made on pragmatic grounds, as more would have died if the war had continued. Within a week of the second explosion, the Japanese surrendered. Some argue that the 1.6 million Soviet troops would have brought about a surrender.
What would Kant think of soldiers (Link to child soldiers) ?
Kant would disagree with mercenaries–
people who fight for any country that pays. Such people are merely being used (or using themselves) as a means to an end. However, a soldier fighting for his own country may be treated as an end in himself if he benefits from the freedoms fought for, is well paid and looked after. In the case of child soldiers, proper care would mean education rather than front-line fighting, so Kant opposes child soldiers.
What does Kant think of recruitment and forced conscription?
If there is such a thing as morality, we must have free will. Kant says ‘Ought implies can’, so it would be wrong to say I ought to do something if I am not free to choose. Critics of Bush say that people in poorer parts of
America with high unemployment had no other option but to sign up. Kant is against forced conscription, as people are not freely choosing to become soldiers
How would situation ethics support the exploitation of poor communities in recruitment?
Critics of George W Bush claim he exploited poor black communities where unemployment was high by offering young people a career in the army, then sending them to Iraq. Kant and Natural Law would support this claim. Situation Ethics is more pragmatic, recognising that you need to find a solution if there aren’t enough soldiers. This system works, but many claim it is unfair.
What does virtue ethics say about the training of soldiers?
If you behave a certain way, you develop that trait. Virtue Ethics may suggest that it is wrong to train soldiers to hate and kill, as they will continue to behave that way. An example is the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grhaib.These soldiers were trained to hate, so is it any surprise that this is what they did?
How does situation ethics view the Just war theory?
The Just War criteria, created by Augustine, Aquinas and the Catholic Bishops, lays down the necessary prerequisites for a war to be justified, all of which must be met. Situation Ethics rejects these rules. For
example, Just Cause. A country must have done something to justify being attacked e.g. developing WMD, and it must be the Last Resort. For Situation Ethics, this is not required, as bringing about peace in an area may be the most loving thing.
How would situation ethics respond to genocide (link to Darfur)?
This self-sacrificial love for all people would have driven Situationists to take action in
Rwanda to prevent the genocide, and Situationists campaign for a military response in Darfur where 300,000 have died. They would not necessarily wait for UN backing. Agape demands that we love others as we love ourselves, and would lead Situationists to support fighting to save the lives of others.
What happened in the case study of the Geneva convention where it was manipulated?
Guantanamo Bay– people arrested and detained without trial. Torture–Bush denied that ‘water-boarding’ is torture, but many have criticised this. Other complaints include sexual degradation, religious persecution, forced drugging, torture with broken glass, barbed wire, cigarettes.
How would Utilitarians decide to go to war?
In Utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. Strictly speaking, a country wouldn’t need a just cause to go to war as long as they had the right intention - the greatest good for the greatest number. A utilitarian would not support selfish motives. However, utilitarians would be happy for the military or the President to make up a threat so long as the ensuing war made the world a better place.
Rule Utilitarians may have a different approach, arguing that a world where people go to war without a just cause would be an unstable world. Therefore the Just War Criteria, although in many cases not utilitarian, may be necessary to make the world a better place.
What are the problem of the three conditions?
The idea that the feudal structure of society is divinely ordained does not hold with modern democracy. Could Hitler or Saddam Hussein for example be classed as a legitimate authority?
• Determining what constitutes a just cause to go to war is problematic. For example, the mistreatment of Germany after the First World War appears to justify the Second World War.
• In almost all cases, both sides will claim the right intention on the grounds that they consider it is their ‘right’ to go to war
What happened in the case study of the Iraq war?
The war in Iraq that began in 2003 (and finished in 2011) was far more controversial than the earlier conflict. A million people took to the streets in London to protest against plans to go to war. The UN had not made a further resolution supporting a second invasion, and weapons inspectors had failed to find conclusive proof of weapons ofmass destruction. Many critics saw Iraq as a mis-judged response to 9/11, motivated by greed for oil, and certainly
not the last resort. The death toll was higher than in the first conflict, with estimates between 100,000 and 1,000,000 violent deaths.
How would virtue ethics view recruitment?
Aristotle differentiated between people who love pleasure (live for themselves), people
who love honour (living for others) and people who love contemplation (living for
knowledge). Soldiers should want to die honourably according to Aristotle. He said that “mercenaries prove cowards and when the danger is too great… they are the first to flee”. It is wrong to coax people to fight through pay. However, it should be noted that in Greek society warfare was an accepted duty of all men– an early form of conscription
How would Kantians decide to go to war?
Kant would not support needlessly going to war, as it would mean willing that I might be shot, which is contrary to the will. However, his theory would support declaring war in defense of others. We could happily universalise a maxim that said we should go to war to defend another country from attack - because we too would want to be defended if we were attacked. If soldiers had no vested interest in making the world a safer place, then they would be merely being used. This means we would have to look closely at the justification for going to war to see if Kant would support it.
How would Natural Law view the Just War theory?
Aquinas contributed to the Just War theory.
He believed that absolute moral principles
governing when it is appropriate to use military force could be reached through the use of reason. The Just War criteria have been accepted by countries around the world, and have a firm rational basis. There are discussions about updating the principles in light of terrorist threats, but the theory itself hasn’t been seriously challenged in hundreds of years.
What would Mill’s Utilitarianism think of young soldiers (link to child soldiers)?
In the Congo, child soldiers are employed by militia, and made to do terrible, dehumanising things like raping enemy women. However, Britain allows children of 16 to sign up, and will send 17 year olds to fight. This makes use of their strength and youth, and increases the number of troops available. Mill would have a problem with this, though, as the alternatives to take them later, allowing them a better education and access to higher pleasures.
How would situation ethics view pacifism?
Situation Ethics sees people as more important than rules. Pacifists use the Ten
Commandments to argue that it’s wrong to kill, but Situationists believe that killing to
protect people may be right. Other
Situationists may be pacifist, believing that it is more effective in achieving peace (MLK was very effective with non-violence), but a Situationistwill not be in principle against war, they may just believe it doesn’t work
in practice
.
What does preference Utilitarianism say about Just War theory (link to Iraq war)?
Singer’s Utilitarianism focuses on fulfilling
people’s preferences .Rather than requiring a Just Cause or Proper Authority, he would look at people’s interests. Singer is worried that we tend to be more concerned with our own interests than those of, say, the Iraqis. Having a Just Cause is not a reason to go to war. In all cases, you should do the things that are in everyone’s best interests.
How would Natural Law view genocide (Link to Darfur) ?
This primary precept is commonly used to establish secondary precepts to prevent life from being destroyed–eg, ‘Do not abort’, ‘Do not commit euthanasia’, and it may be used to support Jus in Bello (‘don’t target innocents’). However, it can also be used to require someone to act. For example, in the case of genocide, many think that the powerful nations have a duty to protect the people of Darfur from being slaughtered in large numbers.
How would Natural Law view child soldiers?
The primary precepts suggest humans should live in an ordered society that values
education. This may lead to a secondary precept that children should not be sent to war. The UK recruits 16 year olds. This may be seen as contrary to human nature. Amnes
ty, and other human rights groups, consider this a violation of the absolute principles
supported by the UNDHR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (optional protocol from 2000)
What biblical verses are against war?
” Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it”.- Psalm 34v14
“And he will be called a Wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.”
-Isaiah 9:6-7
“They will beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more.”- Micah 4:3
“You shall not murder.”- Exodus 10:13
How would Utilitarians view landmines?
An Act Utilitarian will be open to using whichever weapons are most effective in any given confrontation, and this is most likely the thinking that led Israel to send cluster bombs into Lebanon. Rule Utilitarians would ask about whether a law restricting
some types of weapons might lead to the greater good. If it was agreed that indiscriminate weapons should be banned, a rule utilitarian would be committed to not using such weapons.
What is the issue with landmines in the case study?
Now called IEDs (improvised explosive devices), these are anti-personnel and anti
-vehicle weapons that often remain around for years after the conflict has finished. They kill indiscriminately. The Ottawa Treaty to prohibit their use has been signed by 158 nations. There are other indiscriminate devices (like cluster bombs) still widely
used
How would virtue ethics have viewed Hiroshima?
Eudaimonia means happiness in the sense of ‘human flourishing’, and if this is achieved for a whole community, that is even better. It could be argued that the bombs dropped on
Hiroshima were necessary for the international community to move forward and ‘flourish’. Many historians accept that the war would not have ended if the bombs had not beendropped. However, Hiroshima cannot really be said to have led to ‘human flourishing’
Why would Kant support human rights (link to Geneva convention)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights happened in 1948, so before then there were no human rights. It is logically possible to imagine a world where people are arrested without charge and tortured. However, any rational agent imagining themselves being arrested without charge would be against having such a rule–
it is a contradiction of the will, because
we would not want to be treated that way
How would virtue ethics regard the Just War theory?
Aristotle would have been happy that decisions of going to war be left to the wise, educated leaders of a country. Wisdom will lead to the Just War criteria. It makes sense that war should only ever be a last resort, and that you should only fight if it
is possible to win. All of the criteria are reasonable, and there is a lot of support for the criteria from people of all backgrounds. The criteria can be reached at by a wise person using reason.
What does Jus in Bello mean?
Refers to the rules of just conflict and how a just war should be fought
What would Maclntyre say about child soldiers (virtue ethics)?
MacIntyre says that to understand people’s values, you have to understand the context. For example, in the UK you are treated as an adult from 18, so recruiting soldiers at 16 seems to not fit. In the Congo they recruit much younger, but a lot of children start work younger and don’t go to school. These facts should influence our understanding of the moral principles at work.
How would Utilitarians view recruitment?
Bentham, often seen as an Act Utilitarian, would support conscription in some cases, as it may be necessary to achieve the greater good. Mill defended individual liberty, making him more like a rule utilitarian. He would have resisted forced conscription, despite the fact that it might lead to the greater good. This aspect of Mill’s thinking appears contradictory, but
could be justified from a rule utilitarian perspective.
How would virtue ethics view genocide (like it Darfur) ?
Another example of a moral virtue is courage. Aristotle thought that tyranny was the worst form of government. He believed Courage was one of the cardinal virtues. He may have supported the conflict in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He would have been far more likely to see the prevention of genocides in Darfur and Rwanda as courageous and noble
What do people think about creating embryos specifically for research purposes?
The number of spare embryos available for research is very limited. There are many suggestions about how to create new embryos - using eggs from aborted foetuses, using bovine eggs etc. Each suggestion carries different concerns. Those who see an embryo as a human person believe that it is deeply wrong to create embryos just for research.
What are the benefits of embryo research?
The benefits of embryo research are potentially so significant that the provide a very strong argument in favour of allowing even very controversial research. Embryology has already helped to develop technology that has helped thousands of childless couples to have babies - over 10,000 babies a year in the UK. Embryonic stem cell research promises cures to diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people, such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries etc.
Why would Kantian ethics be against embryonic research?
The destruction of embryos would be wrong and no amount of positive consequences could justify this. To be clear about why this is, imagine if embryos were experimented on as a law of nature. If this was the case, I might never have been born. This doesn’t require any assumption about the status of an embryo, merely the recognition that my genetic code was distinct from the earliest stages, and therefore to destroy or experiment on an embryo would be to prevent a specific person from being born. Also, treating someone as a means to an end.
What happened in the case study of the Rubella vaccine of 1994?
The introduction of the Rubella Vaccine in October 94 was rejected by two Roman Catholic schools on the basis that it was developed from a dead foetus (an intrinsic wrong). The Methodist Church however takes a more teleological approach to Christian Ethics (hence it’s links with Situation Ethics) and might accept the vaccination on the basis that the good produced from immunisation against Rubella outweighs the evil derived from researching embryos – the greater end justifies the evil means.
Are there alternatives to embryos?
There are many claims about alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, such as the use of adult stem cells. It is very hard to be certain that adult stem cells would be as effective, and therefore many supporters of using embryos say that the benefits of research, and the speed with which those benefits will become available, justify the use of embryos.
What is the case study about the embryo with three parents?
Scientists are trying to prevent a mother passing mitochondrial diseases on to her child. After her egg is fertilised with her husband’s sperm, the nucleus is removed and put into the egg of another woman. The resulting embryo has DNA from all three participants but, if allowed to grow, would resemble the ‘parents’ as the mitochondrial DNA does not dictate hair or eye colour etc.
What view would situation ethics have of embryonic research?
Personalism, one of the four principles Fletcher’s of Situation Ethics, is the belief that people are important. Embryonic stem cell research could potentially help millions, which would make it morally justifiable. It is not clear what value a situationist would give to an embryo - situation ethics does not give specific guidance, saying that the right course of action would be to do the loving thing in any situation. A situationist who believed the embryo was a person would respond very differently from one who didn’t - the theory cannot be used to comment on the status of the embryo, merely on what to do if the embryo were a person.
What could the virtue of compassion say about embryonic research in virtue ethics?
Compassion could be shown to the embryos that are being used for the good of others
Compassion could also be shown to the people who are suffering from degenerative diseases such as Alzheimers
However, those who possess the degenerative diseases could be seen to be demonstrating compassion for the embryos by preventing the continuation of embryo research. Thus it could be argued both ways.
What is the issue if the embryo is considered a person?
The most significant argument against embryo research is that an embryo should be treated as a human being, which would make embryo research equivalent to murder.The official position of the Catholic Church is that it is impossible to be certain when human life begins, so an embryo might be a person, so it should be treated as a person.
Why would Natural Law be against embryonic research?
he Primary Precept ‘Protect and preserve the innocent’ would mean that anything done to an embryo that would prevent it from developing would be seen as wrong.
A different way of finding out what Natural Law thinks is by asking what the purpose is of somethng. The purpose of human life is summed up by the primary prescetps. However, the purpose of an embryo can be considered separately. It is designed to grow into a person, so it would be wrong to experiment on an embryo.
In what way would Utilitarians support embryonic research?
t may be assumed that utilitarianism would have no problem with using spare embryos - they would otherwise be discarded, and if we get any use out of them at all, the end justifies the means. It would be easy to assume that utilitarianism would therefore support the creation of embryos for research. No harm is being done (embryos feel no pain), and much good could be done. Every aborted foetus could yield hundreds of eggs from which hundreds of embryos could be produced.
Why would virtue ethics support embryonic research?
Stem cell research offers cures to paralysis, Parkinson’s disease, and many other seriously debilitating conditions. These conditions are not part of the eudaimonian ideal. Eudaimonia is complete happiness, and such a state would not be possible with the agony of such conditions. Just as we should strive to develop our character, we should prevent things that stand in the way of eudaimonia.
In what way would Utilitarians oppose embryonic research?
if we move past Bentham’s theory, which recognised only pleasure as being of value, we would need to ask whether an embryo has any interests. Certainly some people would argue that it is in an embryo’s interests to be implanted. The counter-argument is that embryos have no interests, but if you look at how far Singer is willing to assign interests in terms of the environment, this may not be such an easy argument to win. Further, when doing a utilitarian calculation, you would need to weigh up different possibilities. For an embryo, wouldn’t the outcome be better if you attempted to implant it rather than experiment on it? This argument is more easily dismissed, as the embryo was never going to be implanted.
What is the case study about the first cloned human embryo?
Judson Somerville broke his spine in a cycling accident, leaving him paralysed. Scientist Jose Cibelli took cells from Somerville and, having removed the nucleus of an ovum, implanted the nucleus of one of his cells, creating the first human embryo clone. Cibelli was unsuccessful in this attempt to cure Somerville, but his work continues.
What is embryo research used for?
