Ethics - Normative ethics Flashcards
What is Teleological, or consequentialist, thinking?
.The word ‘teleological’ comes from the Greek meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose’
.Teleological thinking considers the consequences of a particular action or the ‘end’ result
What is deontological thinking?
.The word ‘deontological’ comes from the Greek word deon, which means ‘duty’
.Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions
How can natural law be understood?
Natural law can be understood as both a deontological and teleological ethical theory. It is concerned with clear precepts (laws) but it is also clear that by fulfilling these laws we will reach our telos (goal) which is Eudaimonia (happiness).
What does Aristotle think the teleological goal for a man was?
Aristotle thought the teleological goal for a man was to live a life of a certain kind, that is, to be a reasoning creature and to use reason to recognize how to behave morally.
What did Aristotle believe separated humans from animals and plants?
It is reason that separates human beings from other living creatures like animals and plants.
When did Aristotle believe there telos is fulfilled?
It is when human beings act morally that their ‘telos’ is fulfilled.
Overall, Aristotle saw the ‘telos’ of human life as what?
(happiness)
Define eduaimonia
‘human flourishing’; a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous
What does Aristotle believe about souls, essentially?
Human = Rational Animal = Sensitive Plant = Nutritive
Natural law originated from where?
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes
What is natural law based on?
the worldview that the universe has a ‘telos’ / purpose
What does natural law believe humans have a natural inclination to follow?
certain laws that lead towards this telos/purpose
Aristotle thought the teleological goal (telos) for man was what? Which is?
Eudaimonia (happiness)
This happiness was not pleasure but living well and being fulfilled based on our reason (intellect)
.Our reason (intellect) separates us from other creatures as _ ___ _____ ________. Therefore, making reasoned moral decisions would lead to ______
We make moral decisions
Eudaimonia
The Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas developed Aristotle’s theory into his what?
Natural Law theory
Aquinas believed that there were 4 forms of law that enables us to reach this perfection:
- Eternal – God’s laws that govern the universe
- Divine – laws determined through the Bible and Jesus
- Natural – laws we can arrive at by applying our reason (intellect)
- Human – laws of the nation developed through the above
Which of Aquinas’ laws are available to humans?
Laws 2, 3, and 4 are available to human beings
Aquinas believed the most important inclination is what? what does this mean?
‘synderisis’ which means ‘do good and avoid evil’
Human reason is what?
the human being’s capacity to reach conclusions and make judgements based on logic, knowledge and morality
What is the difference between real goods and apparent goods?
Real goods are things we achieve by following the precepts and natural law, apparent goods are things humans pursue that they think are good but are not real goods
Primary precepts and secondary precepts are what?
Primary precepts are precepts identified by Aquinas that lead us to the main human purpose, secondary precepts are rules deduced through reason – some can be found in the Bible.
What are the primary precepts?
W = worship God O = Orderly society R = Reproduce to continue species L = Learn through education D = Defend innocent life
Aquinas’ examples of actions which contradict the primary precepts –
.Theft .Lying .Fornicating .Committing adultery .Killing the innocent
Rules in the Bible which Aquinas considers secondary precepts –
Orderly society = ‘do not murder’, ‘do not steal’, ‘do not commit adultery’
Defend innocent life = ‘do not kill’
Worship God = ‘no other God’s but me’ or ‘love God and love your neighbour’
Reproduce = ‘Go forth and multiply’ or ‘do not abort a child’
What is a real good?
an action that leads to a feeling of happiness eudemonia
What is an apparent good?
an action that leads us to immediate pleasure (can be selfish)
What are primary precepts?
laws/principles that regulate human behaviour, Aquinas believes the primary precepts apply to all humans with no exception
What are secondary precepts?
laws/rules that we follow to adhere to the ‘primary precepts’, Aquinas believes these are based on divine, natural and human laws
How can you follow the primary precepts?
Live in harmony in society 1. Follow laws
2. Follow the primary precepts
3. Equal society
Worship God 1. Attend church every week
2. Pray
Reproduce 1. When you are married, you should make it your mission to have children
2. Take good care of the children you have
Education 1. Go to school
2. Have access to libraries and use them
Preserve Life 1. Do not murder
2. Not use the death penalty
dont need all just a few examples
What is double effect?
When an action will have two consequences (a ‘double effect’), the morality of that action depends on which of the effects was intended.
Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four conditions be met if the action is to be morally permissible, what are these in old terms and understood?
