Natural Law, Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics

Question 1

The Importance of Primary Precepts

Answer 1

• Aquinas states that Natural Law could be identified by looking at the purpose of human life.
• He said that this purpose was to protect the innocent, reproduce, have an ordered society, worship God and learn.
• These are called PRIMARY PRECEPTS –> moral code that human beings are naturally inclined towards.
• Aquinas believed that human reason would enable us to know how God intended the purposes to be carried out which leads us –> NATURAL LAW.
• E.g Primary Precept = REPRODUCTION. Human nature = reproduction = sexual intercourse to procreate for our universe. Primary precepts guide = SECONDARY precepts e.g HOMOSEXUALS = unable to procreate and reproduce , secondary precept = HOMOSEXUALITY is wrong.
• Primary precepts VERY important, allow us to identify how God intended human nature to be and what purpose God had for HUMAN LIFE, teach ETHICAL and inform CONDITIONS for GOODNESS.
• Greater than even the scripture which = word of God, Natural Law came first.

Question 2

NATURAL LAW

Answer 2

• Natural Law = moral code. humans naturally inclined towards
• Sin or immorality is merely ‘falling short from good’, a person is not intentionally doing bad, they believe that what they are doing is good.
• For Aquinas, evil is not INTENTIONAL, it’s a MISTAKE. –> ‘wrong good’.

Question 3

Evaluating Natural Law

Answer 3

Contradictions:

1) Aquinas maintained that one of the purposes of life was to PROCREATE, which is directly in contradiction with the idea that CELIBACY = virtue and AQUINAS = Catholic PRIEST.
2) He says that procreation is the purpose of the human race as a whole but this presents us with a problem; does this mean that homosexuality is not a moral problem, one might argue they are not required to fulfil the purpose of procreation. –> DETACHES SEX FROM LOVE –> where do we draw the line?
3) Primary PRECEPTS contradict one another –> ordered society but doing this may involve fighting a war –> must accept INNOCENT people will die. How can we protect innocent? Does war lead to an innocent society?
4) Duty to educate –> What if education is teaching someone else to act immorally? –> DISORDERED SOCIETY

Natural Law = too vague, individual reasoning with too little regulation measure.

Question 4

STRENGTHS OF NATURAL LAW

Answer 4

• DEDUCTIVE
• DEONTOLOGICAL –> focuses on the morality of the means by which we achieve moral outcome and not just outcome itself. OUTCOME ONLY MORAL IF MEANS ARE MORAL.
• Primary Precept –> SECONDARY PRECEPT = HELPFUL, in our modern world there are moral issues which we have NO DIRECT MORAL GUIDANCE IN SCRIPTURE.
• NEVER CHANGE –> absolute and set moral codes for everyone regardless of subjective views.
• following the REAL GOOD = IDEAL HUMAN NATURE –> gives us value and dignity as God intended and Natural Law allows us to achieve this.
• SYNOPTIC LINKS - AQUINAS - DESIGN ARGUMENT –> INTELLIGENT DESIGNER PHILOSOPHY

Question 5

Natural LAW

Answer 5

• Bernard Hoose responded to ABSOLUTISM of NATURAL LAW –> PROPORTIONALISM
• Should work within framework of Natural Law also should be able to side-step the fixed, rigid absolutism of the original approach if GREATER GOOD IS SERVD through putting it aside.
• PROPORTIONALISM argues that OUR moral judgements must be proportional to situation we are faced with – Greater Good to be outcome even if may not be moral in traditional sense that we understand morality.
• PROPORTIONALISTS like Hoose argue that qualities such as DIGNITY, INTEGRITY and JUSTICE should guide moral decision-making.
• E.g = if euthanasia allows terminally ill person a dignified and peaceful death then outcome justifies the action.

Question 6

UTILITARIANISM

Answer 6

• greatest happiness for the greatest number
• theory of usefulness (problem with this definition, as it suggests that decisions that are ‘useful’ are ‘moral’ which could lead to interpreting any useful decision as moral e.g –> ‘ethnic cleansing is useful in bringing about a return to set cultural values’

Question 7

JEREMEY BENTHAM - ACT UTILITARIANISM

Answer 7

• What is good can be identified by = “what EQUALS the greatest sum of pleasure and least sum of PAIN”
• SO… A decision followed by an action would be judged moral if it produced the greatest pleasure
• He measured the morality of an action –> HEDONIC CALCULUS measured by seven criteria: Intensity, Extent, Duration, Purity, Richness and Remoteness.
• Intensity = Intensity of HAPPINESS
• Duration = lastingness of the happiness achieved

Question 8

IS BENTHAM’S ACT UTILITARIANISM THEORY PROBLEMATIC?

