o.C.R
Ethics

Absolutist Theories
Kant
A moral law that is
Strong Utilitarianism universal and applies in
Natural Law all circumstances
Deontological - concerned with the actions and
also whether an act is intrinsically good or bad
Natural Moral Law for example is absolutist as it is only
concerned with using reason to discern the most moral
option, thus the action can be good in itself, regardless of
the consequences

Relative Theories
Situation Ethics A moral law that
Act utilitarianism changes and adapts to
its circumstances and
weak rule utilitarianism
situations
Consequentialist/Teleological - concerned with
the result and consequences of an action, not the action
itself
Utilitarianism for example is teleological and relative
because it does not have any categorical rules or
standards, it is purely consequentialist.

Ethical theories Explain terms like intrinsically
in the exam. Just give a brief
explanation!!
Absolute morality
Absolutists hold that things are wrong from an
objective point of view, not just from one’s perspective
Right and Wrong cannot change. They aren’t affected
by mitigated circumstances. E.g cold blooded murder
and crime of passion are exactly the same
Immoral acts are intrinsically wrong. Consequence is
irrelevant
Plato is an absolutist as there are immutable forms

Ethical theories
When in Rome...
Relative morality
People don’t always agree what is right and wrong
Different cultures express different moral codes of
conduct
Protagoras said “Man is the measure of all things”
Aristotle is a relativist. He said the forms are in the
world and are thus relative
Not possible to have a general rule to cover ever
situation.

Strengths/Weaknesses
Ethical theories
Relative Advantages Absolutist Advantages
• Encourages cultural • Fixed ethical code to
diversity measure actions
• Prohibits a dominant • Universal and equal view of
culture ethics. E.g Human Rights
• Flexible Act is absolutist
Relative Weaknesses Absolutist Weaknesses
• Existence of different beliefs • Doesn’t take circumstances
doesn’t mean they are all into account
equal
• Intolerant of cultural
• Cultural or moral relativists diversity
cannot criticise another’s
morals. E.g it is dangerous to • Doesn’t allow for a lesser evil
say that the Nazi ethic was • E.g Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
right for them Absolutist says 100% wrong.
However war would have
• Paradox - If the universal
gone on for another 18
belief was relatavism, then it
months with more deaths
would become an absolute

Natural Moral Law

Aquinas’ Moral Law
Stoics:
Started the scholastic movement in ethics. Believed that reason is the
way to discern morality
Aquinas/Aristotle:
Aquinas built on Aristotle’s belief of Euidaimonia (Flourishing). He
believed that
1. God instilled rational nature into humans hearts
2. We can flourish by using our nature to discern natural moral laws
without God
3. These rules should be universal and absolutist
Aquinas thought that humans could never knowingly pursue evil. We
followed apparent goods. The way to see what was real or apparent
goods was through reason and natural moral law

Aquinas’ Moral Law
Telos is the end purpose in all Man, “Imago Dei” to perfect in us the
image of God
God is the final cause that we all strive towards
1. To preserve life & the innocent
5 Precepts:
2. Live in an ordered society
uti st 3. To acquire knowledge
Ab sol 4. to Reproduce
5. To worship God
Secondary precepts could be said to be Relativist
Both the intention and the act are important. It is possible to have a
good/bad interior act and a good/bad exteripr act
St Thomas believed that God created us Good and wanted us to be with him, but
also gave us free will. Therefore there must have been a set of rules that led us to the
path with God

Aquinas’ Moral Law
Is not based purely on the bible’s teachings, instead builds on
Aristotle’s belief that everything has purpose, apparent in its design.
Aquinas believed that reason should be the starting point for any
moral decision, as God instilled reason within us.
Aquinas said that we should use reason to discern the precepts
already apparent to us through revelation and that the bible merely
supplements this reason
Building on Aristotle’s principle that everything has a final cause, i.e
a purpose, he believed that God had a purpose for the earth and
that humans are continually striving for that perfection of the
image of god Imago Dei

Aquinas’ Moral Law An Example
Sexual Reproduction
1. Sex leads to pregnancy and child birth
2. The way that pregnancy happens...the actual sex...is all part of the design and
thus purpose
3. Sex can be broken down into causes:
• Material Cause - the man & woman
• Efficient Cause - The method
• Formal Cause - The actual process. (From attraction to
cuddling)
• Final Cause - The creation of a new human being
4. Therefore we can see that as Natural Law (Catholics) are concerned with the
final cause. All the other causes are good as long as they permit the final cause.
Hence why contraception or genetic engineering is wrong.

Aquinas’ Moral Law
en gt hs
• Is easy to understand and •
S tr on human
Concentrates
provides a basis for structure characteristic of essential
of society goodness instead of rights
• Primary precepts apply to all and wrongs
cultures (except God) • Applies to everyday life and
• Concerned with both is a practical ethic
intention and act • Does not solely dictate rules.
• Is based on the use of reason Allows for practical wisdom
and emotion
• Can be both flexible and
inflexible because of • Gives a reason and purpose
primary/secondary to be moral

Aquinas’ Moral Law es ses
• Is there a one size fits all akn
Weinstilled reason, then why
nature that can be summarised • If God
in the primary precepts? would he instil homosexuality
• Humans purpose is not into people so as to contradict
necessarily to flourish and reason?
become like God. Could be • The secondary precepts are
survival and evolution, in which teleological and could thus
case the primary precepts do not contradict the primary precepts
work.
• Reason can be corrupted and
• As Hume said. What happens maybe the ethics in the Bible
in reality is not always what should be followed...
ought to happen. Makes an
illogical jump between ought • Jesus opposed legalistic morality
and is.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism
Producing the greatest amount of pleasure/happiness for
the greatest number of people
Teleological/Consequentialist
Three different types of Utilitarianism
Act
Weak/Strong rule
Preference
Not religious at all, believed that God didn’t even enter the
equation

