Ethical Theory

1. Utilitarianism

Theory in detail
The Greatest Happiness Principle

the greatest happiness for the greatest

number
The Greatest Happiness Principle, stated above, is at the heart of a number of
ethical theories that fall under the umbrella of ‘Utilitarianism’. Utilitarianism
is an incredibly useful, and increasingly popular, ethical position. Its many
benefits are matched with some serious flaws. However, modern Utilitarianists
have repeatedly adapted the theory rather than discard it. Peter Singer is one
example of a Utilitarian whose ideas have gained great popularity in recent
years.

Bentham

Bentham equated happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain. This was
an empirical observation - people desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain. His
scientific mind led him to believe that the study of ethics could be undertaken
in a practical way, carefully measuring the possible consequences or outcomes
of an action before deciding which choice to take.

Bentham’s theories led to extensive social reform affecting Parliament,

criminal law, the jury system, prisons, savings banks, cheap postage etc,
etc. What was revolutionary about Bentham’s theory was that it resulted in all
people being considered when making laws. His felicific calculus (also called
the ‘hedonic’ or ‘utility’ calculus) was helpful in determining how to measure
different amounts of pleasure:

1
The Hedonic Calculus

REMOTENESS – how near it is

PURITY – how free from pain it is

RICHNESS – to what extent it will lead to other pleasures

INTENSITY – how powerful it is

CERTAINTY – how likely it is to result

EXTENT – how many people it affects

DURATION – how long it lasts

John Stuart Mill

Mill believed that quality was more important than quantity when it came to
pleasure. For example, the pleasures of the mind are far superior to the
gratification of the body’s desires. This deals with the problem of sadistic
torturers, as their pleasure is of a significantly lower kind.

‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be

Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’

Act Utilitarianism

You look at an action to determine what is moral, and from this general rules
can be derived. E.g. when faced with a road traffic accident (rta) a paramedic
will treat a pregnant woman first. This is because in any given situation, the
pregnant woman and her unborn child have a greater potential for future
happiness than any individual involved in the crash. By deciding how to act in a
specific case, the general rule ‘Always treat a pregnant woman first’ can be
derived. This rule is only a guideline, and should be discarded if doing so will
bring about more happiness (e.g. if a brain surgeon is in need of treatment).

A big criticism of Act Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to make the sorts of

calculations it requires, although Bentham talked of a 'rule of thumb' which
meant that you could repeat a previous decision under similar circumstances.
Another is that people need rules - if you allow people to lie, steal etc. this
could become too great a temptation e.g. to lie to avoid looking bad rather
than because it genuinely brought better consequences.

2
On the plus side, it has most integrity, as it allows you to stick with the
greatest happiness principle unswervingly – simply do whatever brings the most
happiness in any given situation.

Rule Utilitarianism

Some general principles are formulated. From these, certain actions will be
ruled out as unacceptable. The principle of utility is therefore applied to a
rule, so the rule will hold if in general following it leads to greater
happiness. This means that in an individual case, even though an injustice
might bring about greater happiness, if it goes against the general principle
that injustice tends to lead to misery and a reduction in happiness, it is
deemed wrong.

Bentham is generally seen as an Act Utilitarian, as the Greatest Happiness

Principle seems to demand. As we saw, he is open to the criticism that
Utilitarianism goes against justice and human rights, as it allows abuses of
rights if they bring enough happiness. Mill may be seen as a Rule Utilitarian, as
he clearly thinks certain rules have a Utilitarian justification. In his book
'Utilitarianism', Mill defends the idea of rights:

"To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to
defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I
can give him no other reason than general utility."

Ultimately, Mill would break a rule if breaking it lead to the greatest

happiness. Elsewhere in the book, Mill says:

"...to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by
force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate,
the only qualified medical practitioner."

Does this make him an Act Utilitarian? Peter Vardy says this is how most people
view Mill. Others describe him as a 'soft' Rule Utilitarian, 'Hard' Rule Utilitarians
would disagree with breaking a rule even if doing so led to the greater good.
Many criticise 'soft' Rule Utilitarians, saying that this is effectively the same as
Act Utilitarianism.

Mill strongly believed that the individual is sovereign over himself, which is an
unusual principle for a Utilitarian! This means that, for example, we should
allow people to smoke in private (banning smoking is an attack on the
individual's sovereignty) even though smoking leads to terrible illness etc. Mill's
belief in individual sovereignty could be justified by a Rule Utilitarian (can you
explain how?)

3
Other forms of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism started out from the basic assumption by Bentham that man
desires pleasure and seeks to avoid pain.This basic assumption can be
challenged, as it seems to be wrong in at least some cases. People who wallow
in self-pity seem to want to be in pain, and many people who have sinned or
broken the law feel the need to be punished – they need to suffer in some way
to put right what was wrong. Although it is possible to argue that in some long
and complicated way the desire for punishment brings pleasure, it is easier and
more satisfying to refine the Utilitarian theory further. Rather than talk about
pleasure and pain or happiness, some modern Utilitarianslook at the degree to
which an action fulfils the preferences of others. This avoids making any
judgement about the suitability of the desires of others or the ‘level’ of their
happiness. It doesn’t avoid the problem of being incredibly difficult to
calculate, though.

In summary, people have adapted Utilitarianism in the following ways:

 Hare – preferences: the morally right action is the one that maximizes
that satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved.
 Sidgwick – motives: it is the motive (intending to bring about the
greatest good) rather than the outcome that is good
 Singer – interests: you need to look at what is in the best interests of
those affected (some people call Singer a 'welfare Utilitarian')

4
 Theory in detail

2. KANT

The Good Will and Duty

In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe that any outcome was
inherently good. Pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil
acts. He also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as ingenuity,
intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil. In fact, he used the
term goodto describe the ‘good will’, by which he meant the resolve to act
purely in accordance with one’s duty. He believed that, using reason, an
individual could work out what one’s duty was.

Free Will, God and Immortality

If our actions are pre-determined and we merely bounce around like snooker-
balls, we cannot be described as free and morality doesn’t apply to us. Kant
could not prove that we are free – rather, he presumed that we could act
morally, and for this to be the case we must be free. He also thought that it
followed that there must be a God and life after death, otherwise morality
would make no sense.

Synthetic A Priori

We do not follow predetermined laws. However, we must act according to

some laws, otherwise our actions are random and without purpose. As a result,
rational beings must determine for themselves a set of laws by which they will
act.

These laws are not analytic (true by virtue of their meaning), but they cannot
be determined through experience (a posteriori). Hume pointed this out when
he said that you couldn’t move from an is (a synthetic statement about the
world) to an ought (a statement about the way the world should be). The
rational being has to determine the synthetic a priori – the substantive rules
that can be applied prior to experience.

The Categorical Imperative – Universalisability

An imperative is a statement of what should be done. We have said before

that Hume realised you can’t get a should statement out of an is statement. In
other words, experience can only give us hypothetical imperatives (If you
want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you eat). A
description of the way the world is cannot tell us the way we should act.

5
A Categorical Imperative is a should statement, but it is not based on
experience, and doesn’t rely on a particular outcome. Rather, it logically
precedes experience, or helps us make sense of experience. In another area
of thinking, Kant showed that we must presume that time moves forwards – our
mind imposes this on our experiences to make sense of them. We therefore
could never demonstrate or prove this through experience.

It is like that with the categorical imperative: certain actions are logically
inconsistent and would make no sense as universal laws, such as lying. As a
result, ‘Do not lie’ is a categorical imperative. This understanding that our
mind plays an active role in ordering and shaping our experience was
revolutionary, and is Kant’s greatest achievement.

Kant states the categorical imperative as follows:

I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my
maxim should become a universal law.

The Categorical Imperative – Law of Nature

Kant also states the categorical imperative as follows:

Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal
law of nature.