This research helped to improve IVF techniques, as well as to better understand the earliest stages of human development. Research also shed light on a variety of inheritable disorders. Embryos contain stem cells which, according to scientists, could be used to cure a wide range of conditions. Stem cells can be coaxed into growing cells of any other type, which makes them potentially very useful indeed. However, removing stem cells from an embryo will kill the embryo, which some people object to.
Who is J.J. Thompson?
A pro-life person who supports feminist ethics.
Why do some people believe life begins at the 14th day stage?
Peter Singer argued that we can’t define a person “Until we know what we are talking about.” At 14 days we become aware of a growing foetus. Singer said a person cannot be in existence before 14 days.
What is Uk law in regards to abortion?
The Abortion Act 1967 provided a legal defence for carrying out an abortion up to 28 weeks (24 weeks since HFE Act 1990) or ‘viability’ if:
continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman, or her existing children, than having a termination.
there is a substantial risk that the child when born would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
In what ways do Kantian ethics disagree with abortion?
The maxim “You should have an abortion” becomes a self-contradictory universal maxim “Everyone should have abortions”. It couldn’t possibly work, as there would be no people to have abortions. Choose a different maxim, such as “People who have been raped should have abortions” and you no longer have a self-contradiction. However, this must be a contradiction of the will. Would you want to make a law of nature that ended pregnancy naturally if it arose out of rape? if I willed such a law of nature, I might be willing myself out of existence, as there are undoubtedly rational agents who have been born as a result of rape. I couldn’t will a universal law of nature that would have prevented my own existence. Abortions could be seen as using the foetus as a means to an end.
What happened in the Roe Vs. Wade case?
In 1973 (Roe v. Wade) the US Supreme Court held that a pregnant woman has a constitutional right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability as part of her freedom of personal choice in family matters – abortion became legal across the US.
In what ways could Virtue Ethics support abortion?
abortion could be seen as a virtuous action if it demonstrates the golden mean that is courage, leading to human flourishing.
When would situation ethics be against abortion?
both Singer’s utilitarianism and Fletcher’s situation ethics say you should act in the ‘best interests’ of those affected. The real question is what counts as being in someone’s best interests. This is where a Christian ethics will include the idea that God created us, instructed us to reproduce etc. Seen in this light, Situation Ethics will start from the belief that it is generally in our interests to create families, nurturing and educating our children.
In what ways could Utilitarianism disagree with abortion?
However, the pro-choice movement argument that a woman has the right to choose is not supported by classical utilitarianism. The concept of absolute rights is not compatible with utilitarianism. Mill can be seen as arguing for rule utilitarianism, saying we should give freedom of choice to all people. Rule utilitarianism says that we should make rules that bring about the greatest good. Either way, a utilitarian response should accept that it may in some circumstances be right to deny a woman the right to choose to have an abortion if doing so would bring about the greatest good.
In what way could Rule Utilitarianism support abortion?
Rule Utilitarianism starts with general principles from which specific acts can be prohibited without exception to the rule. It follows rules that promote the greatest happiness, for example the rule:
Allow abortion up to 24 weeks if desired
This rule can be seen as promoting the greatest net utility
What are the quotes from the RC church about abortion?
“Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are the most abominable of crimes.”
(Second Vatican Council, Encyclical Gaudium et Spes )
(“Humanae Vitae”, 1968) - “Human life is sacred”.
(Pope John Paul II, 1985) -“The unborn human being’s right to live is one of the inalienable human rights”
What is the analogy of the Violinist given by J.J. Thompson?
A man is kidnapped and wired up to a famous violist in a hospital in order to save the violinist. He wakes up and is given the choice of staying attached to the violinist for nine months and saving him, or leaving the hospital and letting the violinist die.
VIOLINIST = FOETUS PERSON = MOTHER HOSPITALISATION = PREGNANCY
What are the Pro-life arguments?
Every child is a precious and unique gift from God. We have no right to destr
oy this.
-Defenceless baby needs special protection since it cannot stand up for its own rights.
-The rights of the unborn child are equal to those of her mother.
-The embryo is human from conception with its own DNA. Left alone, it will develop into a person.
-Physically or mentally handicapped children can lead full and rewarding lives. Aborting people
because of disability is like telling disabled people that they are worthless.
-Abortion is murder
–the deliberate taking of a human life.
-Doctors and nurses
promised to save life, not destroy it. Abortion breaks the Hippocratic
Oath.
-The foetus can feel pain and has intelligence.
-The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that children need protection
both before and after birth.
-Unwanted
babies could be adopted. Many childless couples are desperate to adopt.
What does the Salvation army say about abortion?
Life is sacred from the moment of conception, but accepts abortion if:
- Mother’s life is in danger.
- Baby can not survive for more than a few days, e.g. severely deformed.
In what ways could Kantian ethics support abortion?
In ectopic pregnancies, the foetus will not survive. There are no rational agents alive after ectopic prenancies, so it wouldn’t be contrary to their will to have a law of nature that prematurely ended ectopic pregnancies.
A further potential exception would be foetuses with severe learning disabilities. If there were mental illnesses that prevented a person from imagining maxims as universal laws, it could never be contrary to the will to will that these pregnancies naturally terminated before birth. You wouldn’t be willing a law that would have prevented you from being born, as the mere willing of it means that the law would not have applied to you.
Why do some people believe life begins when the heart starts beating?
When the heart stops- you can be defined as dead. It would be logical therefore to define the beginning of life when the heart starts. However, what about those people who have artificial help with sustaining their heart beat? Do they not meet the criteria for personhood.
What happened in the Rev Joanna Jepson case?
Rev Joanna Jepson was born with a cleft palate – usually very easy correct with an operation. She campaigned – unsuccessfully – to bring criminal charges against two doctors who performed a late abortion at 28 weeks in 2001. The doctors argued that a cleft palate could lead to ‘severe disability’ and abortion was therefore legal after 24 weeks. The CPS announced in March 2005 that it would not bring charges against the doctors.
What are the quotes from the COE about abortion?
Although the foetus is to be specially respected and protected, nonetheless the life of the foetus is not absolutely sacrosanct if it endangers the life of the mother. -(Board of Social Responsibility Report 1984)
“We affirm that every human life, created
in the divine image, is unique… We therefore believe that abortion is an evil… and that abortion on demand would be a very great evil. But we also believe that to withdraw compassion is evil, and in circumstances of extreme distress or need, a very great evil…
In an imperfect world the ‘right’ choice is sometimes the lesser of two evils.”
(Church of England 1988)
“To regard the life of the mother as less valuable than that of the unborn child does not consider her ‘right to life’ in terms of her wider roles of wife or mother (actual or potential) of other children, as well in terms of her own person.” - (Abortion, an Ethical Discussion, Church information office 1965)
What does the declaration on procured abortion from the RC church say?
Abortion is a serious sin. Everyone,
whether Catholic or not, should have a proper respect for human life.
“From the time that the ovum is fertilised a new life is begun which is neither that of the father or the mother. It is the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never become human if it were not human already”
Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974
What does the United Reformed church say about abortion?
Recognises a wide range of views among its members. There is a difference between a foetus almost ready to be born, and one in the early stages of pregnancy. Sometimes abortion is necessary, but should be taken seriously.
What is personhood?
This explores what constitutes a person and at what point during foetal development a person becomes a person.
Bible Versus against abortion?
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart” Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I was born, the LORD chose me and appointed me to be his servant." Isaiah 49:1 "You saw me before I was born” Psalm 139:16 “God... chose me even before I was born” Galatians 1:15 “In the image of God” Genesis 1:26 “Do not kill” Exodus 20:13 ”You yourselves are God's temple” 1 Corinthians 3:16
What is the Roman Catholic view on abortion?
Abortion is always wrong. Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is murder.
-Unborn child is a sacred human life; it deserves the same respect as any other human being.
-Rape: RC Church does not support abortion
the foetus is paying for so meone else’s crime
How did Peter Singer expand on the violinist analogy?
You visit a friend in hospital but accidentally get off the elevator on the wrong floor where doctors are waiting to rig you up to someone.
Why do some people believe life begins at viability?
This occurs at around 22 weeks, and means that foetus can survive independently.
What Bible versus would be in favor of abortion?
God made Adam, and then “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”
Genesis 2:7
“If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands
and the court allows. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”
Exodus 21:22
“If a man does not get his share of happiness……then I say a baby born dead is better off. It does
that baby no good to be born…….It never sees the light of day or knows what life is like, but at least it has found rest.”
Ecclesiastes 6:3
“But better off are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in the world.”
Ecclesiastes 4:3
Why do some people believe life begins at conception?
Beginning of the creation of a human being. Roman Catholics say you are ‘ensouled’ at the point of conception. “A foetus is a not a potential person, but a person with potential.”
What does the Church of England say about abortion?
Abortion is an evil to be avoided if possible, but can be justified in 3 circumstances:
i) Risk to the mother’s life or her mental and physical health
ii) Baby likely to be deformed and mother feels she can not cope.
iii) Rape
What is the intruder analogy given by J.J. Thompson?
An intruder enters a house because a window is left open and is asked to leave. However the intruder refuses to leave because he has the right to stay since he was able to get in.
This is absurd – an intruder (foetus) has no right to your property (body)
What are the other questions that surrounding abortion?
What would happen if we didn’t have legal abortions?
Should the foetus be given pain relief/anaesthesia prior to late abortions?
What is the status of a foetus born alive during failed abortions?
What say, if any, should the father have?
Should a surrogate mother have the right to abort?
Should under-16s be allowed to have abortions without their parents’ consent?
Is it ever right to abort one of twins?
What counts as a good reason to have an abortion?
Should women have rights over their body?
What does Peter Singer’s analogy represent?
This represents the situation in which a woman (the friend) has accidentally become pregnant. Her mistake (getting off on the wrong floor) permits her to have an abortion (to leave the floor) if she so desires.
What is the pollen seed analogy given by J.J. Thompson?
Imagine a world in which pregnancy occurs when little pollen seeds take root in soft furnishings. A woman likes having the window open so she takes precautions by putting up a fine wire mesh to stop the pollen seeds. However one seed still ends up on the rug and she becomes pregnant.
Therefore, a woman who doesn’t want to get pregnant has only two options:
1. CLOSE THE WINDOW COMPLETELY – Never have sex
2. HAVE ALL HER FURNISHINGS REMOVED – Have womb removed
In what way does the violinist analogy support the rights of the mother to decide an abortion?
The violinist (foetus) has the right to life. However this right is not greater than the person’s right to freedom. The violinist has no right over the person’s body, and therefore the person is morally justified in reversing his hospitalisation by leaving – just as a mother has the right to terminate her pregnancy.
Why do some people believe life begins at birth?
The point at which a pre-mature being becomes physically independent and outwardly recognized as an individual.
In what ways could Utilitarianism support abortion?
Utilitarians would ask whether having an abortion brings about the greatest good. Having an abortion because of financial pressures, other family members’ needs, education, work - any of these reasons may be justified by the hedonic calculus.
Utilitarianism challenged traditional views that abortion was an ‘evil’ act, arguing instead that the end justifies the means. Utilitarianism generally supports a pro-choice position, and Mill strongly believed in individual sovereignty:
“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”
What are the criticisms of J.J. Thompson’s analogies?
- The examples are not relevant – a foetus is innocent and did not choose to come into existence, whilst a intruder is guilty of freely choosing to climb into someone else’s property
- Thompson also fails to take emotions into account
- She talks of a baby as if it were a possession or object
How can Natural Law be against abortions?
Natural Law asks what our design or purpose is as humans. One of the primary precepts is to protect and preserve the innocent. This alone leads to a secondary precept ‘Do not abort.’ Secondary precepts are absolute deontological principles - there are no exceptions. Many Catholics say that this takes the pressure off people faced with difficult decisions, such as a woman whose pregnancy is threatening her life. Abortion is not an option.
What did J Glover argue?
Glover argued that determining the point at which a person becomes a person is not logically possible – to attempt to do so would be the same as trying to define the point at which a cake mix becomes a cake:
How does virtue ethics view abortion?
virtue ethicists see justice as a cardinal virtue. If justice includes the foetus, abortion is wrong. However, in the UK, America and most other countries, the foetus does not have the rights of a person, and justice doesn’t include them in this way. As with many ethical responses, the status of the foetus affects the response you give.
What does the Methodist Church say about abortion?
“Abortion… may be the lesser of two evils. Some embryos are grievously handicapped. If born alive, their only prospect is of immense suffering and usually early death. Where the pregnancy is the result of rape, the abortion may be necessary for the recovery of the victim… Termination of pregnancy may be the right course because of the social circumstances of the existing family, or the mental or
physical health of the mother.”
(The Methodist Church, quoted in What the Churches Say CEM 1995)
Why do some people believe life begins when people can feel pain?
Some argue that people must be capable of feeling pain. Therefore, a foetus becomes a person when it is able to feel pain (no defined stage as of yet). But does this mean those who are paralyzed and not capable of feeling pain are not really people?
How could it be argued that Kant himself would support abortion?
Kant distinguished between three types of beings:
1) People – rational Agents
2) People with partial rights – people who lack rights e.g. children, mentally disabled
3) Things – animals, plants etc (things can be treated as a means to an end)
Kant did not make it clear where he classified foetuses. If they are classified as things, Kant might justify abortion on the basis that they can be treated as a means to an end.
In what way can preference utilitarianism support abortion?
For Preference Utilitarians such as Peter Singer, the moral course of action is the one that results in the most preference satisfaction. It could be argued that foetuses don’t have preferences but women do; thus abortion is morally permissible in any situation.
In what ways could Virtue Ethics be against abortion?
Courage is one of Aristotle’s twelve virtues. It could be argued that abortion is a cowardly or rash action, in which case it will not help the progression towards Eudaimonia.
In what ways could Natural Law support abortions?
Due to the principle of double effect. If something is done to save the mother’s life that is not evil, even if it results in the foetus being killed, because it was the intent to save the mother’s life and not to abort.
When would situation ethics support abortion?
If certain factors made it the most loving thing to do, For example, where a foetus has a serious disability and the parents are worried that they would be unable to bring up the child financially, or that doing so might take time away from their other children, it may be a compassionate response to abort the foetus to take away such a great burden.
Why do some people believe life begins at implantation?
The point at which the embryo knits itself into the womb lining. At this point, the potentiality of the fetus is higher than at conception.
When are the different stages at which people argue live begins?
Conception Implantation 14 day stage Heart Beating- 25th day Pain Viability Birth
What does the law say about a foetus with a disability and what is the issue with that?
The law in the UK allows abortion up to 24 weeks unless the mother’s life is at risk, or if there is a risk of serious disability. The way this law is applied was famously challenged when it was used to end a pregnancy at 28 weeks because of a cleft pallette. However, what about real cases of serious disability? The law does not allow us to treat a new-born with Downs any less favourably, yet it allows late abortions for Downs Syndrome and other conditions. Is this consistent?
What is procured abortion?
where steps are taken to prematurely end a pregnancy. Procured abortion can mean many things. It may mean simply taking a pill which will cause a miscarriage to occur. At later stages, the foetus may need to be cut up inside the womb, or even partially delivered. For Catholics, many contraceptives (such as ‘the pill’) are concerned to be “abortifacient” (they cause an abortion) by not allowing the embryo to attach to the wall of the womb.
What does the Pollen seed analogy argue?
Thompson thus argued that if a woman takes reasonable steps to avoid pregnancy she should not be held responsible for the pregnancy, and has the right to choose to have an abortion.
What are the pro-choice arguments?
It’s the mother’s body she should decide what happens.
-Every baby has the right to proper care and love; if this is not possible, abortion should be OK.
-There are already too many unwanted babies in our over populated world. Why add more?
-Surely the woman, and her family, have rights, not just the unborn baby?
-Raped women should not be made to have the baby as they did not choose to get pregnant and would be constantly reminded of their ordeal as the child grows up.