Answer 8

• Based upon the idea that results are meant to be measured by PLEASURE gained but can quantity of PLEASURE gained actually be assessed, and if so who can measure it?
• Utilitarianism = PRACTICE of PREDICTING happiness –> but who can say PREDICTION will come true?
• What constitutes pleasure? Many things might be impossible to obtain if we MAXIMISE pleasure and MINIMIZE pain, e.g = JESUS AND CRUCIFIXION
• If morality IS measured by SHEER pleasures GAINED then surely, SADIST = MORAL when they hurt each other for their own enjoyment.

Question 9

ACT UTILITARIANISM

Answer 9

• teological, morality is judged based upon OUTCOME, and how that end achieved = FLEXIBLE AND RELATIVE
• Peter Singer –> SELF DEFEATING, promise-keeping
  Promises are made on the UNDERSTANDING of how they will be kept, problem is that whilst an ACT UTILITARIAN may make a promise in one situation, no guarantee they will always uphold promise keeping.
• Therefore can never take seriously a promise from ACT UTILITARIANISM.
• Rule of THUMB - HEURISTICS –> Many act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation in which the consequences are difficult to calculate exactly.

Question 10

RULE UTILITARIANISM

Answer 10

• Still promotes ‘greatest happiness for majority’
• Argues, –> this should be ACHIEVED through testing actions to see what outcomes they bring about
• Should observe the consequences of everyone following the same rule and if the rule achieves the best outcome it should then be MORAL ACT.
• KEY IDEA = OVERALL utility of accepting or rejecting a rule = CALCULATED
• MORE SO DEONTOLOGICAL but argues there are times when rules need to be bent for moral outcome to be achieved.
• MILL saw dangers of allowing outcomes to dictate moral paths and argued RULE UTILITARIANISM = best way to achieve morality
• POWERFUL SOCIAL CONSCIENCE led him to recognise the inherent dangers of ACT UTILITARIANISM
• realised IMPORTANCE of people acting collectively to achieve an ethical society and understood the best way to do this = BINDING PEOPLE TO A COLLECTIVE MORAL CODE.

Question 11

RULE UTILITARIANISM (2)

Answer 11

• Mill argued that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures grant a greater pleasure and greater value than mere physical pleasure.
• Former = VALUED more HIGHLY by competent judges than the latter.
• Argued that one individuals higher pleasures are always greater than another’s lower pleasures and must ALWAYS be put FIRST
• Mill also argued UTILITARIANISM must observe the LIBERTY PRINCIPLE –> must prevent behaviours that whilst may bring PHYSICAL PLEASURE to one person, cause mental harm to another:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”

• E.g - rule that protects the right to life (HIGHER pleasure) = far better than allowing life to be taken in order to achieve a more basic desired outcome (ACQUISITION OF WEALTH)
• Mill argued that rule can be bent/waived when the consequences of not doing so = WORST OUTCOME

Question 12

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM

Answer 12

• GOOD IS PREFERENCE SATISFACTION i.e getting what we want
• BAD = opposite. i.e not getting what we want.

PETER SINGER: We should only do what every sentient being prefers.

• ECO-CENTRIC
• Singer believes that CORRECT ethical approach because –? PERSONAL PREFERENCE is what should dictate what is moral. However, our personal preference cannot OVERRIDE another’s personal preference.
• So, if my personal preference = BEEF BURGER but if that overrides preference of a BULLOCK’S DESIRE to live = NOT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE.
• Singer argues that all other forms of UTILITARIANISM are SPECIEST –> ignore other sentient life forms rights and desires
• AIM = ACCOUNT FOR EVERYONES PREFERENCES. But is this possible?

Question 13

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM ( criticisms )

Answer 13

• CHAOS
• MORAL PARADOX
• Can’t have what you want if it’s a conflict, yet he says “what matters is that I get what I want”
• No way to meet everyone’s preference.