It is difficult to see how these two statements are different, and many texts
treat them as though they say the same thing. However, I think they give a
real insight into how Kant perceived the Categorical Imperative. Have a look
at how the categorical imperative can be applied to euthanasia.

The Categorical Imperative – Ends and means

A good will is one that acts in accordance with rationally-determined duty. No

character trait or consequence is good in itself. However, as good is defined in
terms of rationality, Kant argued that all rational beings were ends in
themselves and should never be treated purely as a means to an end. He put
this two different ways:

So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any

other, in every case as an end in itself, never as means only.

So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a

kingdom of ends.

6
 These latter statements of the Categorical
Imperative are really an extension of the statements regarding
universalisability – we hold laws if we would will that all other rational beings
would also follow them. As a result, it would be contradictory for any rule to
treat a rational being as a means to some greater end: there can be no greater
end. Put another way, I cannot prescribe a rule that, if held by someone else,
would result in my being treated merely as a means to end.

The categorical Imperative, stated four different ways above, could be seen as
a rational justification for following the golden rule that is the cornerstone of
Christian morals (as well as most other religions):

Love your neighbour as yourself.

7
3. Natural Law
Theory in detail

Everything has a purpose

Ethics is the struggle to determine what is right or wrong, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
Some ethical theories are hedonistic – they say that pleasure (and the absence
of pain) are the only ultimately ‘good’ ends towards which to aim. Some
Christian ethicists argue that following God’s will – as revealed through prayer,
scriptures and prophecy – is the ultimate good.

Natural Law says that everything has a purpose, and that mankind was made by
God with a specific design or objective in mind (although it doesn’t require
belief in God). It says that this purpose can be known through reason. As a
result, fulfilling the purpose of our design is the only ‘good’ for humans.

The theory of Natural Law was put forward by Aristotle but championed by
Aquinas (1225-74). It is a deductive theory – it starts with basic principles, and
from these the right course of action in a particular situation can be deduced.
It is deontological, looking at the intent behind an action and the nature of the
act itself, not its outcomes.

The purpose of humans - the Primary Precepts

In four words, 'Do good, avoid evil'. In more detail, Aquinas talked of Primary
Precepts. Whilst you probably think of Natural Law as a deontological position
(deon- duty; deontological ethical positions have absolute rules that it is our
duty to follow), this part is teleological. Telos- purpose. What is our purpose -
what are we designed for? What follows is an acrostic, which I have arranged so
it makes a word. Some of my students favour PROWL, as 'protect and preserve
the innocent' should, they argue, come first. I prefer WORLD...

 Worship God
 Ordered society
 Reproduction
 Learning
 Defend the innocent

Secondary Precepts

These are the rules - absolute deonotological principles - that are derived from
the Primary Precepts. For example, the teleological principle "Protect and
preserve the innocent" leads to rules such as "Do not abort," "Do not commit
euthanasia" etc. These rules cannot be broken, regardless of the consequences.
They are absolute laws.

8
‘Efficient’ and ‘Final’ Causes

This is Aristotle’s distinction between what gets things done (efficient cause)
and the end product (final cause). With humans, it is the accomplishment of
the end product that equates to ‘good’. An example is sexuality – an efficient
cause of sex is enjoyment: because humans enjoy sex, the species has survived
through procreation. However, the final cause of sex (the thing God designed
it for) is procreation. Therefore sex is only good if procreation is possible.

Put another way, the efficient cause is a statement of fact or a description. If

we ask why people have sex, we might talk about attraction, psychological
needs etc. The final cause is a matter of intent – what was God’s purpose
behind sex? The final cause assumes a rational mind behind creation, and as
such moves from descriptive ethics (saying what is there) to normative ethics
(statements about what should or should not be the case).

Another example – did the soldier shoot well? The efficient cause deals with
the set of events around the shooting – did he aim well, was the shot effective,
did the target die? These are descriptive points, and clearly don’t tell us about
the morality of the shooting. When we look into this area – was it right to kill?
- we are evaluating his intent, and are asking about the final cause. We can
then look at whether that cause is consistent with God’s design for human
beings. We may decide that killing innocent people goes against God’s design
for us, so it is always wrong to kill innocent people.

Real and Apparent Goods

Aquinas argued that the self should be maintained. As a result, Natural Law
supports certain virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) that
allow the self to fulfil its purpose. Similarly there are many vices (the seven
deadly sins) that must be avoided as they prevent the individual from being
what God intended them to be.

Following a ‘real’ good will result in the preservation or improvement of self,

getting nearer to the ‘ideal human nature’ that God had planned. There are
many apparent goods that may be pleasurable (e.g. drugs) but ultimately lead
us to fall short of our potential. Reason is used to determine the ‘real’ goods.

God

Aquinas believed in life after death, which leads to a different understanding

of God’s plan for humans. Natural Law can be upheld by atheists, but there
seems no good reason for keeping to Natural Law without God. Aquinas holds
that the one goal of human life should be ‘the vision of God which is promised
in the next life’. This is why humans were made, and should be at the centre
of Natural Law thinking.

9
Causistry and Double Effect

Causistry is the name given to the process of applying Natural Law principles to
specific situations. This is done in a logical way, as some principles have
logical consequences. For example, if it is in principle wrong to kill innocent
human beings, it follows that bombing civilian targets (such as Dresden in
WW2) is wrong. However, if it is accepted that killing in self defence is okay,
we could justify an air attack on Afghanistan on these grounds. Innocent
people might die, but that is not the aim of the action, so the doctrine
of double effect comes in to play.

Double effect refers to situations where there is an intended outcome and

another significant but unintentional outcome. According to Natural Law, it is
our intentions that are important, not the consequences of our actions. Double
effect would not allow you to perform an action where an unintended outcome
had devestating effects. The unintended effect has to be PROPORTIONATE.
What this actually means, critics say, is that Natural Law becomes like
Utilitarianism.

10
4. Virtue Ethics
Theory in detail

Aristotle

Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia, or 'happiness', is the supreme goal of human life. Aristotle

believed that everything has a purpose - the good for a knife is to cut, and a
good knife is one that cuts well. In the same way, Eudaimonia is the 'good' for a
person.

Aristotle draws a distinction between superior and subordinate aims. Why do I

study ethics? Maybe to get a qualification. I get the qualification to get a good
job, and I want a good job because... These are subordinate aims. At some
point you stop and say 'because that would make me happy' - and this becomes
the superior aim. 'Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind everything we
do as people, and is desired for its own sake.

Moral Virtues

The good life involves developing a good character. Moral virtues are cultivated
by habit. To become a generous person, I must get into the habit of being
generous. Put another way, it is not enough to be told that I should be patient.
To become patient, I need to practice patience.

It is very difficult to translate some of Aristotle's moral virtues. 'Liberality' and

'Magnificence' (popular in many translations) both seem to mean generosity.
The following list is an attempted translation:

courage, temperance, big-heartedness, generosity, high-mindedness, right

ambition, patience, truthfulness, wittiness, friendliness, modesty, righteous
indignation

Intellectual Virtues

Intellectual virtues are qualities of mind developed through instruction. They

are:

practical skill, knowledge, common sense, intuition, wisdom; resourcefulness,

understanding, judgement, cleverness

Cardinal Virtues

The cardinal virtues are temperance, courage, wisdom and justice. These
virtues work together, and it would not be enough to have one of these

11
alone.Temperance and courage are moral virtues - we get into the habit of
acting bravely. We learn self-control by practicing restraint. Developing
rightjudgement requires training - we are educated in the skill of weighing up a
situation. In out courts, judges don't just learn on the job, they require years of
training before they earn the title 'Justice'. Wisdom sits above all of the other
virtues, the culmination of years of learning.

The Doctrine of the Mean

Aristotle said that it is good to be courageous, but that you can have too much
courage. For example, defending your land against invaders is courageous, but
if you're outnumbered fifty to one, that's just foolhardy. Each of the moral
virtues is a midpoint between excess and deficiency, the 'golden mean'.

