Is SE helpful in moral decision making - SE Flashcards
INTRO - define
SE takes normative principles (virtues; NL) and generalizes so that they “make sense” when we experience moral dilemmas
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
Teleological, relativist approach with a focus on individual autonomy and agape (NT) / Does not take into account the consequences of an action only focussed on the intention of the most loving thing = difficult to judge in a legal system
INTRO - position
Not helpful as although relativised to situation which is helpful in a contingent world = definition of “love” could be different for everyone = how do you condemn someone’s actions in the 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
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
-Most loving thing can be misinterpreted or mean different things to each person = not helpful in moral decisions as unclear
By failing to recognise the role of rules SE becomes unworkable in practise as it places too much responsibility on individual judgement and people might be blinded by emotion and make the wrong choice in a moral dilemma
Section two: AO1
4 working principles
1.Personalism (puts the person first)
2.Pragmatism (for a course of action to be right it must be practical)
3.Positivism (posits love as good as God is love)
4.Relativist (there is no absolute)
Section two: AO2 FOR
4 working principles
Robinson / Tillich
By putting God at the heart of the decision as God is love it shows that God is immanent and not an almighty transcendent being – oppressive.
-Guided by God to help with moral decisions
Section two: AO2 AGAINST
4 working principles
Robinson/ Macquarie: Hard to follow these principles and be unbiased in your decision making as people only see things from their own individual pov. How can parents show the same love to strangers as to their children?
Pope Gregory thought slavery was wrong however did nothing as thought most practical thing in the situation to have an ordered society was for slavery to continue = most loving
-Love can be used to justify anything and places too much emphasis on individual judgment on what to do within each situation (no different in some ways to antinomianism - Geisler)
Section two: AO2 CONCLUSION
4 working principles
Although places God as love at the heart of the decision unhelpful for the atheist and unworkable in practise as people won’t show the same love to a stranger as they do to their children. Also love can be interpreted in a range of situations and lead to immoral outcomes (i.e, Pope Gregory keeping slavery even knew it was wrong )
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
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.
Section three : AO2 CONCLUSION
Applied
Although SE does allow for human autonomy, which enables for the person to be at the heart of the descion rather than the law = seems morally correct. However, this approach takes away intrinsic value of life and could lead to immoral outcomes i.e. could be regretted later if followed law/ affected relatives. Selfish ethical approach