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Society is a conglomeration of many individuals, if you please the
individuals and treat them equally then society will be happy
Hedonic Calculus measure happiness this way:
It’s duration
It’s intensity
how near, immediate, and certain it is
How free from pain and whether it will lead to further
pleasures
Is Quantitative (whatever gives the most happiness is the best
option) and laws were irrelevant
Strictly relative. Every situation is different. Injustice can be
acceptable if the majority benefits

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Qualitative not Quantitative. The happiness resultant of reading
a book is not the same as going to a club
Happiness not Pleasure. Happiness results from the use of
reason and advancement of virtues
“It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
Rule utilitarianism still takes the individual into account, but frames
general rules that will benefit society as a whole. Eg if society knows
justice is upheld ... it will he happier
Strong Rule does not allow for exceptions or situations
Weak Rule has a general set of guidelines however certain
circumstances may allow variations
Past Cases should be taken into consideration.

Preference UtilitarianismPeter Singer
Believed that neither pleasure nor happiness should be the basis of
utilitarianism.
Instead the Best Interests of the individual should be taken into
account
“My interests cannot, simply because they are my own,
count more than the interests of anyone else” Peter Singer
Believed that in any situation the interests of all concerned should be
evaluated
E.g Someone who doesn’t want to die but is killed is wrong
(Involuntary Euthanasia). But at the same time someone who wants
to die but isn’t allowed to is also wrong (voluntary euthanasia)
If i wanted to go to the pub, but my girlfriend wanted to stay at
home, neither of us would have the right to assert our preferences

Strengths
Easy to understand Important to think of other’s
preferences (Preference
Pragmatic and useful in real life Utilitarianism)
We naturally deduce consequences Is flexible and allows for exceptional
of actions and happiness/pain circumstances (weak/act Util)
Weaknesses
Consequences are v.difficult to Hedonic Calculus cannot be
predict effectively used in day to day life
Injustice is not upheld as not all No respect for duty. E.g promises
treated fairly. Evil majority rule cease to hold any value
Not possible qualify pleasures Naturalistic Fallacy. Ought doesn’t
Rights can be abused for the lead to is. Desire is not always good
‘greater good’. e.g removal of By focusing on the greater good all
liberties individual interests are removed

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Singer says
that Act
Utilitarianism
defeats itself

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Peter Singer illustrates this problem with
the example of promise keeping.
Singer says
that Act
Utilitarianism
defeats itself

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Peter Singer illustrates this problem with
the example of promise keeping.
Singer says
that Act Promises are made on the understanding
Utilitarianism that they will be kept, something the rule
defeats itself utilitarian recognises as promoting
happiness.

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Peter Singer illustrates this problem with
the example of promise keeping.
Singer says
that Act Promises are made on the understanding
Utilitarianism that they will be kept, something the rule
defeats itself utilitarian recognises as promoting
happiness.
However, whilst Act utilitarians may
make a promise in a particular situation
there can be no guarantee that they will
always uphold promise keeping; and so
one could never trust them– as there is
no confidence they will keep their
promise!

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Society functions by people recognising their
obligations once they have signed a contract. For
example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a
patient’s medical confidentiality.

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Society functions by people recognising their
obligations once they have signed a contract. For
example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a
patient’s medical confidentiality.
An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce
the greatest happiness) might report her patient’s
condition (e.g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girl’s
parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking
the trust and code of the medical profession.)

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Society functions by people recognising their
obligations once they have signed a contract. For
example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a
patient’s medical confidentiality.
An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce
the greatest happiness) might report her patient’s
condition (e.g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girl’s
parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking
the trust and code of the medical profession.)
Rule utilitarians however recommend following
the professional code of patient confidentiality as
in the past such a code has promoted the greatest
happiness; i.e. teenagers are happy to go to
doctors for help and support as opposed to dealing
with the situation on their own.

Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarians think that justice is only important if it serves the
principle of utility. Justice has no intrinsic value.
Tom, a black If the racist, white, jury adopted an
farm-hand, is act-utilitarian approach it would be
made a scapegoat justified in finding Tom guilty of a
and is unjustly crime he did not commit, on the
accused of having grounds that the predominantly white
townsfolk would have justice “seen to
raped a young, be done” and so the majority of
white woman. people would be happy.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
The Naturalistic Fallacy

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
The Naturalistic Fallacy
From the mere statement of psychological fact
that people actually desire happiness for its own
sake

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
The Naturalistic Fallacy
From the mere statement of psychological fact
that people actually desire happiness for its own
sake
one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that
pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
The Naturalistic Fallacy
From the mere statement of psychological fact
that people actually desire happiness for its own
sake
one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that
pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired.
People may desire something that they ought not
to desire, something which is not really desirable.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
The Naturalistic Fallacy
From the mere statement of psychological fact
that people actually desire happiness for its own
sake
one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that
pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired.
People may desire something that they ought not
to desire, something which is not really desirable.
e.g People may desire to take hard drugs as it
produces pleasure. But is taking hard drugs good?

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work
When making decisions in the heat of the
moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical
to apply the felicific calculus to moral
dilemmas.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work
When making decisions in the heat of the
moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical
to apply the felicific calculus to moral
dilemmas.
Adding up `pleasure units’ is a dubious exercise
and is difficult to measure accurately.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Hedonic Calculus Doesn’t Work
When making decisions in the heat of the
moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical
to apply the felicific calculus to moral
dilemmas.
Adding up `pleasure units’ is a dubious exercise
and is difficult to measure accurately.
The whole idea of assessing different
varieties and intensities of pleasures is too
subjective.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
This jump from
Egotistical
Hedonism to
include the
welfare of others
lacks support.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
This jump from
Each person desires his / her own happiness.
Egotistical
Hedonism to
include the
welfare of others
lacks support.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
This jump from
Each person desires his / her own happiness.
Egotistical
Hedonism to
include the
Therefore each person ought to aim for his or welfare of others
her own happiness. lacks support.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
This jump from
Each person desires his / her own happiness.
Egotistical
Hedonism to
include the
Therefore each person ought to aim for his or welfare of others
her own happiness. lacks support.
Therefore everyone ought to aim at the
happiness of everyone

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction
between public and private acts.