- If baby is severely handicapped, only mother can decide if she can look after the baby.
-In the case of underage pregnancy, the girl may not have really understood what she was doing, and should not lose her education and career opportunities over one mistake.
- A family may be too poor to cope with a child, and if there are other children already, they may suffer.
-Life doesn’t really start until birth, or at least until the foetus is viable
-Many pregnancies end through natural abortions (miscarriages)
–abortion is natural and often women don’t even know they were pregnant: it doesn’t have to be a big deal
-A severely disabled baby may have a very poor quality of life that also brings trauma to the parents who have to watch it suffer. It may be kinder for that child not to be born.
What are the possible advantages of eugenic genetic engineering?
However, if being psychotic or abusive is genetic, why not protect society by using eugenics?
Further, why make society pay for people with disabilities if their problems can be eradicated?
How is genetic engineering used in animals?
Has been happening for years through selective breeding. Technology merely complicates things by allowing more transgenic breeding and a wider range of potential uses:
‘Pharming’ – used to produce drugs or vaccines:
Xenotransplants - Pigs bred to grow human organs
Agriculture – leaner meat, better yield, greater resistance to disease
What is somatic cell gene therapy and what is it used for?
Definition – modifying the genes of a particular person without affecting the next generation
Retro viruses have been used to insert functioning genes into defective bone-marrow
Diabetes suffers can be given gene therapy to control production of insulin
Potentially, a self-destruct gene could be added to cancer cells to provide a cure
How would virtue ethics view genetic engineering?
Virtue Ethics is never easy to apply to concrete, complex ethical dilemmas. Ethicists, and doctors, should be habitually kind, courageous, temperate etc., which may lead to right decisions made in difficult cases. Aristotle also prized wisdom above all else, and informed debate may well be helpful in some of these very difficult areas. Justice was one of the cardinal virtues, so new therapies would have to be fair - available to the wealthy and poor alike, rather than expensive enhancement therapies for those with money while the poor die of treatable conditions due to lack of funding.
What are the concerns with somatic cell gene therapy?
Very few really, except where people have misunderstood what is happening
Some people complain about this being ‘unnatural’ and doctors ‘playing God’ – just as they did when blood transfusions and organ transplants were first introduced
While it is still new, there will of course be unknown risks to some individuals and false hope to others, but the long-term consequences should easily outweigh these
How is genetic engineering used with GM crops?
As with animals, could be used to increase yields, increase resistance to disease and pests and make some plants immune to certain artificial pesticides and herbicides
How would MacIntyre view genetic engineering?
MacIntyre starts by looking at the context. MacIntyre may come to the conclusion that xenotransplantation would work in America and Europe, but would not be appropriate for countries with predominantly pagan belief systems where people may feel they have spirits from animals in them if the organ grew in an animal. MacIntyre says you must understand the context, and that what may be valued in one society may not be in another.
What are the potential benefits of embryo cloning?
understand and prevent miscarriages more effective contraceptives prevent growth of cancer test for inherited diseases increases success rate for IVF potential sibling donors frozen twins rather than two pregnancies
How would Natural law considered somatic cell therapy?
Natural Law would therefore be against enhancement genetic engineering, but may be happy with somatic-cell therapies that corrected disorders.
How does Natural Law decide whether genetic engineering is acceptable?
Genetic Engineering at first seems to run contrary to Natural Law. Natural Law is based on the principle that God designed the world. Genetic Engineering involves tampering with or changing the way the world is. However, all of medicine involves changing the way the world is in some way. The real question is whether a therapy or procedure is intended to allow an organ or part of the body to fulfil its purpose, or to carry out some other purpose.
What is the issue with freedom and individuality with cloning?
The cloned person should be free to determine his/her own future
The manipulation of a clone to meet some other need is wrong
Constant comparisons to the original will be a pressure
A clone can’t ‘be themselves’ as they will always be treated like a copy
What name would they take, and who would be their parent/s and family?
What is Eugenic genetic engineering?
Definition – using germ-line therapy to create a better ‘race’ of people
Some people already think we are performing eugenics with screening for Down’s Syndrome
Eugenics has been the policy of corrupt dictatorships, but we should be wary of subtler attempts
How would situation ethics view genetic engineering on humans?
Gene therapies that are somatic would doubtless be seen as a loving alternative to letting someone suffer and die. Germ-line therapies are more problematic, as they may affect many future generations, and Situation Ethics is teleological, concerned with outcomes. However, situation ethics is Relativist. It may be too risky as a general rule to make changes to a germ-line, but situation ethics is happy to ‘throw away [its] principles and do the right thing’ - the rules are only guidelines and the right course of action is relative to the particular circumstances.
What are the concerns of genetic engineering in animals?
Involves embryos
Very inefficient – of 7,000 eggs injected to produce transgenic pigs, only 0.6% were successful
Unnatural – attacks God’s role as creator
Consequences are unknown and potentially very harmful
Could affect entire ecosystems by upsetting the balance
Could introduce e.g. pig viruses into humans (AIDS may have come from monkeys)
Mistakes result in great suffering for animals
Companies are now patenting cross-breeds and making money from them
Transgenic animals may be made for the wrong reasons – e.g. glow-in-the-dark rabbits
Any developments will favour rich countries and further disadvantage developing countries
What is the issue with health risks and cloning?
Dolly had arthritis and died young
A large percentage of cloned animal foetuses have severe ‘abnormalities’
There is no way of knowing the long-term effects on the clone
What happened in the case study of Dolly the sheep?
She was the first mammal to ever have been cloned. Much controversy surrounded every aspect of Dolly’s life, particularly her premature aging. It appears that she was genetically six years old when she was born, so got arthritis at a very early age and died young. The cloning of a sheep, and the problems it raised, makes any talk of developing a similar sort of technique in humans merely theoretical at this stage - scientists realise they need to refine the procedure before they would be allowed to try this with humans.
How would Natural Law view genetic engineering on animals?
Natural Law may be against using animals to produce pharmaceuticals or to grow organs for transplant as this runs contrary to their God-given purpose. This isn’t clear cut. Most Natural Law theologians tend to see animals as lower beings and accept that they may be used to, for example, feed humans. The justification may be that one of the primary precepts of Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory is to protect and preserve human life, in which case ‘pharming’ and xenotransplantation would be seen as acceptable.
What are the possible uses of reproductive cloning?
Ill/dead child
Einstein/MLK/Beckham
Spare body parts
Young self (eternal life?)
What are the concerns with GM crops?
Effects unknown – environmental, health etc.
Removes choice, as GM seeds travel over to non-GM crops or even weeds (making them stronger!)
it costs millions to develop these crops, so rich countries will do it first
Traditional farming re-uses seeds, but biotech companies charge on a yearly basis
Developing countries are going it alone, but their safety tests aren’t as thorough
What is the view of Kantian ethics on the genetic engineering of animals?
Kant would be happy with xenotransplantation (using animals to grow organs for humans) as long as there were no risks to humans. Animals have no intrinsic value for Kant as they are not rational. Put another way, to ask “Would you will that you be used to grow organs for humans if you were a pig?” would make no sense as pigs aren’t capable of willing this at all.
What are the concerns with therapeutic cloning?
Where can you get stem cells from?
Foreign DNA (greater chances of rejection and need for drugs)
embryos created in infertility treatment
eggs mixed with donated sperm
germ cells or organs of aborted foetuses
Perfect match
cell nuclear transplant
bone marrow – limited usefulness
‘mature adult tissue cells’ – speculative
umbilical cord
Cell nuclear transplant seems the best way forward, but…An embryo is a person, however created – this is murder. Others say it’s a pre-embryo and has a reduced status
There are lots of technical problems that mean it doesn’t work yet
Harvesting eggs is painful, costly and unreliable
Is it right to use non-human eggs?
When is the church okay with genetic engineering?
“If the research allows the elimination of hunger or certain diseases, that is welcome,” conceded Cardinal Ratzinger– although he pointed out that to date there is no assurance of such progress. But then he drew a clear line: “The sanctity of life is untouchable.”
What is Kantian ethics view on embryonic cloning and experimentation?
Could you will that embryonic stem-cell research became a universal law? If it was, it could mean that you had been experimented on instead of being implanted. This is contrary to the will - an imperfect duty. Some Kantians disagree, as they do not see the embryo as a ‘potential person’ yet.
How would situation ethics view enhancement gene therapy?
A situationist is likely to argue that the money could be better spent on those who are sick (this would certainly be more loving), but there are no absolutes here. In special individual cases, the most loving thing to do may be enhancement gene therapy.
What are the concerns of eugenic genetic engineering?
Encourages discrimination of anyone not seen as ‘perfect’
Values humans for the wrong reasons (no ‘innate’ value)
Focuses on strength and intelligence
Usually misused for social, racial or political ends
Attacks basic freedoms and rights
What did Bernard Hoose say about germ-line therapy?
Bernard Hoose said that we should first: 1. Study somatic cell therapies for years to see the indirect effects of genetic changes; 2. Study the effects of germ-line changes in animals; 3. Secure widespread public approval, as this will affect future generations as yet unborn
What are the potential uses of therapeutic cloning?
Organ transplants no rejection of transplant no pain or risk to ‘donor’ no waiting lists organs would be brand new lives saved Cure for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and thousands of other disorders Treatment for diabetes, paralysis and countless other conditions
What are the concerns of germ-line therapy?
Germ-line changes will affect large numbers of future generations, so any mistakes could have disastrous effects
You could make people susceptible to viruses that have only affected animals in the past
The risks are unknown, potentially huge and possibly irreversible
There is also the problem of discrimination of minority groups because of reduced numbers and seeing a disability as a defect – see Eugenics below
Reduces the variety in the human gene pool
What are the concerns of enhancement genetic engineering?
This is unnecessary, therefore not worth any risk
You might argue that germ-line gene therapy restores our natural design – no such defence is possible for enhancements (although you could argue that evolution is natural)
Driven by companies trying to make money, not improve humanity
Humans are a poor judge of what constitutes ‘improvement’ (we would be design more Peter Andres and Jordans rather than Mother Teresas and Martin Luther Kings)
Could lead to more diversity in human gene pool (but probably wouldn’t)
These techniques would be available to the rich, widening the gap between rich and poor
Reduces the worth of humans and replaces God as creator
What is enhancement genetic engineering and what is it used for?
Definition – using gene therapy to improve a person rather than rectifying defects
It’s hard to say when a genetic trait is a defect – is correcting bad eyesight an ‘enhancement’?
Could be used to make ‘designer babies’ as in the film ‘Gattaca’
What are the advantages with GM crops?
Could improve environment, but is driven by profit not concern for the environment
Could provide an answer to world hunger (Kenyan researchers developed a GM sweet potato with an 80% improvement in yield)
What is the issue with cloning being unnatural?
No random element that is usually present at conception
Death is usually the end for a person
Threatens the uniqueness of the individual
IVF issues (because of how pregnancy is created)
How would situation ethics view genetic engineering on animals?
It is a theory concerned with humans ( Personalism). Therefore situationists would be more than happy to use animals to grow organs or pharmaceuticals. The real question with these therapies is: is it Pragmatic ? Do xenotransplantation and ‘pharming’ work? There is good evidence to suggest they do work very successfully, so Situation Ethics would support them.
What are the moral issues with embryo cloning?
issues raised by PGD eugenics value of embryo discrimination ‘mass production’ of: soldiers workers ruling class
What is germ-line therapy and what are its uses?
Definition – making changes to the reproductive cells that will affect future generations
Could be used to eradicate any inherited disease
For example, Down’s Syndrome. Haemophilia, Huntingdon’s etc. etc.
What is the churches view on cloning?
Pointing out that it is “impossible to duplicate the soul,” the Academy lists the ethical reasons that make cloning of humans completely unacceptable: the radical manipulation of human procreation; the exploitation of women in breeding; the industrial approach to production of human beings; the perverse complication of relations between family members; and the destruction of living embryos which is always a factor in cloning process. The Pontifical Academy added that along with an absolute ban on the production of human children by cloning, society should also ban “the cloning of a fetal embryo” for experimental purposes.
“The Church occupies herself with the dignity of man, the defense of life.” And in that realm, he emphasized, “it is not permissible to manipulate God’s will.”
What are the issues with rights when it comes to cloning?
What rights would a clone have?
Would they be legally classed as a child of the original or his/her sibling?
What would stop a clone from committing crimes and pretending to be the original?
Why would the clone not be the same as the original?
Social context is different
Upbringing will vary
Experiences contribute to psychological development
Personality is not genetically determined
How would Natural Law view GM crops?
Natural Law may well support GM Foods. We mustn’t get confused between natural and artificial with this theory. Natural Law has no problem with artificial limbs, synthetic fibres etc. as they help humans fulfil their purpose. The real question is, will GM food be better at feeding the world? Potentially, modifying food to increase yield could reduce costs, feeding more people in Africa and reducing human suffering. The concerns from a Natural Law point of view would therefore be the unknown effects (will it harm humans - contrary to one of the primary precepts), and the uneven distribution of knowledge (already western companies are patenting genes and charging developing countries to use them).
How would Utilitarianism regard genetic engineering of animals?
Bentham considers all sentient creatures, and therefore may have problems with using animals for pharmaceuticals or to grow human organs. Singer would want to consider the interests of animals alongside humans. If it were simply a case of a single pig dying to save a human life, Singer is likely to value the human far more than the pig, as the human has far more and greater interests. However, many of these technologies involve harming a much larger number of animals, which would be a concern for Singer.
How would utilitarianism regard GM crops?
Utilitarianism looks at the benefits and risks associated with genetics. One of the problems with this sort of approach is that it is impossible to know the effects of, say, GM crops.The hedonic calculus allows us to weigh up extent and certainty, but relies on us having a good idea what the extent will be and how likely the problems are to occur.
What is situation ethics view on the right to life?
Situation Ethics demands that you do the most loving thing in any circumstance. There are no hard and fast rules. Situation Ethics is Pragmatic, and would look at what is in people’s best interests. Situation Ethicists would probably have advocated ignoring rules about sanctity of life in order to do the pragmatic thing. That doesn’t mean that you should discard the rule about not killing one person to save others. It’s a good rule, but in some situations (each situation is different) love will motivate you to break the rules.
What is the problem with the Utilitarian view on the right to life?
One of the problems with this approach is the need to ascribe a value to a human life based on the amount of pleasure/pain (or interest/preferences etc.) that the person is likely to experience. Firstly, it seems wrong to value one person more than another simply because they are capable of having more preferences, experiencing a greater amount of pleasure etc. Secondly, it isn’t at all clear how you could say how much pleasure or pain was lost if an embryo was not implanted. Even if we assumed an average amount of pleasure, how much pleasure are we talking about for a whole lifetime?
What happened in the case study of Jodie and Mary?
Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins, born in Manchester in 2000. Doctors predicted that, if no intervention occured, Jodie and Mary would both die in around three months. They also said that if you separated them, one of the twins would certainly die, while the other twin would probably live.
The Catholic parents, like the church itself, were against intervention in this case as it would be the same as murder. The operation was successfully performed, against the wishes of the parents, and Jodie (the stronger of the twins) was given the organs needed for her survival. Mary died.
When does life end?
There is no legal definition of death in the UK, but a doctor will certify someone as dead if:
There are no spontaneous movements.
There is no respiratory effort.
There are no heart sounds or palpable pulses.
There is an absence of reflexes including corneal, gag and vestibulo- ocular reflexes (spinal reflexes may persist for a time).
The pupils are fixed and dilated.
How does Natural Law view the right to life?
Natural Law is, like Kant’s theory, deontological. It deals with absolute moral principles that look at whether an action is right or wrong. Killing, whether abortion or euthanasia, is seen as equivalent to murder. Life and Death issues are much more black and white with Natural Law.