Aristotle did not say what the midpoint was, and it was clearly not a numerical
middle. In other words, you don't need to have a specific amount of, say,
generosity. It was more about being generous at the right time. For example,
giving a few pounds to a beggar is not a good thing - it keeps them trapped in
dependency. It's much better to give to a charity like Shelter.

Virtue ethics is criticised for not giving clear answers to ethical dilemmas, but
it allows us each to make our own responses to situations life throws at us. You
might respond to the beggar by stopping and giving some time, talking and
listening to them and maybe even sharing lunch with them. This would be a
virtuous response, but it doesn't require everyone to do the same thing.

Friendship and the community

Our relationships are an important part of the 'good life'. Aristotle is very
different from, say, Kant here. Kant says we should work out moral rules
rationally, ignoring our feelings or what the outcomes of our actions would be.
Aristotle says that our friendships are a very important part of who we are and
how we should behave.

We should each aim at acheiving eudaimonia in our own lives. Clearly it is

therefore a much better thing to acheive the greatest good for a whole society.
You can put this another way and say that the society we live in helps to form
and shape us as individuals. Sociologists will tell you the difference between
living in a close-knit community or a big city, but we can see it for ourselves.
People in cities often get 'lost', not belonging to anything and turning to drugs,
crime etc. There is far less crime and drug abuse in smaller, rural communities.
Aristotle sees our communal relationships as an essential part of our moral
growth and flourishing.

You may argue that there is still a sense of community in the city you live in
- Aristotle's on your side here - he lived in Athens, one of the greatest cities

12
of the world. Whether you live in a village or a city, the important thing is
to develop good relationships with those around you.

MacIntyre

Ethics in context

Morality has lost it's way. "Imagine a terrorist has taken your children, the
Prime Minister and an atomic bomb. He threatens to use the bomb unless..."
These sorts of moral dilemmas force us to choose between keeping absolute
rules that we want to live by (such as 'do not kill') and preventing serious harm
to many. We end up not knowing what to do, either abandoning our principles
or allowing terrible things to happen. Ethics has become a bizarre 'lose-lose'
game that many of us have simply stopped playing.

MacIntyre urges us to remember where ethics came from. We need to

understand the historical context of ethics. He wouldn't like this website,
because it's summarise everything without explaining where the theories came
from and how they developed. Students of ethics should immerse themselves in
the past masters before looking at recent ethical theories - you need to
appreciate the 'narrative context' (seeing the development of ethics as a story).

The context is also important for understanding issues. MacIntyre doesn't like
'quandry ethics' where theories are tested by looking at implausible dilemmas.
However, he does want ethics to do its job and tell us how we ought to live our
lives. To better understand what sort of people we should be, and which
decisions to make, we need to look at our own context.

Put another way, if we are talking about an ethical issue, such as the
Nicaraguan 9-year old who became pregnant and had an abortion, we have to
find out about the context of the issue. In this particular case, the girl came
from a Catholic country where abortion is illegal in all circumstances. The
doctors who carried out the abortion were condemned by the Church, and
excommunicated themselves (kicked themselves out of the church). Following
this, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans excommunicated themselves from the
church.

Finding out about the context of an issue helps us understand the decisions
people make.

Relative Values

It follows from this that different societies have different values. For
MacIntyre, virtues change over time. This can be seen by looking at different
societies, and MacIntyre explains the reasons why virtues change. The Homeric
virtues included physical strength, courage, cunning and friendship. In small

13
tribal communities that could be attacked at any time, cunning, strength, even
ruthlessness may be virtuous. As villages developed into large cities, these
virtues changed. The Athenian virtues included Justice and Temperance, and
physical strength was no longer so important. Whereas cunning used to be
prized, more value would now be put on Wisdom, the sort of understanding of
human behaviour that could navigate through complex conflicts that might
arise with so many people living together.

Christianity adopted the cardinal virtues, but added faith, hope and love
(charitable love) to these.

Internal and External Goods

MacIntyre calls the virtues or qualities of character 'internal goods'. He says we

also place value on 'external goods'. Aristotle would have agreed here. The idea
that we could be 'penniless but happy' did not come from Aristotle. He would
have said that having good food, a decent place to live and clothes to wear is
all part of the eudaimon life. Put another way, Aristotle would ask if the house,
clothes and food would make a poor person happier. If they would, they must
be part of eudaimonia, as eudaimonia is as good as it gets. Physical well-being,
food, clothing, housing etc. are called 'external goods'.

MacIntyre also talks of 'practices'. He says that certain activities, such as

painting, the opera etc., are good in and of themselves and not merely because
of the pleasure (i.e. other goods) that they lead to.

To summarise MacIntyre in one sentence (which is exactly the sort of thing he

hates), he says that we value different qualities of character, practices and
physical things, and that by understanding historical and social context, we can
understand ethical issues that arise.

Ben Franklin

Franklin was a utilitarian virtue theorist. He believed that we should try to

bring about the greatest good for the greatest number (the principle of utility).
However, he thought that the best way to bring about the greatest good was by
developing the virtues.

Philippa Foot

Foot is a contemporary British philosopher who is trying to modernise Aristotle.

She believes that goodness should be seen as the natural flourishing of humans
as living beings. She believes that ethics should not be about dry theorising but
about making the world a better place (she was one of the founders of Oxfam).
The virtues are beneficial to the individual and the community - they
contribute to the good life.

14
 Elizabeth Anscome

Before MacIntyre wrote After Virtue (1981), GEM Anscome wrote a paper
entitled "Modern Moral Philosophy". She was critical of a 'law conception of
ethics' where the key focus was obligation and duty. Many trace the modern
development of Virtue Ethics back to this paper. The reason why MacIntyre
gets more attention is that he actually developed a theory of Virtue Ethics
rather than merely criticising other forms of ethics.

Martha Nussbaum

Nussbaum interprets Aristotle's virtues as absolutes - she claims that Justice,

Temperance, generosity etc. are essential elements of human flourishing across
all societies and throughout time. This is a sharp contrast to the general
attitude among modern virtue theorists. Although it may be too much to
describe all of the above as moral relativists, Nussbaum is clear that she
believes a relativist approach is incompatible with Aristotle's virtue theory.

15
5. Situation Ethics
Theory in detail

Situationist

Fletcher quoted a St Louis cab driver who said “Sometimes you’ve gotta put
your principles to one side and do the right thing”. Rules (or principles) aren’t
the same thing as doing what is right.

Some ethical theories suggest legalistic rules that mustn’t be broken, This is
wrong as it makes rules more important than people, and doesn’t allow
exceptions. There are antinomians who reject rules entirely. This is wrong as
it leads to complete chaos with no laws at all, and no way of choosing between
two courses of action. The situationist has respect for the laws, may often
follow the laws and be informed by tradition. However, he is free to make the
right choice according to the situation.

Best Interests

Agape - "... goodwill at work in partnership with reason" in seeking the

"neighbour's best interest with a careful eye to all the factors in the situation".
Agape is concern for others. Fletcher uses the term ‘best interest’, so this
seems much the same as Singer’s utilitarianism. We act out of love for others,
trying to do the best to serve their interests.

The Four Working Principles

Pragmatism

For a course of action to be right, it has to be practical. It must work. For

example, in the case of Jodie and Mary, conjoined twins, the Catholic church
wanted to let both of the girls die. To kill one, saving the other, would be an
evil or bad act, they said. Fletcher would have disagreed. Letting both girls die
is not pragmatic. It would be of more use, more practical, to save one girl at
the expense of the other. Whilst this is not consequentialist - it is love that is
good, not an outcome - in practice it makes Fletcher's theory very similar
indeed to Singer's utilitarianism.

Relativism

‘It relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative’.