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction
between public and private acts.
He famously remarked, “Your freedom to
punch me ends where my nose begins.”

Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Egotistical Hedonism
In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction
between public and private acts.
He famously remarked, “Your freedom to
punch me ends where my nose begins.”
Any law which has a serious detrimental effect
on the qualitative well being of others is wrong.

Kant

Kant
The Good Will - What you should do! We can exercise our will, but
all human beings should want to do the right thing.
The Categorical Imperative - We have a moral obligation to do the
right thing in every circumstance. The categorical imperative to
protect life
The Hypothetical Imperative - If we want to achieve something,
then we should do this thing. e.g If i want to get money, i should
work
Duty - Our actions should be entirely free from self interest.
Never use a human as a means to an end
A PURELY MORAL PERSON IS SOMEONE WHO THINKS
NOTHING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS AND
DOES THEM PURELY BECAUSE IT IS GOOD AND NO OTHER
REASON.

Kantian ethics
The Good Will
Only the will is 100% in our control. Therefore only this can be fundamentally
good and can exercise reason
A good will’s only motive would be to act out of a sense of duty
Duty doesn’t involve self interest, consequences or any kind of emotion,
generosity or love
The Hypothetical Imperative
The idea of “ought” has nothing to do with morality. If i want to be a painter, I
ought to take lessons
The Categorical Imperative
Moral requirements are categorical. i.e you ought to do such and such
regardless of your own thoughts/interests
Universalisation
Apply maxims to one’s actions and then ask whether that particular action

Kantian ethics 3 Motives that shouldn’t be
Doing something as you will immediately benefit from
it... Acting out of self interest, even if it appears that it is to help
others. e.g shopkeeper lowering prices (it would seem that it is
helping customers, but really it is to attract more customers)
Doing something out of natural interest ... Acting in a
moral way for our own self interest is not moral. e.g being
fascinated in surgery and doing an experimental operation out of
interest which saves a life. It is for our own gain that we did this.
Doing something because someone in authority tells
you to ... This is not done out of a sense of intrinsic duty and
there is no free will involved, and is thus not moral.

Kant Duty/Categorical imperative
The highest good is to perform ones duty (Summum Bonnum)
We have an obligation to do this, free from self interest
This is called the Categorical Imperative
This is only for categorical decisions, for hypothetical decisions, we have no
obligation. Called the Hypothetical Imperative
We should do things that can be universalised. This is similar to Natural
Moral law as we use reason to discern
Act only by the maxim by which at the same time will that it
should become a universal law
categorical imperative
noun Philosophy
(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances
and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.

Kant Duty/Categorical imperative
Contradiction in Nature
Where doing this thing would lead to a contradiction in the laws
of nature. Such as the law that everyone should kill the person
next to them, as everyone would die
Contradiction in Will
Where if you chose not to use your talents/skills, then you cannot
logically expect others to use theirs to help you. Where a woman
does not use her talents (sowing) to help others. She cannot expect
a doctor to help her when she needs it

Kant - The postulates of morality
Heteronomy & autonomy of the will Our reason must not be
subservient to anything else, even if this is the happiness of the
majority. The only motive you must have must be free from self
interest and from the consequences
heteronomous
adjective
subject to a law or standard external to itself.
• (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's desires rather than reason or moral
duty. Compare with autonomous
autonomous
adjective
• (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's
desires.
Act only by the maxim by which at the same time will
that it should become a universal law

Strengths & Weaknesses
Kant Strengths
• Straight forward and based on reason
• Clear criteria to what is moral
• Deontological
• Categorical Imperative is a rule that applies to everyone
• Commands respect for human life
• Justice - Corrects utilitarianism which says that injustice can be justified by
majority benefit
• Kant distinguishes between duty and inclination. Stops the idea that was is
pleasurable and what is good.

Strengths & Weaknesses
Kant Criticisms
• Can be cold and inhuman. E.g the Eichmann case
• The result of an action is vital to decision making
• It is impossible to make a decision free from emotion & feelings. It’s not pragmatic
• The ability of a rule to be universalised does not guarantee that is will be a moral action
or rule
• Contradiction in the will - Kant states that by rejecting universalised rules, all will
find the same things objectionable. But not all people have the same morals. Some may be
happy to say that if they don’t help others, others wont help them.
• Contradictions in nature - Doesn’t allow any exceptions to the rule. Many would
argue that absolute moral objectives are right, as in pacifism. However exceptions are
vital. E.g the Axe Murderer demanding to know where your friend is hiding.
• Not allowing consequences, yet trying to universalise decisions is a contradiction

Christian

Christian Ethics
A strict christian bases his morality on either The Bible, Christian
Tradition or Situation Ethics
Christian ethics is based on a principle of religious authority and does
not rely on reason. it focuses on Inspiration, Tradition and scripture
Morality is Theonomous as God is the ultimate cause for all morality
The Bible
All Christians would argue that the bible is the word of God,
however there are different views as to how to follow the Bible:
It is the word of God (literalism) and is to be 100% obeyed
It has lost some of its meaning in trnaslation and needs to be interpreted
It is a historical document documenting ethics of the time, but is irrelevant
now (liberals)
It is a source of guidance but requires reason to discern its real meaning