How would Kantian ethics view the right to life?
The simple answer - we should all treat people as we would like to be treated. This leads to an obvious sanctity of life position, as rational people don’t usually want to be killed. However, it is easy to imagine a universal rule that allows you to kill terminally ill people with no hope of recovery who want to die. We could make a law of nature that said as soon as a terminally ill person loses the will to live, they will die. Kant is likely to come back here with his third statement of the categorical imperative - never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Killing someone to end their pain would be to use them. This means, using Kant’s theory, that as soon as human life is genetically distinct, and would, if allowed to, grow into a rational being, it is wrong to kill them. It is important to remember that Kant came up with the idea of the United Nations (League of Nations) with common moral rules. The idea of ‘rights’ - universal, absolute deontological principles - is entirely consistent with Kant’s ethical theory.
When is it legally acceptable to kill someone?
There are many circumstances when it is legally acceptable to kill someone - in a war, in self defence (in some cases), in defending someone else (e.g. as a police officer). It is generally seen as wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being.
What is the Utilitarian view on the right to life?
Utilitarianism is teleological - it looks at the ‘end’ or ‘purpose’ of our actions, not the acts themselves. There is no sanctity of life principle here. The end justifies the means, so if we want to decide whether in this specific case it is wrong to kill, we would need to look at the consequences of the killing. If the outcomes are good, the action is a good one.
What would Maclntyre a relativist virtue ethic supporter say about the right to life?
MacIntyre is a relativist, and works very differently. He would say that we need to understand the context of decisions about the sanctity of life.
What would virtue ethics say about the right to life?
It’s important to remember that Virtue Ethics is advocated by Natural Law theorists (Aristotle and Aquinas) who have a very strong belief in the sanctity of human life. You could argue that doctors are courageous to carry out abortions in places where anti-abortionists threaten them, or that euthanasia is an act of kindness. Aquinas would disagree. Wisdom and Justice are cardinal virtues, and to end a human life would not be just or wise.
What happened in the case study of baby Theresa?
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an anencephalic infant known to the public as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. She effectively had “no brain”, and doctors predicted that she would die within two weeks. Her parents decided that some good should come from her short life, and asked the doctors to use her organs to save other lives if possible. The doctors were prevented from taking organs from Baby Theresa by Florida law. Doing so would involve killing Baby Theresa, which would be illegal. Baby Theresa died at 9 days old. By this stage, her organs were no longer of any use.
Where does life legally begin in the UK?
At birth, but Abortion law protects a foetus after 24 weeks (except in extreme cases), when the foetus becomes viable.
What bible verses support the sanctity of life?
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder. “
1 Corinthians 2:16 “Don‛t you know that you yourselves are God‛s Temple and that God‛s spirit lives in you?”
Mark 12:31 “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you : love one another as I have loved you.”
What happened in the case study of Connor Peterson?
‘Connor Peterson’ never made it into this world alive. His mother, Laci Peterson (pictured), was killed in 2002 by her husband when she was 8 months pregnant (‘Connor’ was the name she had chosen for the baby). Their bodies were washed up on a beach in California What is unusual about this case is that Scott Peterson, Laci’s husband, was sentenced for a double murder (and found guilty - he was sentenced to death and is now on death row). The foetus here was treated as a human being.
What happened in the case study of Dr Jake Kevorkian?
Later in his career (starting in 1987) he began to advertise his services as a physician offering ‘death counselling’. When terminally ill patients learned that he was helping people to die, more and more people came to him. Despite several failed court cases, Kevorkian helped over 130 people to die. Kevorkian believed that helping people was not enough, and actually killed Thomas Youk, filmed himself doing so and showed the film on 60 Minutes. He left the studio in handcuffs, and, defending himself unsuccessfully in court, was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison.
Why would utilitarianism support euthanasia?
In most cases, the degree of pain is so great that Bentham’s theory would support euthanasia. Mill would also have supported euthanasia, as he believed in the sovereignty of the individual - despite the principle of utility, if I’m harming no-one else, I can do what I please.
What did the orthodox church say on the topic of Euthanasia is 1966?
The Orthodox Church opposes murder, whether it be suicide, euthanasia or whatever, and regardless if it is cloaked in terms like ‘death with dignity.’ A person contemplating ending it all because of despondency instead should turn to God for strength and support. The Book of Job serves as a prime example of how someone overcomes extreme suffering by staying focused on God.
What are the issues if euthanasia is legalised?
This is a teleological question. Some people campaign constantly, arguing that there are many people suffering greatly who would benefit hugely if euthanasia were legalised. The response given by some is that the number of people who would feel threatened by a law allowing euthanasia is much greater - the elderly, people with disabilities, people who are unwell etc.
What is in-voluntary euthanasia?
When the patient does not want to die.
What virtues within virtue ethics would be for euthanasia?
COURAGE (GOLDEN MEAN)
Euthanasia could be seen as an act of courage to assist someone you love to die
VIRTUE OF JUSTICE
It could be argued that the situation in which someone wishes to die but is unable to kill themselves is unjust. If someone was to assist their death therefore, they could be seen as just – and since justice is a virtue they could be seen as helping humanity to progress towards Aristotle’s Eudaimonia.
What does the Salvation Army say about euthanasia?
The Salvation Army believes that people do not have the right to death by their own decision…Only God is sovereign over life and death…the grace of God can sustain through any ordeal or adversity.
What was the case study of Dax Cowart?
Dax Cowart was very badly burnt after a gas explosion engulfed his car. He said “I was burned so severely and in so much pain that I did not want to live even in the early moments following the explosion.” Dax repeatedly asked his doctors, family and friends to help him end his suffering, which lasted through 10 years of agonising treatment. Dax is blind and cannot use his hands, but is otherwise healthy and currently works as an attorney. He still believes it was wrong to deny his request for euthanasia.
What is passive euthanasia?
The withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, leading to someone’s death.
What does the Catholic catechism say?
“2280: Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honour and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.” Catechism
What is active euthanasia?
medication is given with the express purpose of shortening someone’s life
What are the issues of whether killing is the same as letting someone die?
Put another way, what is the difference between acts and omissions? Should the law require us (or doctors) to act a certain way, or merely stop us from acting in certain ways?
What are the arguments against euthanasia?
- God gave us life as a gift, so we should we have the right to take it away again?
- Killing in all circumstances is wrong
- Allowing Euthanasia only in exceptional circumstances leads to the slippery slope argument – it will eventually lead to the universal application of the right to euthanasia in all circumstances
What bible versus are against euthanasia?
Genesis 1:27: God created Humans in his image
Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, be fruitful and increase in number
Genesis 9:6 :‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made them.’
-Psalm 139:13 :For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb
‘Thou shall not kill’
What happened in the case study of Tony Bland in 1989?
When doctors at Airedale Hospital in Yorkshire asked the High Court for permission to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Hillsborough victim Tony Bland, his family supported the application.
After the Hillsborough stadium tragedy, Tony was left in a persistent vegetative state - and hence was not legally dead. His parents believed their son would not want to be kept alive in such a condition. They petitioned the court to sanction the withdrawal of hydration and artificial nutrition, which it did.
What are the issues of whether we have a right to die?
Bentham famously said that all talk of natural rights is “nonsense on stilts”. Yet some people claim we have a ‘right to die’. Other people say we have a right to dignity, and that euthanasia can provide a dignified, peaceful death rather than a prolonged period of lost dignity and great suffering. Rights are deontological. Some deontologists argue that we have the right to decide what happens to us.
What are the issues about whether it is wrong to kill?
The absolutist belief that it is always wrong to kill is a deontological position. It may be refined as ‘It is always wrong to kill someone who is innocent’, to allow killing in self defence or in war. However, if it can be changed in that way, why not make a rule that says ‘It is always wrong to kill someone who does not want to die’?
What happened in the case study of Dr Moor in 1998?
Dr Moor was charged with the murder of George Liddell, an 85-year-old terminally ill cancer patient. However, while he admitted giving Mr Liddell a dose of diamorphine, Dr Moor said he had only done so to relieve pain, not to kill him. Dr Moor admitted to the media to administering a lethal dose of drugs to many patients, he also admitted that he had done so within days of giving the interview. After his acquittal in May 1999, he said he would do it all over again.
The verdict established once and for all that doctors who administer drugs to relieve pain are acting within the law, whether or not the patient dies as a result.
What are the issues with Euthanasia?
What would happen if we legalised euthanasia?
Is it wrong to kill?
Do we have a right to die?
Is killing the same as letting die?
What would MacIntyre say about euthanasia?
MacIntyre is a relativist virtue ethicist. He might argue that in Britain we are moving towards a change in law regarding euthanasia. However, MacIntyre might explain why other countries, particularly Roman Catholic and Muslim countries, are likely to strongly resist any weakening of the law regarding the ending of human life. Macintyre will not say whether it is right to allow euthanasia - he will just explain the decisions people make in terms of the context in which those decisions arise.
How would Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures impact his belief about euthanasia?
Mill would see little benefit in continuing your life if your mind wasn’t working properly. However, in the case of physical disability, if someone’s mind was working than they could still live a happy life.
What happened in the case study of Dianne Pretty?
Dianne Pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease and wanted to die. She and her husband petitioned the courts to give immunity from prosecution to her husband if he were to help her to kill herself. He did not get immunity, the disease took its inevitable course, and Dianne Pretty died in hospital under exactly the sort of conditions she had wanted to avoid. The court cases, show an interesting range of ethical responses, ending with the statement from the European Courts only weeks before she died that Dianne Pretty did not have the right to die.
What is the view of the Roman Catholic Church on euthanasia?
The Roman Catholic Church is completely against euthanasia, seeing it in the same light as murder. The Catholic Church supports starting a patient on a course of pain-killing drugs which may eventually lead to the patient’s death (double effect). The intent has to be to reduce pain, however, and this only counts in cases where the risk of death is proportionate to the pain relief achieved. The Catholic Church believes that ordinary treatments (such as feeding a patient) may not be discontinued, but extra-ordinary measures (like complicated operations) need not be undertaken to save the patient’s life.
In what way would Kantian ethics support euthanasia?
They could argue that you can include what a person chooses in a law of nature. Some people believe that people can die when they lose the ‘will to live’. It may not be too hard to imagine someone wanting to die being a factor in their death according to laws of nature. Other Kantians might argue that a person’s ends are best served by ending their misery.
In what way would Utilitarianism figure out whether Euthanasia was the right course of action?
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus can be used to weigh up the pleasure and pain caused by two courses of action - in this case, helping someone to die, or not doing so. Bentham would consider the Intensity of the pain and its Duration. He would have to weigh that against the number of people affected (Extent), and consider whether keeping someone alive woud lead to other pleasures (Richness). He would also need to add up the amount of other ‘pains’ the patient would face e.g. loss of dignity (Purity), and consider the chances that there’ might be a cure or treatment in the future (Certainty). The pain is immediate, while possible future benefits are Remote.
What are the differences in how teleological and deontological theories would approach euthanasia?
Teleological theories concentrate the on end – death – and are not concerned with the means to that end, and therefore do not distinguish between active and passive euthanasia. Deontological theories however are more concerned with the means than the end and do differentiate between the two.
Why would virtue ethics be against euthanasia?
COWARDICE (VICE OF DIFICIENCY)
Euthanasia could be seen as an easy way out
RASHNESS (VICE OF EXCESS)
Euthanasia could be seen as killing someone without considering the implications
What is the quote from the church of England about euthanasia?
God himself has given to humankind the gift of life. As such, it is to be revered and cherished. Those who become vulnerable through illness or disability deserve special care and protection. We do not accept that the right to personal autonomy requires any change in the law in order to allow euthanasia. Church of England 1999
How could the principle of double effect support euthanasia?
It is wrong to kill, but is it wrong to give someone pain relief if a secondary effect is that they die? Once you accept that death is merely a by-product of another action, you are asking a very different question. You are asking ‘Is death a proportionate outcome?’
In other words, while Natural Law clearly doesn’t support active euthanasia, it may well allow an action whose intention is merely to relieve pain, even if the action leads to death.
What is UK law on Euthanasia?
In the Uk in 2006, euthanasia is illegal, but doctors can withdraw treatment even without specific consent
What happened in the case study of Miss B in 2002?
A woman known as “Miss B”, who was paralysed from the neck down, died peacefully in her sleep on 29 April 2002 after winning the legal right to have medical treatment withdrawn. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the High Court family division, ruledthat Miss B had the “necessary mental capacity to give consent or to refuse consent to life-sustaining medical treatment”. It was the 43-year-old former social care professional’s case that it was her decision, not her doctors’, whether the ventilator which kept her alive should be switched off.
In a landmark ruling, Dame Elizabeth gave Miss B the right to be transferred to another hospital and be treated in accordance with her wishes, including drug treatment and care to “ease her suffering and permit her life to end peacefully and with dignity”.
What happened in the case study of Dr Nigel Cox in 1992?
Dr Nigel Cox remains the only doctor ever to be convicted in the UK of attempting to perform a mercy killing. A consultant rheumatologist from Hampshire, he was found guilty of attempted murder after injecting 70-year-old Lillian Boyes with a lethal drug. The charge of attempted murder was brought because it could not be proved conclusively that the injection had killed her.
Despite the verdict, Winchester Crown Court imposed a suspended sentence, while the General Medical Council let him off with a reprimand. He is still practising medicine in Hampshire. During Dr Cox’s court case and subsequent appearance before the General Medical Council, Ms Boyes’ family never wavered in their support for the doctor’s actions.
What is non-voluntary euthanasia?
where the patient is not in a position to make a choice, e.g. in a Persistent Vegetative State
In what way would Kantian ethics be opposed to euthanasia?
You get closer to what Kant would have said himself if you consider another statement of the Categorical Imperative - that we should act according to maxims that we would make into laws of nature. Here, it seems irrelevant what a person chooses. If we decide that a person in a particular physical state should, naturally, die, they would die regardless of their wishes. We could not will this - it is a contradiction of the will as the person has not chosen to die. The last statement of the Categorical Imperative says we should not use people merely as a means to an end. Kant may have said that killing someone to end their pain was using them to another end. Kant himself was strongly against any form of suicide, and would have argued against euthanasia.
What happened in the case of Mary Ormerod in 1995?
Her doctor, with the support of her daughters, had taken a conscious decision to withhold a nutritional supplement called Fresubin from the 85-year-old after she ceased to communicate with the outside world. But Dr Ken Taylor, the GP who took the decision, was suspended by the General Medical Council, the regulatory body for doctors, after nurses at the home complained about his actions. His six-month suspension was not directly because of his treatment of Mrs Ormerod, but because he failed to listen to nurses and consult colleagues. In fact, he had done nothing legally wrong in starving Mrs Ormerod.
Why is situation ethics difficult to apply to legalism in regards to Euthanasia?
Situation Ethics isn’t helpful when it comes to legislation, largely because the situation ethicist would ignore any rules that were made anyway if the situation demanded it. Situationists may well be worried that a law that allowed euthanasia might put pressure on people who didn’t want to die. They might argue that there need to be great safeguards against the misuse of any euthanasia rules. However, they are likely to argue in favour of allowing euthanasia. A situation ethicist would probably say that, even if euthanasia was not allowed, it may well be right to break the law and help someone to die.
What is voluntary euthanasia?
When the patient makes a specific choice to die.
What is the law on care and treatment?
In the UK, specific treatment may be refused by patients but care by hospital staff must always be given. However, the courts always debate as to whether there is a difference between care and treatment.
What does Glover say about euthanasia?