This means that rules (absolutes) don’t always apply, they depend on the
situation. Absolutes like ‘Do not steal’ become relative to love – if love
demands stealing food for the hungry, you steal. However, it doesn’t mean
‘anything goes’. He doesn’t take a relative ‘Do whatever the situation

16
demands’ and make it into an absolute [read the quote above again to check
you understand this]

Positivism

Kant and Natural Law are based on reason – reason can uncover the right
course of action. Situation Ethics disagrees, You have to start with a positive
choice – you need to want to do good. There is no rational answer to the
question “Why should I love?”

Personalism

Situation Ethics puts people first. People are more important than rules. “Man
was not made for the Sabbath”.

Six Fundamental Principles

 Love only is always good Love is intrinsically valuable, it has inherent worth.
Love is good. Nothing else has intrinsic value but ‘it
‘Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically gains or acquires its value only because it happens
good; namely, love: nothing else at to help persons (thus being good) or to hurt persons
all’ (thus being bad)’. A lie is not intrinsically wrong. It
is wrong if it harms people, but may sometimes be
right. ‘For the Situationist, what makes the lie right
is its loving purpose; [they are] not hypnotised by
some abstract law, ‘Thou shalt not lie’.’
 Love is the only norm (rule) Love replaces the law. The law should only be
obeyed in the interests of love, not for the law’s
‘The ruling norm of Christian sake! Fletcher rejects Natural Law. He says ‘There
decision is love: nothing else’ are no [natural] universal laws held by all men
everywhere at all times.’ Jesus summarized the
entire law by saying ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your
neighbour’. Love is the only law. The problem with
this is that it allows the individual to do anything in
the name of love – there are no rules to say that
someone has done the wrong thing.
 Love and justice are the same There can be no love without justice. Consider any
injustice – a child starving, a man arrested without
"Love and justice are the same, for charge etc. These are examples of a lack of love. If
justice is love distributed, nothing love was properly shared out, there would be no
else." injustice.
 Love is not liking Love is discerning and critical, not sentimental.
Martin Luther King described Agape love as a
"Love wills the neighbor’s good ‘creative, redemptive goodwill to all men’. He said
whether we like him or not." it would be nonsense to ask people to like their

17
 violent oppressors. Christian love is a non-selfish
love of all people.
 Love justifies the means When someone said to Fletcher ‘The end doesn’t
justify the means’, he said ‘Then what on earth
"Only the end justifies the means; does?’. If an action causes harm, it is wrong. If
nothing else," good comes of it, it is right. Fletcher says you can’t
claim to be right by following a rule (like ‘Do not
lie’) knowing it will cause great harm. Only the end
or outcome can justify your action.
 Love decides there and then There are no rules about what should or shouldn’t be
done – in each situation, you decide there and then
what the most loving thing to do is.

18
METAETHICS

Theory in detail

Emotivism

AJ Ayer agreed with Moore (see Intutionism) that you can’t get values or moral
judgements from descriptions. ‘Argument is possible on moral questions only if
some system of values is presupposed’. Therefore to say that something is
wrong is to say that I disapprove of it or that it goes against my values. In other
words, “Abortion is wrong” is the same as saying “I don’t like abortion”. Ayer
argued that moral statements are merely subjective, sentimental statements
based on personal values (personal values because there is no absolute,
objective value in the world – we decide what we value). Statements of fact
are either logically necessary (true by definition) or observable – moral
statements are neither analytically or synthetically verifiable, so there are no
moral facts.

CL Stevenson said the purpose of a moral statement was to persuade someone

of the rightness or wrongness of an action. ‘Good’ is a persuasive definition. He
said that when we talk about moral issues, we express approval or disapproval.
Unlike Ayer, he said moral statements were not merely expressions of emotion,
but were based on deeply held beliefs. This gives a better explanation of why
people disagree strongly about morality – their ideas are based on fundamental
social, political or religious beliefs. However, Stevenson is an emotivist because
he believes moral statements are the result of subjective opinions, views or
beliefs.

Intuitionism

Naturalism held that ethical terms could be explained in the same ‘natural’
terms as science or maths. Ethics, they said, was about observation and
analysis.

GE Moore, in Principia Ethica (1903) famously refuted naturalism. He said

that you can’t move from is to ought. In other words, any observation of how
people actually behave cannot tell us about how people SHOULD behave. He
called this the ‘naturalistic fallacy’.

Moore went on to say that ‘good’ is indefinable. In the same way as yellow is
just, well, yellow, ‘good’ is not a complex term that can be broken down
further, you just recognise that something is good by intuition. If ‘good’ was a
complex idea, we could ask of it whether it was itself good. For example,
Bentham defined good as pleasure (the greatest pleasure for the greatest
number). But you can ask “Is pleasure good?” Because the question makes
sense, pleasure can’t mean the same as good.

19
HA Prichard said there were two kinds of thinking: reason brought together the
facts about a situation, and intuition perceived the right thing to do.

WD Ross argued that moral principles can’t be absolute, as they can contradict
one another He said that we have prima facie (at first appearance) duties:
keeping promises, making up for harm done, gratitude, justice, beneficence,
self-improvement and non-maleficence. Intuition identifies our prima facie
duties, but when they conflict, we need to use our own judgment to determine
which obligation is our absolute duty.

Prescriptivism

RM Hare argued that moral statements weren’t merely descriptive (describing

our beliefs) and persuasive, he said they were prescriptive and universal. When
I say “Murder is wrong”, I am writing a law which I believe others should
follow. Hare thinks that reason plays an important role in ethics. He agrees
with Kant that moral rules should be universalisable, and that we should ‘do
unto others as you would have done unto yourself’.

20
Absolute and relative morality

Theories
Introduction

Some ethical theories are teleological - what is right or wrong depends on the
end or outcome of an action - for utlitarians, pleasure, happiness or 'the
greatest good'; for Aristotle, 'Eudaimonia'. Other theories are deontological -
doing what is right means doing your duty or following the rules - for Kant, the
categorical imperative; in Natural Law, the secondary precepts. It is easy to
think of teleological theories as relativist and deontological theories
asabsolutist, but it it not that simple. Apart from Kantian Ethics (thoroughly
absolutist and deontological) and Situation Ethics (clearly relativist and
teleological), ethics seems to involve an uneasy mix.

Absolutist ethical theories

Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Kant says that we should act according to maxims that we would want to see as
universal laws. These laws are absolutist - we can work them out logically prior
to experience; they are not verified through experience (they are known 'a
priori').

The consequences of our actions are irrelevant to whether they are right or
wrong - evil actions may have unintended good consequences, and someone
might act heroically without any guarantee that the consequences will be good.
No character quality is absolutely good (good without exception) - for example,
it is possible to act kindly but do the wrong thing. The only good thing is a good
will that does what is logically the right thing to do.

Natural Law

Natural Law is often described as deontological because, in practice, it leads to

a set of rules that people have a duty to follow. These rules are absolutist,
because they know of no exception. For example, using contraception to
prevent conception is absolutely wrong, regardless of consequences such as the
spread of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies etc.

However, Aquinas' Natural Law Theory says we should try to fulfil our God-
given purpose. This is teleological, as it is interested in our design or 'end'. The
primary precepts - worshipping God, living in an ordered society, reproducing
etc. - are teleological: they are the ends to which all our actions should aim.
The primary precepts are also absolutist - Aquinas believed we were all made
by God with a shared human purpose.

21
Moral relativism

Situation Ethics

This must not be confused with cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is a very
weak moral theory that says things are right and wrong relative to our culture.
The theory is easily refuted.

Situation Ethics says that what is right and wrong is relative to the situation. In
other words, if you asked "Is it wrong to abort a foetus?" I would ask "Under
what circumstances?" Clearly the outcome of my actions is of central
importance here. Rules may be useful, but you may need to ignore the rules in
order to do the right (loving) thing - the thing that is in the best interests of
the people affected.