Ethics found in the bible
The world has purpose and meaning
Morality is an objective reality which is part of the nature of things and comes from
God
We have been given a conscience which provides us with an intuitive sense of right
and wrong (Moral Law)
‘The Fall’ led to a break up of the harmony in the world and replaced it with
disharmony, death, chaos and conflict. This can be overcome by entering a covenant
with God
The 10 commandments are the moral rules that are absolute
Jesus’ Ethical Show concern for poor and weak of
-
- Very rarely gave direct moral society – community ethic
teaching
commands – overall principles in ones
- ‘do unto others as you would have them
life.
do to you’ Universalising
- Basis of his teaching is love – agape
- Special relationship with God –
(unconditional love for others) – no
boundaries – enemy’s kingdom of god – a desire to follow
God’s will – the love commandment

Ethics found in the bible
St Paul
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a
resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can
fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move
mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor
and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” St Paul
St Paul also taught that love was the most important thing. If you act in a
loving way then all the other moral rules will be upheld.
Tradition
The Catholic Church places a great emphasis on tradition and teaching of
the church. Mainly seen through announcements and records from the
pope
Protestants tend to rely much more heavily on the teachings of the Bible
and from Jesus
Catholics tend to feel that where issues are not addressed directly in the
Bible, they need to be interpreted by the Church. E.g Abortion

Ethics found in the bible
Divine Command Theory
God’s will is taken arbitrarily – no satisfactory explanation for why anyone is bound to
follow it.
If God commands something for good reasons, then it is these reasons which are the
source of moral obligations, regardless of God or any other religious law
We make judgements about what is right and wrong without seeing any involvement from
God – Does he give people a reason to be moral?
Euthyphro dilemma – problem of doing something because Gods commands it.
Moral rules are true because God commands them – DC
Laws of the OT can be seen as a good example of this theory.
If we do good acts simply out of obedience to God – are we being good for the right
reasons?
God commands things which are right and wrong in themselves – murder is intrinsically
wrong and his is why god forbids it.
This seems that there is a standard of right and wrong which is independent of God.
Unqualified obedience to god abandons personal autonomy – the rightness of an action
must come from the fact that an action is right in itself.

Situation Ethics
hat you
and do w
Love like
ust ine )
(st Aug

Situation Ethics
Created by Joseph who was suspicious of an absolute bases of morality
He felt that “Loving your neighbour” is the most important thing and created an
Agapeistic moral code
This was entirely relativist as although he said you should always act in the most loving way.
No advice was given on how to do this
He believed that every situation should be taken as new and unique. And that as God is
personal, compassion for people should be the most important thing
Involved the following 2 principles:
Only one thing is intrinsically good. Love. Actions are good if
they help human beings. and Bad if they do not.
Justice is simply love universalised. If you have love for all your
neighbours unconditionally, then you will always do the right
thing towards them. Every decision should be made
situationally

Situation Ethics
Fletcher rejected the other 2 main principles of morality as
being too extreme:
1. Antinomianism completely situationalist without any
guiding principles to live by. Every situation is completely unique
and will resolve itself with the best possible unique outcome
2. Legalistic the belief that absolutism is the only way to ensure
that morality is upheld. By creating binding systems it means that
future generations are safeguarded and have a system on which to
build its own morals on
Fletcher felt that Antinomianism left people in a state of immorality as they had
nothing on which to base their ethics on. However at the same time he thought that
legalistic morality bound people to outdated ideas. How could the Bible know and
teach about gene therapy?
He believed that the only principle is love. Essentially the same as utilitarianism,
except replacing pleasure and happiness with Love

Situation Ethics AGAPE
A correct moral action is the one that produces the most
loving result
Positivism Personism
Pragmatism
Asserts Ethics centered
love as around people
A Ethic should that over rid
ing prin
the
should be followed ciple and not
on ly if it can work & impersonal at all
p roduce good results
Relativism
ount of
a huge am
ethics has s the rule of love
Situation
bviously till accept
O wever it s
rela tivism, ho

Situation Ethics AGAPE
A correct moral action is the one that
produces the most loving result
Ethics centered
Kant - people around people
should be
treated as and
Personalism
ends never as
means How can you love
God who you cannot
see if you cannot
love your neighbour
who you can see

Situation Ethics AGAPE
Joseph Fletchers 6 Precepts
only one thing is intrinsically Good ; namely Love
The ruling of Xianity is to put love first
Love and justice is the same, for justice is love distributed
Love wills the neighbours good, whether we like them or not
Only the end justifies the means, nothing else
Loves decisions are made situationally

Situation Ethics AGAPE
There are no universal moral rules or rights, each case is
unique and deserves a unique solution
It rejects “Prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules”
Moral judgements are decisions not conclusions
nothing is inherently good or bad, except love and its opposite
The opposite of the impersonal detached universal other
moral laws

Situation Ethics AGAPE ge
va nta
Ad
Easy to understand as follow a single principle
Flexible as everyone can do what they feel is right,
irrelevant of other’s decision and opinions
Enables an emotional and rational response and means
one never has to do anything that conflicts with deepest
sense of morality
Based on love, which is a key feature of all moral
systems

Situation Ethics AGAPE e
ega tiv
N
It excludes most universal moral truths - destroys universal
human rights
The concept of love is vague and not defined and thus
following it is confusing
It’s difficult to implement - totally consequentialism - the
person has to consider every consequence and how everyone
is affected to make a right decision
it cant produce consistent results - what might be the right
thing one time and is done may not be done the next time...
It could allow evil decisions if the outcome is good...

App lied
Et hics

Medical
Ethics

The 3 cores of medical ethics
The issue of rights
The issue of sanctity of
life Does a person get more sacred as they get older?
To be alive means to be
The issue of conscious. Some kind of
socio-economic life form.
personhood Is a foetus a person?