Glover’s anti-euthanasia stance concentrates on the value of life. Glover uses the example in which there are two planets; on one a single vegetable grows and on the other there is no sign of life and no form of life can ever be achieved. We must destroy one planet. Those who chose to save the planet with the vegetable recognise that life has intrinsic value.
Why would situation ethics support euthanasia?
Situation Ethics is easy to apply here. Quite simply, you can dispense with rules about killing, because the most loving thing to do may well be to give someone a peaceful death. Situation Ethics is Personal - it puts people before rules. It is also Pragmatic, allowing us to do whatever works best in the circumstances. What is the use in keeping someone alive to suffer?
Relativism is at the heart of the theory.
What does the Church of England say about euthanasia?
The Church of England disagrees with euthanasia. They echo the Roman Catholic Church in their belief in the sanctity of human life. However, they also teach that it is not always right to strive to keep a patient alive for as long as possible regardless of their quality of life.
In what way could Natural Law oppose euthanasia?
One of the primary precepts is to ‘protect and preserve the innocent’. It is therefore a secondary precept and an absolute moral rule that you should never kill an innocent person. It would seem that euthanasia is always wrong. You couldn’t argue for assisted suicide, as the same principle would outlaw killing oneself even if you could justify helping someone to die , which is unlikely.
What are the arguments for euthanasia?
- You have the right to life, so why shouldn’t you have the right to death?
- Euthanasia may be the kindest or most loving thing to do in a situation
- You must respect other people’s desires
- People are rightfully entitled to a pain-free death and a death with dignity
What does Philippa Foot ask about euthanasia?
Philippa Foot asks the question; is there really a moral difference between killing and allowing to die when they both come to the same consequence?
What is physician-assited suicide?
a doctor provides drugs that will end a patient’s life. Usually the patient would take the drugs themselves. If the doctor administers the drugs, it is active euthanasia.
What happened in the case study of Annie Lindsell in 1997?
Annie Lindsell died of motor neurone disease in December 1997. Her greatest fear was the prospect of suffocating or choking to death when breathing and swallowing became difficult. With only weeks to live, she asked the High Court to rule that if this happened, her doctor could intervene and administer diamorphine - without fear of prosecution - even if it might shorten her life.
She withdrew the case in October 1997 after she established the principle that doctors could legally administer life-shortening drugs for the relief of mental as well as physical distress. She was assured that her doctor would not allow her to suffer unneccesarily and a treatment plan was agreed which followed best medical practice.
Why would Aristotle appear to support euthanasia?
People suffering greatly from illness would not be living a eudaimon life. If there was a way to improve their physical well-being, Aristotle would support this. However, where someone is incurably and terminally ill, Aristotle might hope that they would have the courage to accept their fortune. He would say that person achieving eudaimonia would have the wisdom and judgement to make the right decision.
Aristotle was concerned with the good for society above the individual. In those cultures where resources are scarce, euthanasia may well make a huge difference on the well-being of society as a whole. Under these circumstances, it may be a courageous, noble act for someone to take their own life when very ill.
What is the issue of commercialism surrounding IVF?
Eggs/sperm are sold on the internet
How would you find out what the right course of action would be with Kantian ethics?
To find out what the right thing is, kant would firstly universalise a maxim, turning it into a universal law. He would then ask whether that law was a contradiction of the wil (an imperfect duty) or a self-contradiction (a perfect duty).
What are the moral issues surrounding consent and IVF?
Can sperm be taken from a dead partner and used to produce a child?
What happens if an embryo is frozen and the husband changes his mind?
What is the legality of payment for artificial means of having a child?
You can buy eggs and sperm over the internet, and prices go up to tens of thousands. In the UK, a surrigate mother can only have her expenses paid, but in California, childless couples may pay $50,000 for a surrogate to carry their child.
IVF in the UK costs around £5,000 per attempt, although this does vary. It is only rarely paid for by the NHS. One possibility, which raises other ethical questions, is that a woman can donate some of the eggs produced through IVF to pay for the treatment.
What are the two different types of Gene therapy (Genetic Engineering)
There are two types of cell, and therefore two types of Gene Therapy:
Somatic – cells found in the body
Germ-line – cells found in the sperm and egg (are hereditary)
What are the moral issues of spare embryos in IVF?
How many spare embryos should you produce?
Can spare embryos be frozen?
Can spare embryos be experimented on?
Is killing a spare embryo murder?
What are the moral issues surrounding payment in surrogacy?
Is ‘payment for expenses’ enough in the days of the minimum wage?
Is any exchange of money appropriate?
How would the Bible be seen as to be in favour of infertility treatments?
Abraham, from whom Judaism, Christianity and Islam descend, was promised numerous descendants by God. Unable to see how this was possible with Sarah, his elderly wife, he used Sarah’s handmaiden as a surrogate mother. In Genesis, God made humans and the first instruction he gave them was to ‘go forth and multiply’. Many Christians argue that, as humans were made in God’s image, we too may ‘create’, or use our God-given intellects to overcome infertility.
What are the moral issues surrounding cost and IVF?
Only wealthy people can afford multiple attempts
Availability on the NHS means money not spent on saving lives
How would situation ethics view infertility treatments?
It seems very clear that in some cases, when a couple are desperate to have a child, infertility treatments can fulfil the needs, wishes and hopes of many couples. This seems very much the most loving thing.
Is it the most pragmatic thing though? If IVF only works for every fourth or fifth couple, does the benefit for the minority outweigh the heartache for the unsuccesful couples?
Situationsist would not be against destroying embryos in principle. The real consideration is whether IVF and other procedures are really in the best interests of the couples involved.
What is somatic therapy and what can it be used for?
This occurs when a foreign gene is introduced to help the patient recover from a disease of deformity.
What are the moral issues if surrogacy goes wrong?
Disability? Couple split up Couple change their minds Surrogate can’t have another child Surrogate decides to keep the baby Couple have their own child Couple become ill or die
Why would Natural Law be against most infertility treatments?
Reproduction is one of the five primary precepts of Natural Law. Put another way, one of the reasons why God made humans, according to Aquinas, was to reproduce - that was their purpose. However, although reproduction is an essential aspect of human nature, Natural Law requires that we follow deontological principles, the secondary precepts that derive from the primary precepts. Precepts such as ‘Do not kill’ are absolute - there are no exceptions. Therefore it would be wrong ro break one precept to fulfil another.
What are the moral issues for the husband in AI?
Husband may feel jealous/inadequate
Husband may find it more difficult to bond with the baby
What does the Modern Catholic dictionary say about infertility treatments?
In an address to Catholic doctors, Pope Pius XII condemned AID because a third person becoming involved in a marriage is like “mechanical adultery”: the donor fathers a child (with his sperm) yet he has no responsibility to the child; and a process that isolates the sacred act of creating life from the marriage union is a violation of the marriage union (which alone is the way to create life). However, if the marriage act is preserved, then various clinical techniques designed to help create new life are not to be condemned.”
Adapted from Modern Catholic Dictionary
What is the Case Study of The Perry’s?
The Perrys have strong religious beliefs that embryos should not be frozen or discarded. All embryos, they believe, should be implanted. Helen produced a number of eggs but wasn’t able to continue with treatment, so the eggs were frozen for use in the future. Emily Perry was the first child in the UK to be born from frozen eggs.
What are the moral issue raised by IVF being unnatural?
If egg and/or sperm are donated, is this akin to adultery?
Will IVF replace sex?
Not the way God intended
May lead to ‘weaker’ sperm fertilising eggs
What is germ-line therapy and what can it be used for?
This occurs when changes are made to a gene effecting subsequent generations. Germ-Line Therapy can be used to eliminate an undesirable gene from the gene pool that will not reoccur in future generations.
What is the issues with IVF?
- Personhood (the morality of discarding an embryo when it is considered a person)
- The right to life (what is done with ‘spare’ embryos?)
- The right to a child (do we have the right to have IVF treatment?)
What are the moral issues of AI when a donor is used?
Attack on sanctity of marriage
Donor’s sperm can only be used a limited number of times
Donor must remain anonymous
What is Peter Singer’s view on IVF?
• Singer accepts that the decision to destroy or conduct research on an embryo may be refusing a human being the right to life, but so is the decision to have protected sex or not to have sex at all. Therefore it IVF treatment is equally moral as the use of contraception or celibacy.
What are the moral issues of the success rate in IVF?
Only 20% effective, costing time and money
IVF pregnancies have a lower success rate, meaning that more implanted embryos die
Can give couples false hope
Can prolong and intensify the pain of childlessness
May leave couples too old to adopt
What does the Roman Catholic True Society say about infertility treatments?
“The human embryo has the right to proper respect. ‘Test tube babies’ are real babies not simple embryos to be manipulated, frozen or left to die…. Human beings are not be treated as a means to an end.”
The Roman Catholic Truth Society - 1985
What does Natural Law view the involvement of a third party in infertility treatments?
also views the involvement of a third party (such as in egg, sperm or embryo donation, as an attack on the sanctity of marriage. One primary precept is that we should live in an ordered society. If people are going around with two fathers or mothers, the structure of society is threatened.
What is PGD?
Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis is sometimes used in IVF when several embryos are produced. It involves removing a cell from an early embryo (one with 8 or 16 cells) and checking for an inherited condition. PGD could be used to check for gender or any genetic trait - however, in the UK it is only allowed to be used to check for untreatable genetic disorders.
What would Kantian ethics view on egg, sperm and embryo donation?
Sperm, egg and embryo donation (whether paid or unpaid) might not be contrary to the will. For example, in a case where one couple has IVF paid for if they donate some eggs to another couple who are infertile - we may think this is a perfectly acceptable situation. However, Kant says we should never be used ‘merely as a means to an end’. Even if donation is voluntary, a sperm or egg donor is using their own humanity as a means to an end. Kant would particularly be against the sale of sperm or eggs. Some Kantians may argue that, if they are being paid, a donor is not being used merely as a means to an end.
What are the moral issues raised for the child of AI?
Who are the child’s parents?
What if he wants to contact the biological father?
There may be tensions between child through AID and any previous/subsequent child
What are the issues with germ-line therapy?
- We do not yet know the consequences of germ-line therapy, and future generations are not able to express their opinion on something that will inevitable effect them
- The way in which the research for germ-line therapy is conducted may raise further issues for personhood and the right to life
What is the Utilitarian view on infertility treatments?
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus could be used here. His theory said that it was more important to avoid pain than bring about pleasure, so he would be concerned with the high failure rate of treatments like IVF. However, the immense pleasure of having a baby could outweigh the pain of an unsuccessful IVF treatment. They have no problems with spare embryos
What are the moral issues surrounding the cost of AI?
Is it appropriate to buy sperm over the internet?
Is it right to pay more to get sperm from an athletic genius?
Should AID be freely available on the NHS?
What are the moral issues surrounding eugenics and IVF?
Allows pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
Allows you to choose eggs/sperm from fitter, more intelligent people
How could the bible be seen as to be against infertility treatments?
Alternatively, there are numerous sanctity of life passages that are used to argue against the destruction of spare embryos. Likewise, any Biblical teaching on marriage, the concept of a couple being ‘one flesh’ etc, can be used against the involvement of a third party donor.
What are the uses and benefits of IVF?
Allows women who have damaged or diseased fallopian tubes to become pregnant (when fertilisation would otherwise not be possible via natural methods)
• Eggs and sperm are donated to single women or homosexual couples
• Can be used on women who are post-menopausal
• Can be used by women who want their dead partner’s offspring
What are the moral issues raised with surrogacy about the sanctity of marriage?
Husband’s bond with the surrogate (esp. if not AI) – she’s growing his baby
Wife’s feelings – jealousy, inadequacy etc.
What are the moral issues surrounding possible mistakes with IVF?
What happens if embryos get mixed up?
What happens if embryos get lost, stolen or accidentally destroyed?
What are the moral issues surrounding the rights of the foetus/child in surrogacy?
Any payment reduces the value of a child and commercialises humanity
Do they have the right to contact the surrogate mother?
What is the child’s status if other children are born to the couple or the surrogate
What are the moral issues raised by AI in terms of it being unnatural?
Not the way God intended people to procreate
Must not replace sex
Takes the beauty and love out of creating a child
How would Virtue ethics view infertility treatments?
One of Aristotle’s cardinal virtues is justice. Virtue Ethicists might argue that access to infertility treatments must be fair. They might have concerns with cases where a woman can only have IVF if she “sells” some of her eggs. Another cardinal virtue is wisdom. It could be argued that what we hope for most among the members of the HFEA is that as they consider each application for a license, as they decide about individual cases and whether to allow PGD, they act wisely. Aristotle may have agreed that childless couples who are desperate to have babies have not reached eudaimonia. The difficult question is whether a child would bring them closer to eudaimonia, or whether they need to come to terms with their childlessness.
Why would Kantian ethics be against the destruction of embryos?
IVF involves destroying spare embryos. This is not self-contradictory - you could have a universal law that said all spare embryos are destroyed. However, it would be a contradiction of the will, because if you truly make it a universal law, it could have been you who was destroyed. It would be contrary to your will to have been destroyed as an embryo.
What are the moral issues surrounding the rights of a child produced through IVF?
Should the child be told how it was born?
What ties are there with egg or sperm donors?
What is IVF?
• Sperm and eggs are fertilised in a laboratory
• Fertility drugs given to women to stimulate super-ovulation causing her to produce between ten and fourteen eggs rather than 1
• Super-ovulation means the couple can select the healthiest fertilised egg
- Reinserted into the Uterus for natural pregnancy.
What are the moral issues surrounding the availability of IVF?
Should it be available to lesbian couples?
Under what conditions should it be available on the NHS?
Should there be age restrictions?
What are the moral issues surrounding the rights of the couple?
The law won’t enforce any contract, even in the case of IVF, so the surrogate can always keep the child
The couple are open to manipulation and blackmail
The couple have no legal right to prevent the surrogate from damaging the foetus by smoking etc, or aborting the foetus
Should gay couples be able to have children through surrogacy?
What was the case study of Angela Donovan?
Angela Donovan was born with a rare form of eye cancer, losing an eye at two weeks old. Her son spent his first two years in hospital. She has applied to the HFEA for the right to screen for the condition for their next child. Couples are allowed to screen for inherited genetic disorders, but in this case the cancer is ‘treatable’, so the Donovans have to apply for permission directly to the HFEA. The concern here is that the Donovans will be identifying embryos with the cancer and destroying them. PGD is not a form of treatment, it enables couples to avoid having children with certain disorder
What are the moral issues of the availability of AI?
Should lesbian couples be allowed to have children?
Should single women be allowed to have children?
Should people with disabilities or people over a certain age be allowed to us AI?
What are the moral issues raised with the right of the surrogate in surrogacy?
Bonds with the baby - feels first kick, gives birth etc.
If not IVF, surrogate has biological ties with the child
Open to exploitation, particularly if poor or in countries where payment is greater than expenses
Can she decide whether to smoke, exercise, work, travel, eat junk etc.?
Can she decide whether to have an abortion?
If she becomes ill, what support is she entitled to?
If something happens to the couple now or in the future, what are her responsibilities?
Why did christianity turn away from strict rules?
In its infancy, Christianity continued to follow the rules of the Torah, until discussion and debate persuaded them to adopt a less legal approach. The key point Jesus appears to be making is that the Law is best fulfilled by behaving with compassion towards the needy. In other passages, Jesus is quoted as saying that the Law is subject to Humanity – it is there for the service of Human Beings. Jesus replaced the entire body of the Torah with a single maxim, arguing thatit summed up the Law. This has become known as The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you.
How is the bible used to derive ethical practices?
The Bible clearly has a significant role in shaping Christians’ ethical responses. Within the Catholic tradition, the Bible’s authority is the same as the church. In practice this means that Catholics tend to listen to the church on ethical issues as the church interprets the Bible in the modern world.