- That we do not wish the evil effects and make all reasonable efforts to avoid them
We must have a good intention and do our best not to do evil – ‘Syndersis’ – do good and avoid evil - That the immediate effect be good in itself
The first or initial act must be good - That the evil is not a means to obtain the good effect
You cannot do a bad or evil action to achieve a good outcome - That the good effect be as important (proportionate) at least as the evil effect
The good effect and the bad effect of an action must be at least balanced/equal
Finish the quote
’The universe exists for itself, without cause or purpose. Nothing …
… existed before it that could have been its cause. Nothing exists outside it that could be the source of its purpose.’
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? Yes, Thomas Aquinas argument
Thomas Aquinas argues (using the principle of double effect) that an act such as killing someone in self-defence is acceptable: ‘Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself being…’
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? Yes, 4th condition
The doctrine of double effect also provides a guide, the 4th condition about proportionality means that taking a life in self-defence is acceptable unless a person uses more than necessary violence. ‘if a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, it he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful.’
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? Yes, Joseph Mangan
Philosopher Joseph Mangan agrees with Aquinas’ view of proportionality. Killing in self defence is acceptable if there is a grave enough reason for permitting the evil effect. For example, if a person broke into your house with a gun and began firing bullets toward you and your family members then this would seemingly be a grave enough reason.
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? Yes, Aquinas not a mortal sin
Aquinas argues that the principle of double effect can be used in this circumstance and it would not be a mortal sin. ‘It is not necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.’
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? No, Augustine
St Augustine maintained that killing in self-defence was not permissible unless the person was a soldier or in public office. Augustine is saying that there is a danger in a rule like double effect because it may justify any action that we personally deem to necessary.
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? No, responsibility
We are responsible for all the anticipated consequences of our actions. If we can foresee the two effects of our action we have to take the moral responsibility for both effects - we can’t get out of trouble by deciding to intend only the effect that suits us.
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? No, intention irrelevant
The intention is irrelevant. Some people take the view that its sloppy morality to decide the rightness or wrongness of an act by looking at the intention. Immanuel Kant argues that some acts are objectively right or wrong, and that the intention of the person who does them is irrelevant
Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action, such as killing someone, as an act of self-defence? No, Pope Nicholas I
The 9th Century Pope, Pope Nicholas I said that ‘no man may lawfully take another’s life in self defence in order to save his own life’. This would be classed as a mortal sin, the principle of double effect should not be used as justification for ending a person’s life.
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? Yes, it appears logical
The idea of cause, effect and purpose seems a logical argument. This is because we experience the concept of cause and effect in the world. Thomas Aquinas said we can, from experience, trace out own cause. He also rejects the concept of infinite regress which means that the world must also have a cause.
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? Yes, humans agree we have a purpose
Many argue that everything that is caused has a purpose. For example, the work of Aristotle and the four causes clearly shows that non-living things have a purpose. We can also apply purpose to living things too e.g. plants and animals provide sustenance in the natural cycle. If we accept that these living things have a purpose then can we not accept that humans also have a purpose?
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? Yes, our purpose is eudaimonia
Human nature does tend to agree that happiness (eudaimonia) is the desired end for humans. The fact that we act morally and try to achieve happiness through virtuous acts gives evidence that humans try to fulfil their purpose in life in how they act to other people.
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? Yes, natural law
Humans do tend to agree that there is some form of natural law. Things that we would all consider to be good, bad, right, and wrong. There seems to be a universal recognition of morality. Every sane and rational person would recognise and agree that certain things are good and others bad.
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? No, evolution and natural selection
The overwhelming evidence for evolution and natural selection provides clear evidence that morality and human life has no other purpose than surival. Humans will do all they can to continue their existence and morality is something that has developed in order to prolong our existence e.g. we act morally as we live in groups as we survive better with the support of others
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? No, Hume and Russell
The universe is a brute fact, there is no supreme being behind it, it does not have a purpose and our existence is purely a chance event.
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? No, coincidence
‘The universe exists for itself, without cause of purpose. Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause. Nothing exists outside it that could be the source of its purpose.’
If we accept this quote then we can also accept that cause is something that humans apply to certain events when in fact they could simply be coincidence
Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos? Does human nature have an orientation towards the good? No, do human beings have a telos?
Is there really a final cause (telos) for everything or are we just looking for something that is not there? Are humans desperately hoping to find a purpose when in fact we should just accept that we are born, we live and we die?