Abortion
In the UK it is permissible to have a social abortion up to 24 weeks.
However if there is a serious medical issue, it can go right up until Birth. The
most recent amendment to this law was in 1991. Needs 2 doctors to ok it!
Pro-Choice Pro-Life
Women are perfectly capable of The life of the foetus is sacred and
making the decision. Doesn’t need more important than the wishes of
the approval of two doctors and the mother. Some mitigating
this should be changed circumstances may be allowed
Doctors in the UK can refuse to provide abortion referral or care, and can refer the
case to a colleague
Where a woman is aged over 35 and there is family history of genetic diseases, the
foetus can be tested in the womb, and if serious faults are found, it can be aborted
up until Birth.
Many fear this is the first step to genetic selection and the disability movement
campaigns against this.

When does life begin?
Catholics Life begins at conception. Ensoulment!
Everyone else Life begins sometime after conception. Law says that
foetus becomes a viable life at 24 weeks.
Not part of woman’s body Part of Woman’s Body
Is the
• Although completely
reliant, the baby is separate • Some would argue that a foetus
is part of a woman’s body until it is
woma born, they share everything
• Even from the very first
cell, the baby is biologically baby p • Therefore the baby is essentially
different
n’s bod
the same as any other human
organ or tissue up until 24 weeks
art of
• As seen through IVF, the and can be treated as such
baby does not need to be
• But the HFEA has stated that
y?
inside the biological mother Any handling of tissue should be
to survive. Similar to
the
treated with sensitivity
dependence once born

Xian responses to Abortion Catholics/
Natural law
St. Thomas Aquinas taught in absolutes and that acts can be intrinsically wrong. Abortion
seems to conflict with the 5 primary precepts:
1. Preserve life Abortion, if personhood happens at conception, directly contradicts this
2. Reproduce This again contradicts this God liven law. Catholics are also against
masturbation, anal/oral sex etc.
3. Educate Children You cannot educate a dead foetus
4. To live in society Laws in society legally allow abortion, and thus this does not
contradict this precept
5. Worship God Love of God would mean following the primary precepts and would
outlaw abortion
The law of Double Effect dictates that if your primary intent is to save the life of the
mother, and the foetus dies as a result, this is not immoral as the intent was never to kill the
foetus.

C of E/
Xian responses to Abortion
Protestant
Abortion is evil, but in an imperfect
world, it may be the lesser of two evils
the mother has sanctity of life also
Abortion is acceptable in
exceptional circumstances
Rape, disabilities and harm to the mother
are all situations where it may be
acceptable
If the baby is causing harm to the baby
then it is seen as an aggressor, and
abortion may be seen as acceptable
Abortion can never be seen as a
commodity and freely available

Xian responses to Abortion Situation Ethics
Believe that an embryo is not a person until further on in the
pregnancy
In the case of rape situation ethics would favour abortion due
to sake of victims respect, reputation, happiness
No unwanted or unintended baby should
ever be born
In the case of rape there would be 2 aggressors, the baby and
the rapist, and it would be merely self defence

responses to Abortion Utilitarianism
At a basic level, the happiness and security of a mother & family should be
protected
Would argue that the Autonomy of the mother is vital and that she has the right
to choose
“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” J.S Mill
Mill’s feelings on higher pleasures would dictate that the adults and parents’
desires and pleasures outweigh the foetuses
The suffering of an unwanted baby would justify abortion
The foetus has no real interests and is unaware of happiness
The ability of the foetus to feel pain is a large factor in the utilitarian approach
(Sentience)
Abortion may mean less child poverty, fewer teenage mothers, less strain upon
the state and family, and ultimately freedom

responses to Abortion Utilitarianism
Sentience is extremely important to utilitarians
Act Utilitarianism sees pain as intrinsically bad and pleasure as
intrinsically good
It is morally worse to kill a sentient being than to kill a non-sentient
being
If a baby is killed before it is a sentient being (16 weeks) then it is of
little moral value
Peter Singer says that by killing a foetus before 16 weeks you are not
killing anything of any intrinsic morality. Animals should hold more
moral value than foetus’s
We are hypocritical by not caring about animals, but lots about
foetus’s

responses to Abortion Disability
It is cruel to bring a life into the world which has extreme suffering
Utilitarianism says that for humans to live only with suffering is a great
evil
Xianity states that by looking at Jesus’ inclusion of the weak/sick and
the marginalised shows that all are welcome in God’s eyes and that
none should be killed
Similarly Kant states that no human life should ever be used as a
means to an end and that

responses to Abortion Kant
No human life should ever be used as a means to and end. The categorical
imperative never to kill shows that abortion should never take place
completely deontological and thus not concerned with the consequences or
outcomes of the abortion and its problems
It can never ever be universalised as we cannot say that killing children should
be held as a good thing. It would both be a contradiction in nature and
a contradiction of the will
If we are rational agents capable of thought, which we are, then we cannot
universalise any maxim that would have prevented our existence as it would
be a contradiction in the will!
It cannot be Good Will as it would not be performed out of disinterested duty
Practical Imperative never use a human life as a means to an end, this is
achieving relative happiness by killing a human life

Embryo
Research

Embryo Research The Catholics
All life is sacred
Life begins at conception - ensoulment
Use of embryos and treating of life as disposable is God’s
decision and we should not play God
Killing embryos is the same as murder
Even if great good will come of it, it does not justify taking
innocent life
Embryos must be treated like any other person as they have a
right to life

Embryo Research M y View The Catholics
There is a balance between those which need to be
protected, and what is right in terms of society and mankind as
a whole
It purely depends on your view at which life starts; for if you
believe that before 14 days they are not human, conscious and
most importantly have no rights, then there is no issue.
I think the Catholic church can be blinded by ideals and
traditions that mean that they never fully evaluate a situation
or ethic and merely rely on a convoluted textbook of faith
which they mindlessly adhere to

Embryo Research Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism weighs up the overall gains and pleasures against
the pains and suffering
Bentham’s hedonic calculus says that all count for one and all
pleasures are equal
The issue arises as to whether an embryo should count for
one and whether their feelings should be taken into account
John Stewart Mill said that children and savages did not count,
therefore one could assume embryos don’t either
Therefore utilitarians would either have to weigh the pleasures
against the pains of the embryo, or they would see no wrong
whatsoever.