Within Protestant churches, a much greater emphasis is put on the Bible. Without a God-given authority to put faith in, Christians are expected to read the Bible for themselves and make their own decisions about important ethical issues.
What is the problem with using the bible for ethical purposes?
without the ability to read scripture in the language in which it was written, Christians have to put faith in the translators. On issues such as homosexuality, the translators’ bias comes through in the translation, with words such as ‘abomination’ used with no justification. Reading the Bible raises other issues. Is it the literal word of God, or merely inspired by God? Is it possible to dismiss large chunks as having been written for people in an entirely different society?
What three things is christian ethics derived from?
The bible
The Church
The Holy Spirit, Conscience, Prayer, Religious Experience etc,
What do the churches say about the environment?
The Church of England has emphasised our role as stewards. The Methodists focus on the interdependence of all of nature. The Catholic Church sees the earth as a gift to be used in a positive way, not destroyed.
What does the Church of England say about homosexuality?
The Church of England is less specific, but clearly draws a distinction between those who have homosexual intercourse (they will not be allowed positions of authority) and those who remain celibate.
What is the problem with The Holy Spirit, Conscience, Prayer, Religious Experience etc,?
Relying on prayer, the conscience, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, religious experiences etc. can give very subjective results. For Christians, their relationship with God is central to their faith and impacts on every decision they make. However, this means that two Christians within the same church, reading the same Bible translations can respond in completely different ways to dilemmas such as euthanasia, genetic engineering, IVF etc. .
Why is Natural Law considered to be part of Christian ethics?
Within Catholic theology, Natural Law holds a dominant position. The Church encourages a range of different approaches, but when it comes to offical church teaching, the vast majority of statements, encyclicals etc. are strongly in-line with Natural Law.
Within other denominations, Natural Law theology still has a significant impact. Many Christians adopt deontological positions and think we should act according to God’s design or purpose for our lives. They may be less influenced by Aquinas in this, and Protestants tend to be less sure about moral absolutes. However, there is still a strong sense of following rules within most Christian denominations.
What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality?
The Catholic Church encourages greater tolerance of those with a homosexual orientation (they now recognise this is not something that is chosen), but class any homosexual acts as sins.
How does the Church impact ethical teaching in Protestant churches?
Within Protestant churches, the church has an advisory role. It can recommend one action over another, it can condemn certain actions entirely - you can even be kicked out of the church for certain actions. However, the individual is still left to decide where to stand in relation to church teaching. In Protestant churches, the Bible has a much greater authority than the church.
What do proportionalists believe?
Proportionalists claim that doing a ‘bad’ action out of love makes an action morally good but not morally right. A ‘bad’ action is only morally right if it is proportionate. This is familiar from Just War thinking
Why is relying on scripture for ethical teaching been widely criticized?
Firstly, many people see the Bible as a collection of writings from a patriarchal, homophobic era, written by people whose ethical thinking is now outdated. The Bible is also criticised for contradicting itself; the ‘God of the Old Testament’ is different from the ‘God of the New Testament’. A different sort of criticism of the Bible is that it is so large (66 books in the non-Catholic Bible; more if you count the Apocrypha) it can say anything you want it to say.
Why is Situation ethics considered to be part of Christian ethics?
It is difficult to guage the influence of Situation Ethics. Even before Fletcher wrote his book, many theologists supported a ‘love ethic’:
“There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. William Temple, 1917
“The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law.” Paul Tillich, 1951
Why can you argue that scripture is not suitable to teach about homosexuality?
There are several passages that seem to rule out any homosexual act, but if read in context, they can be seen to be dealing with specific acts, such as the behaviour of Greeks in temple worship (a passage from Romans).As well as having been written at a time when being gay was seen as something freely chosen (a view that some Christians still hold to), many Christians argue that the bible doesn’t deal with the sort of committed homosexual relationships that gay Christians might choose today.
What are the 7 deadly sins?
Vice Pride Avarice Envy Wrath Lust Gluttony Sloth
What ethical principles can be derived from Jesus?
Throughout the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as non-judgemental except where He encounters injustice. In the Passion Narratives Jesus is shown visiting the Temple. He finds stalls set out to provide the sacrificial animals, but engaged in cheating the worshipping public. In particular, the poor were being “ripped off” by the money lenders who converted their roman currency into temple coinage fit for making donations to the temple coffers. His anger drives him to throw the traders from the Temple, and to overturn the stalls.
Why is Virtue ethics considered to be part of Christian ethics?
Virtue ethics sits very comfortably next to Natural Law - Aristotle was a proponent of both theories, as was Aquinas. Within the Christian traditions there has been great support for the ‘cardinal virtues’, listed on this site as wisdom, judgment, temperance, and courage. It is common to see them called prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, although they refer to the same virtues. Christianity added to the virtues.
How can scripture be used to teach about homosexuality?
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22
This is an ambiguous set of words in Hebrew. As well as understanding the social context at the time it was written, we also need to be aware of the translator’s situation. A different translation of the same passage read:
“Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman’s bed; it is ritually unclean.”
How should the bible be read?
The best way to read the Bible is to look at the context of any passage. What is that passage meant to mean to the person who was going to read it? While parts of the Bible have a clear meaning, and are inspiring to many Christians, there will always be debate about the true meaning of some difficult passages.
How does the Church impact ethical teaching in Catholic churches?
Catholics believe Jesus gave His authority to Peter, and it has been passed down ever since, currently lying with Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church has a magisterium - its teachings have a God-given authority that is equal to the authority of scripture. The Pope has even got the power (rarely used) to make infallible statements - statements that cannot be questioned.
Why do most christians agree with war?
do not kill’ is clearly about murder and not about war. The swords were changed into ploughshares after a successful military conflict, a conflict sanctioned by God. The church itself was pacifist at first, but this changed when the Roman Emperor converted to Christianity. Since then there has been the crusades and the Spanish inquisition. However, it was from the Catholic church that the Just War criteria emerged (Augustine, Aquinas and more recently the Catholic bishops).
How can The Holy Spirit, Conscience, Prayer, Religious Experience etc, be used to derive ethical teaching?
Christians can get inspiration from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Many Christians believe the conscience to be ‘the voice of God’. The vast majority of Christians pray for guidance even when they wouldn’t pray for intervention. Some Christians have had a direct, life-changing experience of God, which may mean seeing a vision, hearing a voice or feeling God’s presence. All of these factors can have a profound effect on the individual and can contribute significantly to the ethical decision-making process.
What are the 7 capital virtues?
Humility Virtue Liberality Brotherly Love Meekness Chastity Temperance Diligence
Why should Christians look after the environment?
In Genesis, where God looked at what he made and ‘saw that it was good’. These support a pro-environment response.
However, Genesis goes on to say that God put people in charge – humans have ‘dominion’ over the earth and all the animals. This idea of stewardship was meant to be a positive, caretaker role – ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it’ – but it has been used to imply that humans, the superior species, have been given all creatures and plants for their benefit.
What do some Evangelical churches say about homosexuality?
Some evangelical churches condemn homosexuality more strongly, treating it as a chosen behaviour rather than an unchosen inclination or orientation.
What is Proportionalism?
The challenge of situation ethics is so great that some Catholic theologians believe there needs to be a compromise between Natural Law and Situation Ethics. ‘Proportionalism’ (the title of a book by Brtitish philosopher Bernard Hoose) accepts, as Natural Law does, that certain acts are wrong or evil acts in themselves. However, it says that it might be the right thing to do, if there is a proportionate reason, to perform such acts.
What is the advantage of using the Church to derive ethical teaching?
For Catholics, the church plays a much more central role than in other denominations. This makes Catholic ethics less subjective.
Where do the rules of Christianity come from?
The Torah (the first five books) includes the Decalogue (10 Commandments)
The Nevi’im (Prophets) includes stories of the consequences when God’s law is broken, as explained by God’s messengers.
The Ketuvim (Writings) includes poems, stories and sayings that encourage the “right” way of life.
The old and New Testament
What ethical theories are considered christian ethics?
Natural Law
Situation Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Why are some Christians pacifists?
(Jesus said ‘love your enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’), and that the old testament seems to be against war (‘do not kill’ and ‘turn swords into ploughshares). Quakers are entirely pacifist.
How is Christianity put into action?
- Christians will try to do as much as they can to support the more vulnerable in the community.
- Christians will try to manage their affairs in an equally compassionate manner.
- Christians will “fight” against injustice wherever they find it
- Sometimes Christians feel forced to adopt more violent responses to perceived evil.
What are the disadvantages of using the church to derive ethical teaching?
the church continues to be criticised for being inflexible and out-of-touch with the modern world. The Church still prohibits the use of condoms in all circumstances; homosexuality is seen as a tendency towards ‘intrinsic moral evil’ (Pope Benedict) etc.
Why did Fletcher view legalism as negative?
Some ethical theories suggest legalistic rules that mustn’t be broken, This is wrong as it makes rules more important than people, and doesn’t allow exceptions.
What are the criticisms of situation ethics?
it allows terrible things to happen in an attempt to do the right thing. Many Christians are not happy to let go of universal human rights. They feel that certain actions simply are wrong, and that our priority should be doing God’s will not just making people happy. Situation Ethics makes morality subjective. outcomes or consequences are unpredictable, incalculable and immeasurable. It just isn’t possible to work out which action will have the best consequences. Too individualistic.
What is situation ethics approach to rules?
The situationist has respect for the laws, may often follow the laws and be informed by tradition. However, he is free to make the right choice according to the situation.
Why did Fletcher view antinomianism as negative?
There are antinomians who reject rules entirely. This is wrong as it leads to complete chaos with no laws at all, and no way of choosing between two courses of action.
What does personalism mean?
Situation Ethics puts people first. People are more important than rules. “Man was not made for the Sabbath”
What is different in the way that Peter Singer and Fletcher come to conclusions about ethics?
Although they may reach the same destination, Fletcher and Singer take slightly different routes. Both are teleological, and are interested in outcomes. However, Fletcher was at pains to point out that situation ethics relativises the absolute (getting rid of absolute rules) and does not absolutise the relative (it doesn’t make an absolute rule that “You must always do the most loving thing”). There is no principle of utility.
What does pragmatism mean?
For a course of action to be right, it has to be practical. It must work.
What is different between situation ethics and utilitarianism?
Situation ethics requires a positivist step of faith. Utilitarianism is justified by the empirical observation that humans desire pleasure and avoid pain, and therefore we should maximise pleasure for all people and minimise pain. There is no justification for ‘love’ - if anyone asks ‘ Why should I love?’ there can be no answer.
What is meant by love is the only norm?
Love replaces the law. The law should only be obeyed in the interests of love, not for the law’s sake! Fletcher rejects Natural Law. He says ‘There are no [natural] universal laws held by all men everywhere at all times.’ Jesus summarized the entire law by saying ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your neighbour’. Love is the only law. The problem with this is that it allows the individual to do anything in the name of love – there are no rules to say that someone has done the wrong thing.
What is similar in situation ethics and utilitarianism?
Situation ethics says all actions must be pragmatic - they need to work. This is very close to the principle of utility. Ultimately, you answer ethical dilemmas by working out what the effects will be and by maximising the meeting of people’s interests, as this is the most loving thing to do.
What are the advantages of situation ethics?
The key advantage is that it uses rules to provide a framework but allows people to break rules to reflect life’s complexities.
Situation Ethics also seems more in line with the example of Christ - Jesus seemed to put people before principles
What is meant by love is not liking?
Love is discerning and critical, not sentimental. Martin Luther King described Agape love as a ‘creative, redemptive goodwill to all men’. He said it would be nonsense to ask people to like their violent oppressors. Christian love is a non-selfish love of all people.
What did Joseph Fletcher believe?
He believed that we should follow the rules until we need to break them for reasons of love.
Who was situation ethics most famously championed by?
Situation ethics was most famously championed by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991).
How does pragmatism come into account in the case of Jodie and Mary?
For example, in the case of Jodie and Mary, conjoined twins, the Catholic church wanted to let both of the girls die. To kill one, saving the other, would be an evil or bad act, they said. Fletcher would have disagreed. Letting both girls die is not pragmatic. It would be of more use, more practical, to save one girl at the expense of the other. Whilst this is not consequentialist - it is love that is good, not an outcome
What is situation ethics based on?
It is based on agape love (Christian unconditional love), and says that we should always do the most loving thing in any situation.
What are the six fundamental principles?
Love only is always good-‘Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all’
Love is the only norm (rule)- ‘The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else’
Love and justice are the same -“Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.”
Love is not liking- “Love wills the neighbor’s good whether we like him or not.”
Love justifies the means- “Only the end justifies the means; nothing else,”
Love decides there and then
What are the disadvantages of situation ethics?
It does not provide a clear definition of what love actually is.
Some might say it is too subjective – because decisions have to be made from within the situation. Humans do not have a bird’s eye view on a situation so have difficulty in seeing what the consequences will be.
Agape love is too much to aspire to and may be polluted by a selfish human tendency.
It is human nature to love family more than strangers.
We do not know whose rules to follow.
What is similar in the way that Peter Singer and Fletcher approach ethics?
Situation Ethics appears to be very similar to Act Utilitarianism. Fletcher talks of ‘interests’, a word with which many modern utilitarians such as Peter Singer would be comfortable. He wrote about the need to change the ‘sanctity of life’ ethic, which has recently been echoed by Peter Singer. The sorts of conclusions that Fletcher himself reached - about using organs from brain-stem dead infants, about when we become fully human and how this is a matter of degree - are indistinguishable from Singer’s own comments.
What did Fletcher reject?
Fletcher rejected following rules regardless (legalism) and also the idea that we should not have any rules (antinomianism) and said that we need to find a balance between the two.
What is meant by love justified the means?
When someone said to Fletcher ‘The end doesn’t justify the means’, he said ‘Then what on earth does?’. If an action causes harm, it is wrong. If good comes of it, it is right. Fletcher says you can’t claim to be right by following a rule (like ‘Do not lie’) knowing it will cause great harm. Only the end or outcome can justify your action.
What does relativism mean?
This means that rules (absolutes) don’t always apply, they depend on the situation. Absolutes like ‘Do not steal’ become relative to love – if love demands stealing food for the hungry, you steal. However, it doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’. He doesn’t take a relative ‘Do whatever the situation demands’ and make it into an absolute “‘It relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative’”
What is meant by love only is always good?
Love is intrinsically valuable, it has inherent worth. Love is good. Nothing else has intrinsic value but ‘it gains or acquires its value only because it happens to help persons (thus being good) or to hurt persons (thus being bad)’. A lie is not intrinsically wrong. It is wrong if it harms people, but may sometimes be right. ‘For the Situationist, what makes the lie right is its loving purpose; [they are] not hypnotised by some abstract law, ‘Thou shalt not lie’.
What are the four working principles of situation ethics?
- Pragmatism (it has to work in daily life - it must be practical)
- Relativism (there should be no fixed rules)
- Positivism (it must put faith before reasoning – “I am a Christian, so what should I do?”)
- Personalism (people should be at the centre of the theory)
Why is situation ethics criticized for being too individualistic?
The individual has too much control or influence, and people tend to be selfish. If I am given complete freedom with no rules governing me, I am likely to misuse this power. Agape - an unselfish, unconditional love - is a great ideal but is rarely achieved in practice. People need rules to live by, and can’t really be trusted to do the right thing without those rules.
What does positivism mean?
Kant and Natural Law are based on reason – reason can uncover the right course of action. Situation Ethics disagrees, You have to start with a positive choice – you need to want to do good. There is no rational answer to the question “Why should I love?”
What is meant by love and justice are the same?
There can be no love without justice. Consider any injustice – a child starving, a man arrested without charge etc. These are examples of a lack of love. If love was properly shared out, there would be no injustice.