Theories that can be either absolutist or relativist

Utilitarianism

When Bentham came up with his Hedonic Calculus, he had developed a theory
that allowed you to work out what was right or wrong in any given situation.
Euthanasia might lead to the greatest happiness for one person and yet lead to
greater unhappiness in another situation. What is right or wrong is relative to
the situation, it is whatever has the best consequences (teleological).

Mill, and many since, have adapted Bentham's 'act' utlitarianism, claiming that
we need to make laws based on the principle of utility (choose the laws that
lead to the greater good) and then follow those laws. This means I have a duty
to, for example, tell the truth because it generally leads to greater happiness,
even if in this case it will lead to more unhappiness. This is deontological,
because it deals with the duty to follow rules. It can be seen
asabsolutist because there are no exceptions to the rules (if you were allowed
to break the rules, this would be act utilitarianism).

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle came up with a list of virtues that we need to acquire, through

education and habitually, in order to have a 'Eudaimon' or happy life.

Some modern virtue ethicists, such as Martha Nussbaum, describe Aristotle's

theory as absolutist. It is teleological, because it is about the ends or purposes
of our actions. However, Aristotle is saying (according to Nussbaum) that
certain ends or goals are absolute - it is always good to be honest, kind,
courageous etc.

22
Other modern virtue ethicists say that values change, and different societies
hold up different virtues as desirable. What is virtuous, according to MacIntyre,
is relative to the context - relative to culture, varying throughout history.
Virtue ethics is teleological, focussing on the ends or purposes of our actions.
These ends or purposes vary from one society to another throughout time.

23
Religious Ethics

Christian Ethics
Introduction
OCR does not specify which religion you study, and the exam questions are
open - they refer to 'the religion you have studied' or 'religious ethics'. However,
most text books discuss Christian Ethics. This is partly because Christianity is, in
terms of number of adherents, by far the largest religion in the UK, and is to my
knowledge the only religion that must be studied at school (locally agreed
syllabuses vary, but all must include Christianity). In discussing medical ethics,
Christianity has had a greater influence on the law in the UK than any other faith.
The most influential politicians (Blair and Brown at the time of writing) are
Christians. Also three of the ethical theories studied (Natural Law, Situation
Ethics and Virtue Ethics) originated with or were developed by Christians.
For students of other faiths or no faith, studying Christian ethics gives a better
understanding of the current legal position in the UK. For Christian students, it
gives the opportunity to challenge traditional views (for example about
homosexuality) in an informed and thoughtful way.
Natural Law [more]
The Roman Catholic Church accounts for the majority of Christians in the world,
and is the largest religious organisation of any religion. Within Catholic theology,
Natural Law holds a dominant position. The Church encourages a range of
different approaches, but when it comes to offical church teaching, the vast
majority of statements, encyclicals etc. are strongly in-line with Natural Law.
Within other denominations, Natural Law theology still has a significant impact.
Many Christians adopt deontological positions and think we should act according
to God's design or purpose for our lives. They may be less influenced by Aquinas
in this, and Protestants tend to be less sure about moral absolutes. However,
there is still a strong sense of following rules within most Christian
denominations.
Situation Ethics [more]
It is difficult to guage the influence of Situation Ethics. Even before Fletcher wrote
his book, many theologists supported a 'love ethic':

"There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is "Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself". William Temple, 1917

"The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law." Paul Tillich,
1951

There is a tension within the Christian faith between the command to love, and
the sense of duty towards other commandments and obligations. Fletcher saw
the need for rules, but he said we need to be ready to abandon them when love
demands this.
Proportionalism
The challenge of situation ethics is so great that some Catholic theologians
believe there needs to be a compromise between Natural Law and Situation

24
Ethics. 'Proportionalism' (the title of a book by Brtitish philosopher Bernard
Hoose) accepts, as Natural Law does, that certain acts are wrong or evil acts in
themselves. However, it says that it might be the right thing to do, if there is a
proportionate reason, to perform such acts.
The arguments here get quite tricky, and proportionalism ends up looking a lot
like situation ethics. Proportionalists claim that doing a 'bad' action out of love
makes an action morally good but not morally right. A 'bad' action is only morally
right if it is proportionate. This is familiar from Just War thinking.
Virtue Ethics [more]
Virtue ethics sits very comfortably next to Natural Law - Aristotle was a proponent
of both theories, as was Aquinas. Within the Christian traditions there has been
great support for the 'cardinal virtues', listed on this site as wisdom, judgment,
temperance, and courage. It is common to see them called prudence, justice,
temperance and fortitude, although they refer to the same virtues.
Christianity added to the virtues. There are the theological virtues: faith, hope
and love. There are also the 7 capital virtues (although the accompanying 7
deadly sins are better known):
Virtue Vice
Humility Pride
Liberality Avarice
Brotherly love Envy
Meekness Wrath
Chastity Lust
Temperance Gluttony
Diligence Sloth

The Bible

The Bible clearly has a significant role in shaping Christians' ethical responses.
Within the Catholic tradition, the Bible's authority is the same as the church. In
practice this means that Catholics tend to listen to the church on ethical issues as
the church interprets the Bible in the modern world.
Within Protestant churches, a much greater emphasis is put on the Bible. Without
a God-given authority to put faith in, Christians are expected to read the Bible for
themselves and make their own decisions about important ethical issues.
However, without the ability to read scripture in the language in which it was
written, Christians have to put faith in the translators. On issues such as
homosexuality, the translators' bias comes through in the translation, with words
such as 'abomination' used with no justification.
Reading the Bible raises other issues. Is it the literal word of God, or merely
inspired by God? Is it possible to dismiss large chunks as having been written for
people in an entirely different society?
The best way to read the Bible is to look at the context of any passage. What is
that passage meant to mean to the person who was going to read it? While parts
of the Bible have a clear meaning, and are inspiring to many Christians, there will
always be debate about the true meaning of some difficult passages.

25
The Church
Catholics believe Jesus gave His authority to Peter, and it has been passed
down ever since, currently lying with Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church has a
magisterium - its teachings have a God-given authority that is equal to the
authority of scripture. The Pope has even got the power (rarely used) to make
infallible statements - statements that cannot be questioned.
Within Protestant churches, the church has an advisory role. It can recommend
one action over another, it can condemn certain actions entirely - you can even
be kicked out of the church for certain actions. However, the individual is still left
to decide where to stand in relation to church teaching. In Protestant churches,
the Bible has a much greater authority than the church.
The Holy Spirit, Conscience, Prayer, Religious Experience etc,
This is a large number of important factors to lump together. Christians can get
inspiration from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Many Christians believe the
conscience to be 'the voice of God'. The vast majority of Christians pray for
guidance even when they wouldn't pray for intervention (some Christians don't
ask God to actually solve their problems, but those who pray tend to believe that
God responds or gives answers to prayer). Some Christians have had a direct,
life-changing experience of God, which may mean seeing a vision, hearing a
voice or feeling God's presence.
All of these factors can have a profound effect on the individual and can
contribute significantly to the ethical decision-making process. However, because
they are personal and individualised, there is very little to say other than to
recognise their importance, and that this can lead to a wide variety of different
Christian responses.

26
Free Will and Determinism
Theory in detail

This page was written by Jem Page, an A level student at the Arnewood School,
2007.

Hard Determinism

The theory of Universal Causation maintains that everything in the universe

(including human action) has a cause which precedes it.

e.g. A = friction, B = heat occurs

or A = rubbing hands together, B = hands warmer

This is the basis of science - if it wasn't the case that one event or set of
circumstances lead to another, scientific observation, and the conclusions
drawn, would be pointless and meaningless.

If a doctor cannot explain the cause of a set of symptoms, he doesn't presume

that they have no cause, but that the cause is unknown.