Embryo Research Kant
Kantians would argue that embryos below 14 days are not
rational and thus have no intrinsic worth
however they could also argue that an embryo is a human
being, and by using that embryo for research, you are using
another human being as a means to an end, which contradicts
the practical imperative
We cannot universalise the taking of innocent life, and
therefore it is wrong
The deontological approach would say that it is either always
wrong, regardless of the positive it could produce, or always
right.

Embryo Research Justified
Embryo testing can be justified in some circumstances...depending
on the severity of the case
If the rules of only under 14 days are kept to, when it is still just a
blastocyst, then it is difficult to find moral problems with embryo
testing
However there is the fundamental problem of whether that embryo
constitutes a human life or not, and if the answer is that it is, then we
either have to say that we find murder abhorrent whatever the
situation, or we take the stance that in most circumstances we do
not agree with it, but if it is for the good of humanity and the future,
then perhaps it is the lesser of two evils?

The Right to a child

The Right to a child
1. John Locke said that ethics should not be based on divine law, but on what
we can see from humans in themselves. Natural Rights.
a) The Government should respect these rights and thus all should
have fundamental
2. Jeremy Bentham said that fundamental rights was nonsense on stilts.
In Utilitarianism there are no absolutes or rights.
• Part of being a human means that we have a right to a fulfilled life. If you do not
have an opportunity to have a child, then you are being denied a fundamental
nature of human rights. Motherhood or Fatherhood
• Society has a right to provide you with the means to a child

The Right to a child The Christians
• Christianity and the Bible has taught that fertility is either a reward or
punishment from God. For example the Bible says that “God closed up
Hannah’s womb” yet was rewarded by being allowed to conceive by God
• However the bible also says things like “Go forth and multiply” which would
suggest that all have a right and duty to reproduce
Natural Moral Law
• No procreation without sex, and no sex without procreation! (Catechism)
• IVF therefore would not be allowed as it is artificial conception
• Similarly there is an issue regarding spare and wasted embryo’s, for if life begins
at conception, then that is lives which are not being protected. Contradicts one
of the primary precepts
• Surrogacy is not allowed as it would count as adultery with the woman being
inseminated by another man or vice versa.

The Right to a child
Kant
• Kant’s categorical imperative dictates that every action or should be
universalised so that it is true for all people for all situations
• It is impossible to argue that every single person has the right to a child, it is a
contradiction of the will.
• Similarly he feels that all actions and moral decisions should be purely objective
and free from self interests, and it is impossible to say that the desire for a child
is free from self interest
• Also could be argued that it is using a human life (the child) as a means to an
end, happiness.
• IVF treatment is a contradiction in the will as although it may seem acceptable
that the maxim spare embryos are destroyed, if we were one of those embryos
we would not want this to happen!

The Right to a child ism
U tili ta rian
• Jeremy Bentham & Act Utilitarianism Would need to use the Hedonic
calculus to decide whether the pleasure that would be achieved through IVF
would outweigh the pain caused through the failed and wasted embryos. No
issue in terms of rights or sanctity
• J.S Mill & Weak Rule Utilitarianism It is possible that a natural birth may
be seen as a higher pleasure than that of an artificial one. Surrogacy may lead
to pain and loneliness from the surrogate mother.
• All proponents of Utilitarianism would argue that there are no
inherent rights or sanctity issues. Purely consequentialist and the
issue of spare embryos would not be taken into account

The Right to a child
Eth ics
Sit uat ion
• Is the greatest agape reached given the situation?
• It is possible that the Christian and situationalist would say that the most
loving and compassionate thing to do in terms of IVF would be to give the
desperate parents a child!
• However Fletcher would still be opposed to the destruction and waste of
embryos, as if they have personhood, as Christianity believes, then the most
compassionate thing to do is not to kill them
• Does not address people who should not have children morally. For example
the 66 year old who got pregnant through IVF recently. The most
compassionate thing for the child would not be for it to born to a family
where they will die soon after its birth!

genetic engineering

gene therapy G ermline
• Altering the genetic makeup of human beings in a way that the mutation/
change is heritable and thus the alteration will be passed down through the
generations and will eventually spread
• This is illegal under the Human Embryology and fertilisation act of 1990
• Leads to genetic selection, where children can be hand picked and molded.
GATTACA
Somatic
• Used to treat somatic cells that are damaged or unhealthy
• Not Heritable
• Used already in the UK and is under trials to become more widespread
• Stem cell treatment for example, by trying to battle Leukaemia with adult stem
cells

gene therapy Christian Responses
• Christians believe that human life is sacred and was created by god. We are
created in God’s image. Imago Dei!
• Human life should not be altered or tampered with for it was created by God
and only God can change it. Many christians would consider genetics
blasphemous
• However it is also possible that christians would argue that if we have the
ability to prolong life, make it more comfortable and remove suffering, then
we have a duty due to agape to do it. Providing that it is not embryonic stem
cell research and is therapeutic cloning
• Natural Moral Law would be opposed to embryonic stem cell cloning
because it would interfere with the natural law precept of natural
reproduction and conception
• However, it depends on the Christians view of when Sentience occurs. Many
would say that it happens after 14 days, and thus before this it is acceptable to
conduct embryonic research