What is meant by love decides there and then?
There are no rules about what should or shouldn’t be done – in each situation, you decide there and then what the most loving thing to do is.
How do most people view Mill?
Peter Vardy says most people view Mill as an act utilitarian. Others describe him as a ‘soft’ Rule Utilitarian, ‘Hard’ Rule Utilitarians would disagree with breaking a rule even if doing so led to the greater good. Many criticise ‘soft’ Rule Utilitarians, saying that this is effectively the same as Act Utilitarianism.
What is rule utilitarianism and how does it work?
Some general principles are formulated. From these, certain actions will be ruled out as unacceptable. The principle of utility is therefore applied to a rule, so the rule will hold if in general following it leads to greater happiness. This means that in an individual case, even though an injustice might bring about greater happiness, if it goes against the general principle that injustice tends to lead to misery and a reduction in happiness, it is deemed wrong.
What did his Hedonic Calculus include?
Remoteness – how near it is Purity – how free from pain it is Richness – to what extent it will lead to other pleasures Intensity – how powerful it is Certainty – how likely it is to result Extent – how many people it affects Duration – how long it lasts
What are the criticisms of the hedonic calculus?
Unpredictable - You can’t know the future, and things rarely turn out as we think they will. It cannot be right to judge an action right or wrong based on outcomes that are down to chance.
Incalculable - Even if you knew exactly what would happen, it is impossible to add up all of the pain and pleasure resulting from a course of action. There’s simply too much to calculate
Immeasurable - A more fundamental flaw. Even with the simplest event - choosing whether to buy a toy or a magazine for a child - it is impossible to decide on a value to give for happiness. Is the joy of reading a magazine more intense than the joy of playing with a toy? Pleasure cannot be measured, so the idea of adding it all up doesn’t work.
What are the general disadvantages of utilitarianism?
We do not know the consequences of our actions.
Strong rule utilitarianism is not really sticking by utilitarianism but is absolutist and nothing will benefit the greater good in certain situations.
Weak rule utilitarianism becomes the same as Act utilitarianism, so is worse for minorities as the majority always rules.
It is impractical to calculate what you should do to such an extent in day-to-day life.
What is the advantage of act utilitarianism?
On the plus side, it has most integrity, as it allows you to stick with the greatest happiness principle unswervingly – simply do whatever brings the most happiness in any given situation.
What are some of the ways that Utilitarianism has been adapted?
Hare – preferences: the morally right action is the one that maximizes that satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved.
Sidgwick – motives: it is the motive (intending to bring about the greatest good) rather than the outcome that is good
Singer – interests: you need to look at what is in the best interests of those affected (some people call Singer a ‘welfare Utilitarian’)
What did Jeremy Bentham believe we are ruled by?
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) stated that naturally we are ruled by two key things - pleasure and pain - two basic instincts. 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do.' (Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Moral Legislation, 1789)
In what ways can Mill be seen to be a rule utilitarianism?
Mill may be seen as a Rule Utilitarian, as he clearly thinks certain rules have a Utilitarian justification. In his book ‘Utilitarianism’, Mill defends the idea of rights:
“To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility.”
Mill’s belief in individual sovereignty could be justified by a Rule Utilitarian
What is preference utilitarianism?
Preference utilitarianism is a variant of utilitarianism by Peter Singer which defines utility in terms of preference satisfaction. For preference utilitarians, the moral course of action is the one that results in the most preference satisfaction.
What is the greatest happiness principle?
The greatest happiness for the greatest number.
What is the criticism of act utilitarianism?
it is impossible to make the sorts of calculations it requires, although Bentham talked of a ‘rule of thumb’ which meant that you could repeat a previous decision under similar circumstances. Another is that people need rules - if you allow people to lie, steal etc. this could become too great a temptation e.g. to lie to avoid looking bad rather than because it genuinely brought better consequences.
What did Jeremy Bentham believe was needed to figure out the right course of action?
Bentham said that we need to look at the possible things we might do and the various outcomes and calculate how much pleasure and pain they might create, finally choosing the one that best maximises pleasure and minimises pain. His approach is therefore quantitative.He said we need to consider seven different factors, his Hedonic Calculus
What is act utilitarianism and how does it work?
You look at an action to determine what is moral, and from this general rules can be derived. By deciding how to act in a specific case, the general rule can be derived. This rule is only a guideline, and should be discarded if doing so will bring about more happiness
What is utilitarianism based on?
The greatest happiness principle. It is also based on the concept of utility- meaning usefulness. Utilitarianism thus is a system of morality concerned with what is the most useful thing to do.
What are the criticisms of Mill’s utilitarianism?
How do you decide whether white-water rafting is a higher-level pleasure than listening to Beethoven played live or eating an Indian takeaway? Mills theory seeks to reduce everything to a consideration of happiness, when moral decisions are actually a lot more complicated than that. It also still allows for great injustices to be carried out just as long as the greatest good is served.
What did Jeremy Bentham equate happiness with?
Bentham equated happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain. This was an empirical observation - people desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain.
What are the criticisms of utilitarianism?
Pleasure is not the highest form that people aspire to.
Utilitarianism infers that when you bring your wages home you should only spend them on yourself or your family if they wouldn’t bring greater pleasure elsewhere. This is impractical.
W.D. Ross argued that utilitarism is a single-factor-moral theory- life’s ethical dilemmas cannot be answered with a simple calculus that balances outcomes.
What are the advantages of Bentham’s utilitarianism?
It is reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain and misery.
It is also natural to consider the consequences of our actions when deciding on what to do.
What are the criticisms of Bentham’s utilitarianism?
You cannot predict the future so the calculations cannot always be accurate.
Pain can be good and pleasure can be bad, therefore utilitarianism can be contradicted.
There are certain things that are intrinsically good or bad, so there is no reason to do calculations each time.
Should animals be considered in the equation? The environment?
Some would say that we have a particular obligation to our family.
The majority may sometimes be corrupt (for example two prison guards who got pleasure out of torturing a prisoner might be allowed to do it under Bentham’s Utilitarianism).
How did John Stuart Mill divide pleasures?
He divided pleasures into higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are things that satisfy the mind; lower pleasures are things that satisfy the body. He said that it is ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied rather than being a pig satisfied; better to be Socretes dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’. (J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1863) Mill felt that we should aim not for pleasure but for happiness - the general happiness of society.
How would you apply Bentham’s utilitarianism to a real life situation?
Using the hedonic calculus, you would run the two options (such as to abort or not to abort) and compare the differences in pain and pleasure. Obviously it’s very dificult to decide which decision would cause the most pleasure and least pain, but in an exam you get marks for pointing things like that out! Don’t feel you have to resolve the issue as long as you’ve done what you’ve been asked to. It’s a problem with the theory, not with you
What does Peter Singer believe about abortion?
in cases of abortion, the views of the parent (however selfish or not, as the case may be) are prioritised over those of the fetus, without recourse to any (perceived) rights (here, the “right to life”). There are, he writes in regard to killing in general, times when “the preference of the victim could sometimes be outweighed by the preferences of others”. Singer does, however, still place a high value on the life of rational beings, since killing them does not infringe upon just one of their preferences, but “a wide range of the most central and significant preferences a being can have”.
In what ways could Mill be seen to be an act utilitarianism?
Ultimately, Mill would break a rule if breaking it lead to the greatest happiness. Elsewhere in the book, Mill says:
"...to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner."
What sort of theory is utilitarianism?
It is Hedonistic - it is centered around pleasure.
As you look at all the different possible outcomes of a situation to see where pleasure and pain will be balanced the best, it is consequentialist or teleological.
As the outcome of a different ethical question will be different each time, it is relativist though rule utilitarian would be absolutist.
How would Mill and Bentham be different on abortion in terms of disability?
Bentham would consider physical disabilities a major drawback, as they rule out many pleasures. Mill wouldn’t worry about these lower pleasures so much, as long as the mind was not affected. However, in the case of a fetus with learning difficulties, Mill would see this as a real problem, whereas Bentham would ask “Can they still enjoy life?”
What form of utilitarianism is Bentham seen as?
Bentham is generally seen as an Act Utilitarian, as the Greatest Happiness Principle seems to demand. As we saw, he is open to the criticism that Utilitarianism goes against justice and human rights, as it allows abuses of rights if they bring enough happiness.
What are the general advantages of utilitarianism?
A large number of people benefit as the principal is greatest good for the greatest number.
Mill’s Utilitarianism promotes general societal happiness and it is natural to see physical and mental pleasures are different.
It is natural to consider consequences, so it is easy to use Hedonic Calculus.
It is applicable to real-life situations because it doesn’t generalise and recognises the complexity of life.
How did John Stuart Mill adapt utilitarianism?
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was uncomfortable with some of the implications of Bentham’s Utilitarianism. He suggested that utilitarian principles could be used to make ‘rules of thumb’ to live by. He took a qualitative approach - some pleasures are more valuable than others.
What did Mill believe about the individual having sovereign over himself?
Mill strongly believed that the individual is sovereign over himself, which is an unusual principle for a Utilitarian! This means that, for example, we should allow people to smoke in private (banning smoking is an attack on the individual’s sovereignty) even though smoking leads to terrible illness
What did Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism result in?
Bentham’s theories led to extensive social reform affecting Parliament, criminal law, the jury system, prisons, savings banks, cheap postage etc, etc. What was revolutionary about Bentham’s theory was that it resulted in all people being considered when making laws.
What are some of the obligations that Ross lists?
Duties of fidelity.
Duties of gratitude.
Duties of justice.
Duties of beneficence to others
Duties of self-development.
Duties not to injure othersWhy is Kantian ethics absolutist?
The morality of an action takes no regard to the situation it is in. Kant thus subscribes to the belief that morality is universal and prohibitive of actions regardless of circumstance.
What is an hypothetical imperative?
Hume realised you can’t get a should statement out of an is statement. In other words, experience can only give us hypothetical imperatives (If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you eat). A description of the way the world is cannot tell us the way we should act. It is not obligatory if the end is not desired.
What was the only thing that Kant considered good?
A good will- Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785)
Why did Kant not believe that actions or character traits could be good?
In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe that any outcome was inherently good. Pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil.
What are the main criticisms to Kantian ethics?
All deontological (duty or rule-based) systems will have problems when two rules come into conflict. It is possible to have a third rule (Always tell the truth unless doing so endangers someone’s life), but this complicates the theory, resulting in rules with lots of clauses and sub-clauses. There could also be literally millions of rules that are not self-contradictory but, if universalised, would seem absurd. Here Kant says that we should reject those rules which, if universalised, would produce a state of affairs utterly objectionable to all rational people. This suddenly looks less convincing than before – how can we tell what rational people would find objectionable?
What are the strengths of Kantian ethics?
It is universal so everyone is treated equally and given equal value.
Human life is given particular value.
You have particular rules to follow - you know where you are with the theory.
It promotes good will, which is beneficial for society
There are no references to the future or to consequences, which cannot be known.
Why does the rational being need to determine the ‘a priori synthetic’?
These laws are not analytic (true by virtue of their meaning), but they cannot be determined through experience (a posteriori). Hume pointed this out when he said that you couldn’t move from an is (a synthetic statement about the world) to an ought (a statement about the way the world should be). The rational being has to determine the synthetic a priori – the substantive rules that can be applied prior to experience.
What did Kant think was the innate moral duty?
Kant’s starting point for moral philosophy was his observation that we all have experience of an innate moral duty which is shown when our conscience, alongside feelings of shame and guilt violate this. A good action therefore is one that fulfills our sense of moral duty “To act morally is to perform one’s duty, and one’s duty is to obey the innate moral laws.”
How can Kantian ethics support euthanasia?
“Someone who is terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are suffering greatly and wish to die should be helped to die”.
You could universalise this into a decent universal law that doesn’t contradict the will:
“All people who are terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are suffering greatly and wish to die should be helped to die”.
What did WD Ross do?
Ross adapted the Kantian approach. He described our obligations as ‘Prima Facie’ duties. This means that they are, ‘at first appearance’, things that we must do. Just like Kant, he might say that we have an obligation not to kill, steal etc.
What is the differences between the hypothetical and the categorical imperative?
The hypothetical Imperative has ‘ifs’, have instrumental value, are conditional, and are a means to an end. The categorical imperative have no ‘ifs’, have intrinsic value, and unconditional and are ends in themselves- their authority does not come from achieving an end.
In what way did Ross disagree with Kant?
So, we have obligations, but Kant said these were absolutes, Ross disagrees. They appear to be absolute (prima facie), but if two of them contradict, we clearly cannot honour both obligations. We need to determine which is the greater obligation, and then we have an absolute duty to follow that.
Why might Kant not approve of euthanasia?
Kant isn’t utilitarian, and never wanted to take account of the effects of the laws we make. He just wanted to work out the moral laws that could be made into universal laws of nature. So if euthanasia produced a negative universal law of nature, than it would be against it.
Why must rational beings follow rules?
We do not follow predetermined laws. However, we must act according to some laws, otherwise our actions are random and without purpose. As a result, rational beings must determine for themselves a set of laws by which they will act.
What is the Summum Bonum?
Kant noted that if we are to do our duty then we must be able to be rewarded for our actions.
He talked about the summum bonum - the place where our happiness and our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together.
This is obviously not something that can be found on earth - we see bad people living happy lives and good people living unhappy lives - therefore the summum bonum must be able to be achieved in the afterlife.
Why did Kant presume we were free?
If our actions are pre-determined and we merely bounce around like snooker-balls, we cannot be described as free and morality doesn’t apply to us. Kant could not prove that we are free – rather, he presumed that we could act morally, and for this to be the case we must be free.
What does Kantian ethics rely on?
We must be free to be able to make decisions.
There must be an afterlife (or immortality) for us to be able to achieve the summum bonum.
God must exist in order to be a fair judge to bring us to the afterlife or not.
What did Kant say was different about normal statements compared to moral statements?
Normal statements are either a priori analytic (they are knowable without experience and verifiable through reason) or they are a posteriori synthetic (knowable through experience and verifiable through experience).
For Kant, moral statements are a priori synthetic – you can know something is moral without experience, and it can be checked with experience.
Why is Kantian ethics deontological?
It is concerned with the morality of duty. Kantians are therefore primarily concerned with the means to an end; the intention or motive for action. It opposes the view that the end justifies the means and as such does not take into account the outcome.
What did Kant say was needed if an action was to be considered moral?
Kant specified that moral actions are absolute actions that must be done in all circumstances - there are to be no conditions attached.
Moral actions cannot be hypothetical (based on something else - e.g. if I want X I must do Y) because they become too subjective.
If an action is to be entirely objective, it must be universal and if it is to be made properly, the human must be in total control (autonomous) and assume all others are autonomous.
What does “Ought Implies Can” mean?
It is not our duty to do what is impossible for us to do- Moral statements are prescriptive; they prescribe an action. I ought to do X implies I can do X.
What did Kant think we should not act out of?
Kant though that we are in a constant battle with our inclination and that we should not act out of emotion such as love or compassion. Even if our duty demanded the same action but the motive for that action was based on compassion, it would not be a moral action.
How is the categorical imperative formed?
Always perform actions that may be made rules for everyone (universalisability) (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
Always treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. (Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
Pretend you live as a member of (and as a leader of) the Kingdom of Ends where all people live as if these rules are totally valid ([E]very rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
What does Kantian ethics think of PGD?
You are not allowed to use someone as a means to an end, so you could only do it if it had some benefit to the embryo, like in the case of the Hasmir’s when there was an inherited disease as well as looking for a match. The whitakers were not allowed because there was no inherited disorder, so no benefit to the embryo so they would have been using it as a means to an end.
What made something good?
Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so goodness is based on doing the correct thing.
In what ways would Kantian ethics not support euthanasia?
However, could this be a law of nature? I’m sure you could imagine a world where people die when they are suffering greatly through terminally illness with no hope of recovery. Could we imagine a world where wanting to die led to death? Even if combined with the other factors, would we want to live in such a world? Surely some people feel they can’t cope when first diagnosed but change their minds later?
What is the difference between the a universal law and a law of nature?
In other words, we get one answer when we think about making laws in society - we’d need two doctors to verify that someone had no hope of recovery. We’d do tests to make sure someone was in their right mind and had time to think through the alternatives etc. We get a different answer when we imagine that this all happens according to nature. The universal law of nature makes us think twice before we start making universal laws
What is an example of how you would follow Ross’ form of Kantian ethics?
For example, I have promised to stay with a colleague’s class while he makes an urgent phone call. I am clearly obliged to honour my promise. Someone rushes in and announces that a student is dying next door, and I am the only one who can save her (I have a First Aid Certificate). I clearly have a duty to save the student’s life (save the cheerleader, save the world…). So, which duty am I obliged to honour? Ross would say I have a prima facie obligation to keep my promise, but an absolute obligation to save the student.
What are the weakness of Kantian ethics?
It does not seem to account for the complexities of life – universalisability cannot work as no two situations are the same.
For example, would you tell a known murderer where his victim was? (Kant says we have to.)
It does not account for any particular duty we may have for certain people (e.g. family).
It does not account for times when two absolutes clash.
Some would say that sometimes human life has to be sacrificed to stop others or more people being killed or suffering.
How would you apply Kantian ethics to a real-life example?
Start with a maxim - Jenny, whose life is threatened by her pregnancy and wants an abortion, should abort.
Make it universal - All women whose life is threatened by their pregnancy and want an abortion should abort.
Is it self-contradictory? - No, it’s not self-contradictory
Is it a contradiction of the will? Could a rational person want to live in a world with this rule?
Could you will that it became a universal law of nature?
Is it using a person merely as a means to an end?
What are the criticisms of Natural Law?
Using reason to determine God’s purpose for humans does not give consistent results – something might have a number of functions or uses, so how can you determine which is its God-given purpose?
Natural Law is supposed to produce objective moral principles, but we would often be influenced by our society’s morality. For example, Aquinas believed that Kings, barons, knights, freemen and serfs was the natural order of society
Aquinas needs to look at the human as a whole, not just at functioning parts; this way, we can understand the emotional and psychological value of sex, not just the physical ‘purpose’ of intercourse
You may get a different set of rules if you look at the purpose of human society rather than of the individual (used as a justification for celibacy in priests, but could be a way to justify things such as homosexuality)
Protestants have argued that Natural Law removes the need for God’s grace, as being good means following the rules, not being saved
Many argue that there is no purpose in life; to support this argument, they point to tragedies such as the recent terrorism in New York, ‘acts of God’ such as floods or genetically inherited diseases and say that there is no designer behind the universe
In some cases it seems cruel to follow a rule when the consequences are terrible; if we accept that it is occasionally alright to break Natural Laws then the whole theory is weakened.
Do men and women have the same ultimate purpose, or are they intrinsically different?
What does Casuistry mean?
Casuistry, from the Latin for ‘case’, refers to the process of applying principles to individual cases. In the Roman Catholic Church, this means applying the universal principles of Natural Law to specific situations. This is done in a logical way, as some principles have logical consequences.
What is Eudaimonia?
Aristotle’s idea of the ultimate good, which is our ultimate aim as our potential is to reach the ultimate good.
What are the five primary precepts?
- Self-preservation/preservation of the innocent
- Continuation of the species through reproduction
- Education of children
- To live in society
- To worship God
What sort of theory is Natural Law?
Nature Law is deontological - concerned with a means to the end.
Natural Law is absolute- It does not allow any exceptions to the rules and can be applied universaly
How does Natural Law relate to Euthanasia?
Euthanasia also needs careful definition. Medical staff have always made decisions about patients who are very ill with no hope of recovery that many would call ‘passive euthanasia’. To know whether these decisions contradict the Primary Precepts, you need to know what would be considered to go against the precept ‘Protect and preserve the innocent’. There is much debate about what is considered ‘withdrawl of treatment’. If you stop feeding someone, is that withdrawing treatment or something more than that. In a nutshell, natural law theorists would agree that it is wrong to kill a person, but they would disagree about what ‘killing a person’ included.
How are the primary precepts revealed to us?
Through God.
Why are some actions always wrong?
Certain actions were seen by Aquinas to be contrary to human nature. Reason would then give us absolute secondary precepts that would always hold making unnatural actions always wrong.
What are the strengths of Natural Law?
It is a justifiable way of asserting that Morality is absolute. It is therefore possible for one group of people to be able to judge another.
It allows faith to be combined with reasion and appreciates the human ability to reason, whilst it can still be adopted from a Christian perspective.
Appeals to our instinctive convictions of right and wrong that depend on more than just opinion and society.
What is the principle of double effect and how does it apply to Natural Law?
Double effect refers to situations where there is an intended outcome and another significant but unintentional outcome. According to Natural Law, it is our intentions that are important, not the consequences of our actions. Double effect would not allow you to perform an action where an unintended outcome had devestating effects. The unintended effect has to be PROPORTIONATE. What this actually means, critics say, is that Natural Law becomes like Utilitarianism.
What did Aquinas say about Potentiality and Actuality?
Aquinas said everything has a state of potentiality and an actuality; turning potentiality into actuality is fulfilling a purpose and thus the essence of goodness.
What example could you give about whether a soldier shot well in regards to efficient and final cause?
The efficient cause deals with the set of events around the shooting – did he aim well, was the shot effective, did the target die? These are descriptive points, and clearly don’t tell us about the morality of the shooting. When we look into this area – was it right to kill? - we are evaluating his intent, and are asking about the final cause. We can then look at whether that cause is consistent with God’s design for human beings.
What is Divine Law?
The law given to people from God through the bible and the teaching of the church.
What is the problem with Broad’s definition?
This distinction, and these definitions, are seen by many ethicists as unhelpful, but they are on most syllabuses. Broad admitted that “most theories are actually mixed”, and we can see this in Natural Law.
What example does Aquinas give which suggests that the secondary precepts are not always an absolute duty?
” it is right and true for all to act according to reason : and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of fighting against one’s country.”
This doesn’t mean that we do not have a duty to return goods entrusted to us, but that there may be conflicting duties that prevent us from doing so.
How does Aquinas’ belief in God affect Natural Law?
Aquinas believed in life after death, which leads to a different understanding of God’s plan for humans. Aquinas holds that the one goal of human life should be ‘the vision of God which is promised in the next life’. This is why humans were made, and should be at the centre of Natural Law thinking.
What are some examples of actions which would always be considered wrong?
Aquinas gives examples (in Summa Theologica) as illustrations of those actions that are wrong in and of themselves because they contradict the primary precepts of natural law:
theft
lying
fornicating
committing adultery
killing the innocent
What is Eternal Law?
The order in the mind of God.
Why does Natural Law support certain virtues?
Aquinas argued that the self should be maintained. As a result, Natural Law supports certain virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) that allow the self to fulfil its purpose. Similarly there are many vices (the seven deadly sins) that must be avoided as they prevent the individual from being what God intended them to be.
How is Natural Law rooted in Aristotelian Philosophy?
Aristotle believed everything in live serves a purpose and has an efficient and final cause. For Aristotle, everything has a telos or end purpose and this determines it’s ‘good’.
What are the levels of law?
Eternal Law Divine Law Natural Law Human Law Each level of law depends on the levels above it, whilst eternal law does not depend on anything because God exists necessarily.
What is Human law?
Rules made by human societies in order for them to work successfully.
How did Aquinas adapt Aristotelian philosophy to Natural Law?
He applied it to Christian Theology. He argued that the Telos of the world can be found in God. The world is the creation of God and thus can reveal his purpose through reason and intellect. For Aquinas, faith and reason together provide the best tools for living.
What did Broad say was the difference between teleological and deontological theories?
By teleology, he meant theories where “the rightness or wrongness of an action is always determined by its tendency to produce consequences which are intrinsically good or bad”. According to Broad, deontological theories hold that “such and such a kind of action would always be right (or wrong) in such and such circumstances, no matter what its consequences might be”. In essence, teleology is concerned with good and bad, deontology with right and wrong.
Who created Natural Law?
The theory of Natural Law was put forward by Aristotle but championed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)
Are secondary precepts absolutist?
Some are deontological, absolutist precepts, but Some secondary precepts are deontological (concerning actions rather than ends, and related to our specific duties), but not absolutist.
What are the secondary precepts and how are they derived?
From the general principles, practical reason enables us to derive secondary precepts. These are rules that govern our specific actions. The secondary precepts are what makes Natural Law appear deontological. Secondary Precepts are rules derived from Primary Precepts using practical reason.
Why are the primary precepts not deontological?
looking at Aristotle’s notion of telos as excellence, we see that the Primary Precepts are not concerned with actions themselves, but with our telos or purpose. As such, the Primary Precepts are actually teleological. For Aquinas, man’s final purpose (telos) is happiness with God (beatitudo), something for which we all have an innate desire. The Primary Precepts are our natural inclinations that guide us towards this final purpose.
What is the Synderesis rule?
It relies on Aquinas’ basic understanding that humans innately try to do good and to avoid evil in order to find fulfilment and happiness in life - “ “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.”
How does Natural Law relate to abortion?
From the Primary Precept ‘Protect and preserve the innocent’ we get a secondary precept ‘Do not abort’. This is an absolute moral rule - abortion is always a wrong act. The Catholic Church reasons in this way, and condemns abortion in all instances.
The moral debate here will focus on the details. For example, is the use of the pill tantamount to abortion? A professor in America is one of many who claims that science has demonstrated that “birth control pills usually prevent pregnancy, but sometimes they cause an abortion.”
Also, does Natural Law require you to believe that a foetus is a human being from the moment of conception? If you don’t agree with the Catholic Church on this ( you would be able to hold that early abortions do not contradict the Primary Precept ‘Protect and preserve the innocent’.
What is Natural Law?
The intuitive sense of right and wrong discovered through conscience.
What do ‘real goods’ do as supposed to ‘Apparent goods’?
Following a ‘real’ good will result in the preservation or improvement of self, getting nearer to the ‘ideal human nature’ that God had planned. There are many apparent goods that may be pleasurable (e.g. drugs) but ultimately lead us to fall short of our potential. Reason is used to determine the ‘real’ goods.
Why did Aquinas think humans sometimes did wrong actions?
At times humans use their reason incorrectly because they are following apparent goods rather than real goods. An example of an apparent good is taking drugs - it seems like we are doing a good thing but in reality we are not!
How does the efficient and final cause relate to natural law?
the efficient cause is a statement of fact or a description. If we ask why people have sex, we might talk about attraction, psychological needs etc. The final cause is a matter of intent – what was God’s purpose behind sex? The final cause assumes a rational mind behind creation, and as such moves from descriptive ethics (saying what is there) to normative ethics (statements about what should or should not be the case).
What is the Natural Law view on masturbation?
Aquinas felt that masturbation went against the natural end (telos) of sex, which is procreation. This means that ‘Do not masturbate’ is an absolute secondary precept. However, in modern infertility treatment, masturbation might be used to assist procreation through artificial insemination by a husband. On this issue, Natural Law theorists disagree about whether masturbation is unnatural, and therefore disagree about the secondary precept ‘Do not masturbate’.
What are the criticisms of absolutist ethics?
Absolutist ethics are inflexible
It puts rules before people
Following absolutist rules doesn’t necessarily lead to a better society
Sometimes the end does justify the means
It is elitist and intolerant of other cultures and societies
What is cultural relativism and why is it a weak theory?
You may have studied Cultural Relativism. Cultural relativism is a very weak ethical position. It doesn’t really allow ethics to happen, because it claims that the right thing to do is to follow the rules of your society. It also doesn’t acknowledge that any society has a variety of rules that may contradict - which do you follow?
Why is Kant and the Categorical Imperative considered an absolutist theory?
Kant says that we should act according to maxims that we would want to see as universal laws. These laws are absolutist - we can work them out logically prior to experience; they are not verified through experience (they are known ‘a priori’). The consequences of our actions are irrelevant to whether they are right or wrong
What are the criticisms of relativist ethics?
Relativism makes it hard to criticise horrific acts like those of the Nazis
People need rules and society cannot function without laws
It is much harder to apply relativist theories
What do you do if two relativists disagree?
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
Why is Rule Utilitarianism seen as an absolutist theory?
Mill, and many since, have adapted Bentham’s ‘act’ utlitarianism, claiming that we need to make laws based on the principle of utility (choose the laws that lead to the greater good) and then follow those laws. This means I have a duty to follow these rules, regardless of outcome. This is deontological, because it deals with the duty to follow rules. It can be seen as absolutist because there are no exceptions to the rules
What does ‘A Posteriori’ mean?
Knowledge derived from sensory experience and observation.
Why is Natural Law considered an absolutist theory and is it deontological or teleological?
Natural Law is often described as deontological because, in practice, it leads to a set of rules that people have a duty to follow. These rules are absolutist, because they know of no exception. However, Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory says we should try to fulfil our God-given purpose. This is teleological, as it is interested in our design or ‘end’. The primary precepts - worshipping God, living in an ordered society, reproducing etc. - are teleological: they are the ends to which all our actions should aim. The primary precepts are also absolutist
What does absolutist mean?
Something which is objective and universal, and is therefore not changeable
Why can Virtue ethics be seen as an absolutist theory?
Some modern virtue ethicists, such as Martha Nussbaum, describe Aristotle’s theory as absolutist. It is teleological, because it is about the ends or purposes of our actions. However, Aristotle is saying (according to Nussbaum) that certain ends or goals are absolute - it is always good to be honest, kind, courageous etc.
Why is situation ethics a relativist theory?
Situation Ethics says that what is right and wrong is relative to the situation. In other words, if you asked “Is it wrong to abort a foetus?” I would ask “Under what circumstances?” Clearly the outcome of my actions is of central importance here.
What does relativist mean?
Something which is subjective and can be different depending on the context of the situation.
Why can Virtue ethics be seen as a relativist theory?
Other modern virtue ethicists say that values change, and different societies hold up different virtues as desirable. What is virtuous, according to MacIntyre, is relative to the context - relative to culture, varying throughout history. Virtue ethics is teleological, focussing on the ends or purposes of our actions. These ends or purposes vary from one society to another throughout time.
Why is Act utilitarianism seen as a relativist theory?
When Bentham came up with his Hedonic Calculus, he had developed a theory that allowed you to work out what was right or wrong in any given situation. Euthanasia might lead to the greatest happiness for one person and yet lead to greater unhappiness in another situation. What is right or wrong is relative to the situation, it is whatever has the best consequences (teleological).
What does teleological mean?
what is right or wrong depends on the end or outcome of an action
What does the Whittaker family example show?
Michelle and Jayson Whitaker have a three-year old son, Charlie, who suffers from Diamond Blackfan Anaemia (DBA), a rare form of anaemia where the bone marrow produces few, or no, red blood cells. They needed a bone marrow transplant within a 18 months for there to be any chance of success. The absolute, inflexible law said that PGD to select a suitable donor would be a risk to the new (donor) life, and as there is no benefit in screening (it wasn’t an inherited condition) they could not screen. Many people would say that the individual situation of the Whitakers, who wanted another child anyway but wanted to increase the odds of getting a donor, demanded an individual approach.
What does deontological mean?
doing what is right means doing your duty or following the rules
What does ‘A Priori’ mean?
Knowledge derived from logical reasoning rather than sensory experience.