Psychology, sociology and anthropology can account for human behaviour and
emotions.

John Locke

Locke gave the example of a man who wakes up in a room that, unknown to
him, is locked from the outside. He chooses to stay in the room, believing he
has chosen freely. In reality, he has no option. However, his ignorance of this
gives him an illusion of freedom.

Hospers

Let us suppose it were established that a man commits murder only if,
sometime during the previous week, he has eaten a certain combination of
foods—say, tuna fish salad at a meal also including peas, mushroom soup, and
blueberry pie. What if we were to track down the factors common to all
murders committed in this country during the last twenty years and found this
factor present in all of them, and only in them? The example is of course
empirically absurd; but may it not be that there is some combination of
factors that regularly leads to homicide?

Someone commits a crime and is punished by the state; ‘he deserved it,’ we
say self-righteously—as if we were moral and he immoral, when in fact we are

27
lucky and he is unlucky—forgetting that there, but for the grace of God and a
fortunate early environment, go we.

Libertarianism

Libertarians accept that universal causation would apply to a mechanistic

world, but that this would not influence human choice. A kleptomaniac may be
inclined to steal, but has the choice not to.

There is a difference between the empirically analysable personality and one's

moral self.

e.g. A youth in a ghetto may be likely to become a gangster because it is in his

interests, however, his moral self may override this and he might become a
policeman.

The act of decision making

All of our actions are based on the assumption that we are free. We can only
make decisions about what to do if:

 we do not already know what we are going to do

 it is in our power to do what we are thinking of doing

Necessary and contingent truth

There are statements that are necessarily true. For example, analytic truths
such as "All bachelors are unmarried". Other truths are no less true - it is sunny
today. This is true, but it is only contigently true, it could conceivably be false.

Michael Palmer, in 'Moral Problems', gives the example of three runners. A is

faster than B, B is faster than C. What would happen if they raced? The answer
is that we cannot know for certain - when we say "A is faster than B" this is a
contingent truth. It means that in the past, A has run faster than B. It doesn't
mean that A will necessarily run faster than B in the future.

The argument here is that contingent truths about the world make the future
unpredictable. Something may actually happen in the future (A may actually
beat B), but that doesn't mean it necessarily had to happen. We cannot know
the future from contingent predictions.

Soft Determinism/Compatibilism

Soft Determinism accepts that all of our actions are determined. However,
there is a difference between Ghandi choosing to fast, and a man being locked
up without food. In both cases, the actions are determined, and the men could

28
not do otherwise. However, what determines Ghandi's actions is internal,
where as the man locked up has been externally caused to be without food.

A compatibilist, who believes that determinism and free will are compatible,
would draw a distinction between actions caused or determined by our
personalities ('free' actions) and actions with external causes (where we are
'co-erced')

Compatibilism, unlike hard determinism, allows for moral responsibility. If X

does not save a drowning child because X cannot swim, he is not morally
responsible. However, if he chooses not to because of his personality, a
combination of his conditioning, an event in his childhood etc, then he is to be
held responsible.

29
 Conscience
Theory in detail
The Bible and Conscience

The Old Testament has no word for ‘conscience’, but it does speak of the true
heart that interiorizes the divine law. Some Old Testament figures experience
God calling them to live his will or Law; at other times they experience him
probing or judging their hearts. Jesus taught his followers to have a pure heart:

God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will see God. Matthew 5:8

What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean', but what comes
out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean' ... the things that come out
of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean'. Matthew
15:11,18

This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our
hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is
greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts
do not condemn us, we have confidence before God. 1 John 3:19-21

Paul uses the term συνειδησις - often translated as 'conscience' and 'heart' - to
describe the human ability to know and choose the good. He taught that all
people, whether or not they are Christians, know what is right and wrong. He
said it is written on our hearts:

When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by
instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law
is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very
fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's
yes and no, right and wrong. (Romans 2:14,15, The Message). More
Translations

For Paul, conscience is the universal knowledge of God's law, an inner guiding
of our external behaviour. Our conscience can be corrupted, but through
Christ's redeeming love, and the action of the Holy Spirit, we can 'put on the
mind of Christ'.

Aquinas

Aquinas held reason in the highest esteem. He said "Reason in man is rather
like God in the world." Most famously, Aquinas claimed:

To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command

of God.

30
Augustine had used the term 'synderesis' to mean an innate knowledge of right
and wrong. He held that this was faulty, due to the fall, and that Christians
should look to the authority of the Church and Scripture. Aquinas disagreed,
holding that conscience has binding force.

Aquinas thought that practical reason, through reflection on human nature, can
determine primary moral principles (which he called the 'Primary Precepts').
Our 'conscience' then derives secondary principles ('Secondary Precepts') which
are applied. As we practice balancing our needs against the needs of others,
we develop Prudence.

synderesis - an innate knowledge of human nature and primary precepts

through practical reason

conscientia - deriving secondary precepts, and applying them

prudence - the virtue of right-reasoning in moral matters, balancing ours and

others' needs

As with Paul, Aquinas said that a person's conscience could err (go wrong),
either 'invincibly', through no fault of their own, or 'vincibly' - through our own
fault. For example, if I give money to a man who is begging on the streets, I
have good intentions, but my actions are actually unhelpful. If I had considered
my actions carefully, I would have seen that I wasn't helping him to improve his
situation - if anything, my actions would keep him on the streets longer. I erred
'vincibly', as I would have done differently if I'd thought about it.

Imagine if I'd given the money instead to a homeless charity, who would be
able to help this man to find accommodation, help conquering his addictions
etc. A much better thing to do. However, I did not know that workers at this
charity were abusing the homeless people in their care. Supporting the charity
was actually the wrong thing to do, but I couldn't have known this - I erred or
got it wrong 'invincibly' - it wasn't my fault.

A different example - the bombing of Dresden. The British government terror

bombed Dresden, killing up to 60,000 innocent people. This is a vincible error,
as they should have known it was wrong - it was their fault, and they are
responsible for what happened.

However, consider a bomb dropped on a weapons factory. Unknown to the

British forces, a school was hidden under the factory. It was wrong to bomb the
school, but this is invincible error, as it wasn't the fault of the British in this
scenario - they couldn't have known about the school.

This example also illustrates what Aquinas thought about Conscience. It isn't a
'feeling' in your heart, like the guilt you feel when confronted with a homeless

31
man. It is the process of reasoning, moving from the Primary Precepts (such as
'It is right to protect and preserve the innocent') to secondary precepts (such as
'It is wrong to give money to people who beg on the streets').

Butler

Natural Guide

Butler was a Bishop in the Church of England. He believed, as Aquinas did, that
we have a God-given ability to reason. Butler would say that we must listen to
our conscience because it allows us to act as a moral judge. It is not an
intuitive feeling about what is right - instead, it is an ability to use reason to
weigh up factors in a moral decision.

Conscience does not only offer itself to show us the way we should walk in, but
it. likewise carries its own authority with it, that it is our natural guide, the
guide assigned us by the Author of our nature: it therefore belongs to our
condition of being: it is our duty to walk in that path, and follow this guide

Ultimate Authority

Butler says we have a number of influences, but the conscience should not be
seen as merely one among many drives or passions. The conscience should have
ultimate authority over all of our instincts.

That principle by which we survey, and either approve or disapprove our own
heart, temper, and actions, is not only to be considered as what is in its turn to
have some influence; which may be said of every passion, of the lowest
appetites: but likewise as being superior; as from its very nature manifestly
claiming superiority over all others... Had it strength, as it has right; had it
power, as it has manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world.

Newman

Newman was an Anglican theologian who converted to Roman Catholicism and

became a Cardinal. Newman's view on the conscience can be seen as
intuitionist, which makes his approach quite different from Butler and Aquinas.
He says that our conscience is "the voice of God" completely distinct from our
will or desires. It is an innate principle planted in us before we had the ability
to reason.