gene therapy Kantian Response
• Should always treat humanity as an end in itself, never as a means to an end.
(2nd formulation of the categorical imperative)
• Genetic engineering would be treating the embryo as a means to an end as it
would treat it as a commodity, not as an end.
• Negative gene therapy (Germline gene therapy/genetic selection) may be
acceptable to Kant as it would be possible to universalise the maxim that all
children should be given the best possible start to life and to have the best
genes possible. However if it was born out of a desire to have the perfect child
then it would not be acceptable.
• Kant believed that children under the age of 14 days had no intrinsic worth and
thus gene therapy would be acceptable in terms of rights and sanctity

gene therapy utilitarianism
• The potential of removing genetic defects from the human genome and for
curing serious genetic diseases by using a non sentient foetus leads to a great
amount of pleasure for the human race. Bentham therefore would argue
that not only is gene therapy acceptable but that it is preferable
• J.S Mill however would take a slightly different line. He would argue that the
potential of germ line therapy to damage the human genome and DNA would
make it unacceptable. Future Generations may experience huge amounts
of pain because of an individual desire.
• 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

War and

Key Terms
Proportional
Just War Realism
Competent authority
Jus Ad Bellem
Jus in Bello Absolute Pacifism

Vocabulary of war & Peace
• International Law The conduct of war. Jus In Bello. Found through the Geneva
Conventions although mainly formed at the Hague. War Crimes has been seen as an
example of international law.
• Collateral Damage The unavoidable evils associated with war. E.g Dick Cheney
stating that collateral damage was necessary with Guantánamo
• Jus Ad Bello Just reasons for going to war Jus In Bellum The just way of
conducting a way Jus post bellum restoring justice afterwards
• Just War Is a just war righting a wrong or is it simply self defence? E.g Iraq War was
intended to right a wrong
• Proportionality
• Ethics of the state vs Individual The state has the responsibility of all its
citizens, an individual has the right and chance to take whatever stance they wish. Can
the state inflict either extremes on their citizens
• Pacifism

Just WarSttheory believed that Christians
Mainly accredited to St Aquinas and Augustine. They
should not love violence and should promote peace at all costs. However, it is
necessary to fight evil and advance Good, and if this is the case then important
guidelines need to be in place
The conditions or principles of the just war theory:
• The war must be started or controlled by a proper authority (e.g government or ruler)
• There must be a just cause or sufficient reason
• Must be intended to promote good and reduce evil. Peace and justice must be
reinstated afterwards
• The act of war must always be a last resort
• Must be proportional, i.e civilians must not be killed with nuclear bombs if they only
attack an air base
• Must be a reasonable chance of success
• Must be distinction between combatants and non combatants

When to fight – Jus ad bellum

When to fight – Jus ad bellum
 Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms
with the intention of attacking your state

When to fight – Jus ad bellum
 Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms
with the intention of attacking your state
 Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious
“wrong”

When to fight – Jus ad bellum
 Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms
with the intention of attacking your state
 Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious
“wrong”
 Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the
authority to fight other states; terrorists do not

When to fight – Jus ad bellum
 Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms
with the intention of attacking your state
 Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious
“wrong”
 Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the
authority to fight other states; terrorists do not
 Last resort – other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed
before force is used

When to fight – Jus ad bellum
 Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms
with the intention of attacking your state
 Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious
“wrong”
 Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the
authority to fight other states; terrorists do not
 Last resort – other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed
before force is used
 Realistic chance of success – since was is “the lesser of two evils”
and is, therefore, intended to cause less harm than doing nothing, a
nation should not go to war if it is likely to fail as this would lead to
more rather than less suffering

When to fight – Jus ad bellum
 Just cause – human rights abused, another country is amassing arms
with the intention of attacking your state
 Right intention – never from revenge, always to right an obvious
“wrong”
 Lawful authority – governments (especially elected ones) have the
authority to fight other states; terrorists do not
 Last resort – other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed
before force is used
 Realistic chance of success – since was is “the lesser of two evils”
and is, therefore, intended to cause less harm than doing nothing, a
nation should not go to war if it is likely to fail as this would lead to
more rather than less suffering
 Proportionality – there has to be a “cost benefit analysis”: the gains
of war must exceed their likely cost in human life [this is very
difficult to assess]

How to fight – Jus in bello

How to fight – Jus in bello
 How to behave in war:

How to fight – Jus in bello
 How to behave in war:
 Discrimination – force should be used against the
military not civilians

How to fight – Jus in bello
 How to behave in war:
 Discrimination – force should be used against the
military not civilians
 Proportionality – only “enough” force should be
used; tactical use of chemical or biological
weapons is ruled out (as, even more so, are nuclear
weapons)

How to fight – Jus in bello
 How to behave in war:
 Discrimination – force should be used against the
military not civilians
 Proportionality – only “enough” force should be
used; tactical use of chemical or biological
weapons is ruled out (as, even more so, are nuclear
weapons)
 Weapons bad in themselves – mass rape, ethnic
cleansing, torture, biological and chemical weapons
(as they have incalculable – therefore,
disproportionate, effects)

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum
 What to do after the war. The original objectives have to
have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum
 What to do after the war. The original objectives have to
have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
 There are “conditions for peace”:

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum
 What to do after the war. The original objectives have to
have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
 There are “conditions for peace”:
 Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be
restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g.
Milosevic)

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum
 What to do after the war. The original objectives have to
have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
 There are “conditions for peace”:
 Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be
restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g.
Milosevic)
 Right intention – the victor must not pursue revenge

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum
 What to do after the war. The original objectives have to
have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
 There are “conditions for peace”:
 Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be
restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g.
Milosevic)
 Right intention – the victor must not pursue revenge
 Discrimination – civilians must be treated differently
from their leaders of those who committed atrocities

