Is SE distinctively Christian - SE Flashcards
INTRO - define
SE takes normative principles (virtues; NL) and generalizes so that they “make sense” when we experience moral dilemmas
INTRO - define key terms
Teleological, relativist approach with a focus on individual autonomy and agape (NT) / Does not consider the consequences of an action only focussed on the intention of the most loving thing = difficult to judge in a legal system
Section one: AO1
LAW
Legalism: is someone who follows the rules blindly and not questioning whether these rules are moral
Antinomianism: An individual can do whatever they want in a situation
SE = middle-ground “principled relativism” Recognises that normative rules do not transcend all situations. Whilst adultery/ murder are unethical may understand with equal clarity that they may not apply given the idiosyncratic circumstances in which we find ourselves. Instead should act within the rules and disregard if love is better served doing otherwise.
Section one: AO2 FOR
LAW
Problem with legalism – Nuremberg trials
most of the actions of the defendants were recognized as being legal under the judicial system of the Third Reich
Completely legalistic approach with no reason can have immoral outcomes and justify mass genocide
-By recognising that this is immoral and putting agape at the centre of the judicial system justice is best served. Would feel morally wrong to let them go free without consequence and not just wanting the best out of a bad situation
Bonhoeffer put love at the centre of his decision making when he decided to go against the biblical law “thou salt not kill” and planned to assassinate Hitler
If he succeeded thousands of lives could have been saved
Section one: AO2 AGAINST
LAW
Bonhoeffer could have tried pacifist approach i.e. campaigning like MLK in gaining rights and still be following Gods law
-used own individual judgement of what love is, not really Christian as not in accordance with Gods law
Geisler: Whilst SE rightly establishes the person over things in moral decisions improperly est. the individual human autonomy ( and his situational decision of love) above the autonomy of God
-Doesn’t recognise God’s law is eternally and supremely perfect whilst are decisions are flawed, and whilst may want what’s best. Decision may be flawed/ not distinctively Christian
Section two: AO1
AGAPE
Did Jesus encourage SE? Is it part of his teachings? Teachings of agape and “love thy neighbour” on the Sermon on the Mount (Mathew 22)
Section two: AO2 FOR
AGAPE
Mark 3:1 Jesus/Agape shown when Jesus healed a withered hand in the Jewish temple, despite it being Sabbath day and no one can work on the Sabbath
-SE by positing love and placing the individual first shows is in line with Jesus teachings as like Jesus sometimes the law needs to be disregarded
Section two: AO2 AGAINST
AGAPE
Jesus never encouraged the violation of Gods law under any circumstances and taught his followers not to sin. Mathew 5:19
-Jesus was special and so diff circumstances to us
Barth/ Nieblur humans “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and born into sin. Always tempted to do evil “For I do not know why I do bad when I do good” so won’t be able to discern the good and Gods eternal law
-Need strict adherence to the Bible to make moral decisions and can’t just rely on reason as too flawed to interpret God’s law for ourselves. Not helpful
Section three: AO1
APPLIED
Euthanasia - When suffering of a patient is so great that their life becomes unbearable, they should be able to end it as this is seen to be the most loving action.
Fletcher’s working principles of relativism and personalism, means euthanasia is not always morally wrong and seems morally ethical as personalism posits how the person should be put at the heart of the decision
Section three: AO2 FOR
APPLIED
Mill’s - ‘Over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’ - People regarded as having the right to autonomy over their own lives.
People would know what the most loving action is for themselves and should be able to have the right to decide
(God free will)
Section three: AO2 AGAINST
APPLIED
Consequentialist ethical approach means that it is impossible to know the outcomes – ironically love could not be best served as the persons death could cause more harm than good for those still living
takes away the intrinsic value of life and could resort to more people turning to suicide when placed in stressful situations at school/work
-so much that contributes to a person’s quality of life and not all of it can be medically measured. An issue as complex as euthanasia cannot be based simply on whether love is best served. Needs strict adherence to Sanctity of life and Gods law rather than individual judgement