A law of the mind

Newman described conscience as a 'law of the mind', but he did not see it as
giving us commandments to follow. The conscience is not a set of rules, a

32
feeling of guilt or something that we obey in order to gain a reward from God.
It is a clear indication of what is right:

It was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a

threat and a promise...

Newman is often quoted as saying he would drink a toast to the Pope, but to
the conscience first. Seeing the full quote, this is an unfortunate epitaph, as
Newman wasn't about to drink to either:

Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which

indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink to the Pope, if you please,
still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.

Newman was merely saying, like Butler and Aquinas before him, that the
conscience should have ultimate authority.

Freud

Freud was a psychiatrist most famous for founding the psychoanalytic school of
psychology. Two key aspects of his approach are the assertion that sexual
desire is the prime motivating drive in all humans, and the importance of the
unconscious mind.

Freud's theory of the conscience is entirely at odds with all of the positions
above. He saw the conscience as part of the unconscious mind, and believed
that it arose as a result of bad experiences early in life, as well as disapproval
from parents and society. This negative aspect of the human psyche, part of
and sometimes equated with the 'superego', is not usually in control of our
actions, or not in those with healthy minds. Freud taught that 'ego', our
conscious personality, usually balanced the pull of the 'id' (our desires) and the
'superego' (our guilt).

To be ruled by your superego would make you overly judgmental, inflexible and
irrational. Freud would argue against allowing the conscience tohave control
over our decisions about how to act.

Piaget

Many psychologists have come to question Freud's understanding of the

conscience, and see a well-developed conscience as part of a healthy human
mind. However, most continue to reject the notion of a God-given conscience.
Piaget was a developmental psychologist. He believed that by studying human
behaviour, you could see how conscience develops over time. It certainly isn't
something that humans are born with. He highlighted four developmental
stages:

33
  0-2 years. During this stage, babies would learn about the world around
them through their senses and by moving about. They become able to
differentiate themselves from the worldaroundthem,and learn about the
permanence of objects.
 2-7 years. During this stage, children develop language, although they
find it hard to see the world from a viewpoint other than their own.
They classify things by single shared features.
 8-11 years. They are able to think logically to develop explanations
about the world around them.
 11-15 year. They can reason using abstract concepts. They begin to think
about the future, the hypothetical and ideological issues.

According to this model, a person doesn't have a fully functioning conscience

before the age of 11.

Catholic Church

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose
upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to
love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his
heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to
obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.
Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone
with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. VATICAN II, Gaudium et spes §16.

The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of

moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about
good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s
conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true
merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the
inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of
sincerity, authenticity and ‘being at peace with oneself,’ so much so that
some have come to adopt a radically subjectivist conception of moral
judgment. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993) §32.

34
APPLIED ETHICS

SEX AND RELATIONSHIPS

Ethical responses to Sex

What is Sex?What are the issues?Case studiesEthical

responsesChristian responsesResources
Find out more
BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself

InteractExam practice
This page was written by Jem, an A level student at Arnewood. [Comments in brackets are from the site editor]

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

35
Utilitarianism

The consequentialist nature of utilitarianism and its focus on the pleasure/ pain
which arises from an action, leads us to analyse sex in a way of merely
considering how pleasurable it is. For example, traditional utilitarianism,
Bentham’s quantitative outlook, may say it is ‘good’ for one to masturbate over a
picture of a rape victim if it brings about pleasure as the victim will never know
therefore she cannot feel any pain.

However, developments in the utilitarian movement have accounted for this flaw
in the theory. For example, Hare’s focus on preferences in utilitarianism now
considers what the victim's preferences would have been, thus forbidding the
action which we clearly feel is ‘bad’ anyway.

When considering the issue of homosexuality the failings of Hare’s preference

theory become evident. For example, in the deep south of America where
conservative, prejudiced opinions are dominant, homosexuality would almost
certainly be declared wrong if a cross section of beliefs were considered.
However, if an opinion poll was taken in New York then the more liberal
population would conclude that same sex marriage is acceptable or ‘good’. This
is a fault in Hare’s theory as we view some people’s opinions as simply wrong,
for example, should a paedophile’s preference be taken into account just as a
heterosexual who was attracted to people his/her own age. [Some people would
disagree with this analysis. I might feel that my views are more important than
those of less-educated people, racist or homophobic people, but the idea of
democracy is that everyone has a right to their own opinion. It may in fact be a
strength of Hare's theory that it considers all preferences. What results is a
relativist theory - homosexuality was unacceptable 50 years ago but is now
acceptable.]

On the issue of consent, whether a person consents to sex does not seem
relevant to a utilitarian. If one was to be involved in a sexual act without their
consent but they got pleasure from this act, then consent was not necessary or
‘good’. However, this view is induced from Bentham’s theory and by using an act
utilitarian stand point. For example, if one asked a utilitarian whether it was good
to have sex with someone who has not consented then the overwhelming opinion
would be that it was not. This is because utilitarianism has evolved and most
utilitarianists are what we call rule utilitarianists as they support the formation of
rules which bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.

In general utilitarians consider issues surrounding sex in a way which examines

outcomes not moral imperatives. Although differences arise (in act v. rule
utilitarianism, quantitative v. qualitative utilitarianism, preference v. traditional
utilitarianism) the general principle of utility remains and we do not look at acts
but their outcomes.

36
Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant believed that masturbation was satisfying an animal urge, and in doing so
one would be using one's self merely as a means to an end. Similarly, having
promiscuous sex would be using one's self and another person merely as a
means to an end.

Kant would look for a universal law that could be applied to all instances of sex.
Possibilities may include:

 Only have sex with someone if you are prepared to have a child with them

This may run contrary to the will. Some people may be unable to have children,
and yet would want to have sex as it deepens a relationship, bringing two people
closer together. Other Kantians may suggest:

 Only have sex in a commited relationship by mutual consent and not

merely to satisfy lust

We're acknowledging here that people can have meaningless sex which can
leave them feeling cheapened and used. However, some people have sex in a
way that fulfils them and involves them on a spiritual level that is not merely using
themselves as a means to an end.

Natural Law

The popular Catholic response to masturbation using natural law is that it is

blunting God’s purpose and is using the penis or vagina in a way that God did not
intend. This position can be maintained by Catholics as that every sexual act
should have the possibility of ending in pregnancy (NB the church’s position on
contraception). However, progressive Catholic theologians may point to the need
for a structured society as a way of permitting masturbation and even
contraception, as sex can be unitive as well as used merely for reproduction. The
absolute nature of the secondary precepts drawn from the primary precept
seeking reproduction, however, satisfies most Catholics that contraception and
masturbation are evil.

Situation Ethics

When considering issues surrounding sex, Situation Ethics does not bring the
rigidness of a Natural Law or Kantian approach. It recognises that, whilst rules
can exist they are not deontological or immovable as 'love is the only norm (rule)'
and is good in itself. In other words whilst rules can be broken in certain
circumstances to do the most loving thing, the will to do the most loving thing
cannot be.

37
In the case where a man is locked in jail and his wife comes to visit [Midnight
Express], it would be considered by Situation Ethics absurd to forbid this man to
masturbate and thus share a sexual experience with his wife simply because a
rule would be broken. Clearly the most loving, positive thing to do is to allow
masturbation and to break the rule forbidding it. This decision can be justified
also by the pragmatic nature of the theory.