What to do after a war – Jus post
bellum
 What to do after the war. The original objectives have to
have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
 There are “conditions for peace”:
 Just cause to end war – violated human rights can now be
restored and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g.
Milosevic)
 Right intention – the victor must not pursue revenge
 Discrimination – civilians must be treated differently
from their leaders of those who committed atrocities
 Proportionality – the defeated must not be humiliated

Realism - An Alternative to Just War Theory
e.g a person would say “do
not murder”, but a realist
Some people thought that would say this doesn’t
Just War Theory was too apply to the state in times
idealistic; whereas realism of warfare
is pragmatic
The state should protect
Morality of the state is its self interest at all costs
separate from personal
morality This is a moral Dualism
approach
In other words; the
morality of the individual Realists would say that
do not have to apply to you should still apply
the state moral principles to
warfare. e.g treatment of
prisoners of war

Realism - An Alternative to Just War Theory
Christian Realism 1960s
Reinhold Niebuhr said that human beings are
essentially sinful and concerned with self interests.
War is inevitable considered this nature; however
it may be the lesser of two evils to try and uphold
justice
He said that it was the lesser of two evils to fight
Nazism
Pacifism is wrong

Pacifism
Was Jesus a Pacifist?!

pacifism
Ethical
ABSOLUTE
Contingent
selective

Ethical pacifism
War is wrong on humanitarian grounds
Is not dependent on religious beliefs at all
Can oppose war and violence on humanitarian
grounds
Belief that there is a fundamental right to life and
peace
And a right to live in a world where conflicts are not
solved with violence
E.g the people who served in the medical sections of
the army in the 2nd world war

Absolute pacifism
It is never acceptable to use force under any
circumstances
“Those who live by the sword, die by the
sword” (Jees Mouse)
Tertullian - No person can take up arms... because of
what Jesus said
Absolute Pacifism does not mean doing nothing!! The
most classic example of this is Martin Luther King
who led an active campaign of pacifism
Passive Resistance by Ghandi
It is Never acceptable

conditional pacifism
War is evil. But it is sometimes Neccesaary
Defending the innocent is the most important
War always involves killing the innocent and this is morally
unjustifiable
They accept war in some circumstances, such as self-defence
and defence of others, but the innocent must always be
protected.
So war and violence is acceptable in theory, but not in practice
Some wars may be seen to be the lesser of two evils
e.g Bertrand Russel was a pacifist but felt WW2 was a
necessary evil to remove Hitler

Selective pacifism
Matter of degree of the war
Depends on how serious and the scale of the war
that is taking place
A war that is disposing of an evil leader for
example may be acceptable
However a nuclear or chemical war would never
ever be acceptable to a select pacifist
Active pacifism
Actively helping in the war effort but not thru violence.

Weaknesses/Strengths
What are the strengths and weaknesses
Promotes the ideas Pacifism is wrong
that violence is never
because it denies the
the way to solve a
dispute right of self defence
Follows the teachings State has a duty to
of Jesus protect its citizens
Pacifists are less likely Allows evil to
to provoke war dominate through
Promotes absolute doing nothing to stop
value of human life evil.

How do you think Utilitarianism approaches the
subject of war and peace
Rule Utilitarianism
The general moral principle which will benefit society is that killing and
war is wrong; however there is also the principle of the feelings of
security and safety
Looks at previous examples of similar warfare and see whether
greater happiness resulted
Difficult to judge the consequences; e.g USA should have won Vietnam
War does not bring the higher pleasures and thus cannot be acceptable
Act Utilitarianism
Does the end justify the means
Entirely done on the pleasure and pain that would result
They can reassess situations as they change depending on the loss of life etc
The pain suffered from the soldiers would far outweigh any pleasure the
soldiers would have
However the mass suffering of the people, if a just war, would in the long run
outweigh this

How do you think Kant approaches the subject of
war and peace
K ant
Act only by the maxim you can universalise
You cannot universalise the right to kill others; as it is a
contradiction of both nature and the will
It is acceptable to use force as self defence
It is a duty to protect the innocent; and some of the intentions in
the just war theory would be acceptable by Kant
Kant’s focus on the Good will has parallels to the Jus in Bello
condition which requires there to be a right intention
By killing people for the greater good of others we are treating
people as means to an end, not an end in themselves
The consequences of not going to war and the people’s suffering
remaining are irrelevant. Kant is Deontological

How do you think a Christian approaches the
subject of war and peace
Image of God
Human beings are created in the image of God (Imago Dei)
We therefore should protect life. Does this mean not killing, or killing to protect?
Shall not Murder
The Bible clearly states “Thou Shalt Not Kill”
Is killing in war murder? Some say it is exactly the same, others say it’s different
Blessed are the peacemakers
Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers”. Peace not war was his message
UN security council think that they are peacemakers? still have soldiers in war
Turn the other cheek
“An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind” Ghandi
Was turning the other cheek meant as a public insult instead of an ethic?

How do you think a Christian approaches the
subject of war and peace
• All Christians tend to be one form of pacifists
• Some believe that all violence is wrong on religious pacifist beliefs due to Jesus’
teachings of love and peace. These people are absolute pacifists and were
called Conchies (conscientious objectors)
• Some felt that although violence was wrong, mass evil such as the Nazi Regime
must not be allowed to continue, therefore they got involved in the army. These
people are conditional pacifists
• Some Christians refused to fight and kill other human beings, but felt that the
war was just and was the right thing to do in religious terms. Therefore they
helped with the war effort by being front line priests, medical staff, weapons
makers etc. These people are active pacifists
• Some Christians feel that wars such as the 2nd world war are justified, but
nuclear war is always wrong, such as N.Koreas attempts to engage the war in
one. These people are called Selective pacifists