When considering homosexuality, situation ethics also provides a satisfactory

answer as, for example, although it may be held that heterosexual relationships
should usually be encouraged because of the reproductive possibility, to deny
homosexual couples the right to build relationships, get married and have sex is
wrong as in a situation where a man is gay, the possibility of him having a
reproductive relationship is not great nor is it desirable. Personalism, which tells
us you need to put the people first, Positivism, which means to do the most
loving thing and the Pragmatism of the facts, which are Relative to the case,
show us that love, not the rule, is absolute.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue theory focuses on our telos, purpose and how we should act to be useful
and potent in society. For example, when considering masturbation we do not
look out our telos in the same way in which natural law would. Instead of viewing
that it is unnatural or against God’s will and our purpose, we view masturbation in
terms of its virtue. For example, a person who does not masturbate is likely to
become sexually frustrated and therefore may leap into a relationship with
another when they are not ready or committed to this relationship; or alternatively
frustration can lead to an uncontrolled desire, rape. However, someone who
masturbates too frequently and does not lead a normal life or pursue a
relationship because of this also contributes negatively to society, or does not
contribute at all. What we may look for using virtue theory is a golden mean, one
may use masturbation when one’s sexual needs are not being fulfilled in a
relationship, however, masturbation should never be used as a substitute for the
seeking of a committed, sexually fulfilling and child bearing relationship.

When considering the issue of homosexuality the parallels between Natural Law
and Virtue theory become evident. As both ethical systems were founded by
Aristotle they have a focus on the telos of human beings, although this may seem
to suggest that a conservative line may be taken to topic of homosexuality this is
not necessarily the case. If a person is gay then they will not have children,
taking this into account it seems that both theories would prefer it here for
relationships between two men or two women to be allowed as this way the
couples can play a role in society which is structured and similar to straight
couples. Although Natural Law views reproduction as a purpose this is not going
to be fulfilled under any circumstance then surely it is less evil to fulfill the primary
precepts of achieving an ordered society than to condemn gays and outlaw or try
to change them.

38
Ethical responses to War

What is War?What are the issues?Case studiesEthical

responsesChristian responsesResources
Find out more
BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself

InteractExam practice

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism

In Utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. Strictly speaking, a country wouldn't
need a just cause to go to war as long as they had the right intention - the
greatest good for the greatest number. Since the Iraq War began, there has been
a vast amount of cynicism surrounding the decision to go to war and the motives
of people like Bush, with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 an excellent example,
A utilitarian would not support selfish motives. However, utilitarians would be
happy for the military or the President to make up a threat so long as the ensuing
war made the world a better place.

39
Rule Utilitarians may have a different approach, arguing that a world where
people go to war without a just cause would be an unstable world. Therefore the
Just War Criteria, although in many cases not utilitarian, may be necessary to
make the world a better place.

Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant would not support needlessly going to war, as it would mean willing that I
might be shot, which is contrary to the will. However, his theory would support
declaring war in defense of others. We could happily universalise a maxim that
said we should go to war to defend another country from attack - because we too
would want to be defended if we were attacked.

Kant also said we should never treat humanity 'merely as a means to an end'.
However, soldiers are fighting for their own safety, and they are paid. If soldiers
had no vested interest in making the world a safer place, then they would be
merely being used. This means we would have to look closely at the justification
for going to war to see if Kant would support it.

Natural Law

One Primary Precept is that we should 'protect and preserve the innocent', which
would justify going to war to defend others. However, Natural Law theorists
would see this very much as a last resort. They would also criticise the way in
which wars are fought, with a lack of respect for human beings.

Another Primary Precept says that we should live in an 'ordered society'. If an

attack threatens the structure and authority of our society, this may justify our
retaliation.

It is worth noting, however, that early Catholics were largely pacifist. The
principles of Natural Law are based on the concept of the sanctity of life - all life
is sacred. It is impossible to fight a war without some innocent people being
killed, so every other possible solution must be sought before war is declared.

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics demands that we do the most loving thing. This may mean going
to war - Augustine said that while we may go to war, we should love our enemies
(as Jesus instructed) even as we kill them. However, situation ethics would be
against the use of excessive force, using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
etc.

40
Virtue Ethics

War is not part of eudaimonia. However, it may be possible to go to war in order

to achieve peace, which would be part of eudaimonia.

Virtue Ethics focusses on character, and may argue that soldiers are brave and
just, as they stand up for the poor and weak. However, the realities of being a
soldier are that you just follow orders - not an example of wisdom, one of the
cardinal virtues.

Virtue ethics has something interesting to say about the training of soldiers. If you
behave a certain way, you develop that trait. Virtue Ethics may suggest that it is
wrong to train soldiers to hate and kill, as they will continue to behave that way.
An example from film is 'First Blood' - the first film featuring Rambo, a soldier
returning from Vietnam who starts killling people one by one. A more recent, and
real, example is the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grhaib.These soldiers
were trained to hate, so is it any surprise that this is what they did?

41
Ethical responses to Embryo
Research

What is Embryo Research?What are the issues?Case

studiesEthical responsesChristian responsesResources
Find out more
BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself

InteractExam practice

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism

It may be assumed that utilitarianism would have no problem with using spare
embryos - they would otherwise be discarded, and if we get any use out of them
at all, the end justifies the means. This reasoning appears pretty sound, and is
probably the sort of argument used to justify embryo research. In America, where
the amount of research has slowed significantly under Bush's administration (his
Christian beliefs have been held by some to be responsible), the majority of pro-
life Christians actually support embryo research because of the potential
benefits.

42
It would be easy to assume that utilitarianism would therefore support the
creation of embryos for research. No harm is being done (embryos feel no pain),
and much good could be done. Every aborted foetus could yield hundreds of
eggs from which hundreds of embryos could be produced.

However, if we move past Bentham's theory, which recognised only pleasure as

being of value, we would need to ask whether an embryo has any interests.
Certainly some people would argue that it is in an embryo's interests to be
implanted. The counter-argument is that embryos have no interests, but if you
look at how far Singer is willing to assign interests in terms of the environment,
this may not be such an easy argument to win.

Further, when doing a utilitarian calculation, you would need to weigh up different
possibilities. For an embryo, wouldn't the outcome be better if you attempted to
implant it rather than experiment on it? This argument is more easily dismissed,
as the embryo was never going to be implanted. You are choosing between
creating it and experimenting on it, and not creating it at all.

Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant's theory takes a suggested maxim and universalises it, seing whether one
could will the maxim as a universal law of nature. The destruction of embryos
would be contrary to this, and no amount of positive consequences could justify
this. To be clear about why this is, imagine if embryos were experimented on as
a law of natue. If this was the case, I might never have been born. This doesn't
require any assumption about the status of an embryo, merely the recognition
that my genetic code was distinct from the earliest stages, and therefore to
destroy or experiment on an embryo would be to prevent a specific person from
being born.

This may not apply if an embryo is created artificially, for example to produce
embryonic stem cells. The question is whether the embryo could have developed
into a rational being. If it could, that rational being could not will the destruction of
artificially created embryos, and therefore none of us should.

Natural Law

The Catholic Church teaches that an embryo should be treated as a human

being from the moment of conception. Natural Law supports this, and the Primary
Precept 'Protect and preserve the innocent' would mean that anything done to an
embryo that would prevent it from developing would be seen as wrong.

This response is not entirely based on the assumtion of the value of an embryo
from conception. A different way of finding out what Natural Law thinks is by
asking what the purpose is of somethng. The purpose of human life is summed

43
up by the primary prescetps. However, the purpose of an embryo can be
considered separately. It is designed to grow into a person, so it would be wrong
to experiment on an embryo.

Situation Ethics

The principle of agape love is usually used by situationists to argue against moral
absolutes such as 'do not kill'. Situation Ethics is relativist - individual
circumstances can justify going against principles such as "Do not destroy
embryos". As with utilitarianism, the end can justify the means. "If the end doesn't
justify the means", Fletcher asked, "what does?"

Personalism, one of the four principles Fletcher's of Situation Ethics, is the belief
that people are important. Embryonic stem cell research could potentially help
millions, which would make it morally justifiable. It is not clear what value a
situationist would give to an embryo - situation ethics does not give specific
guidance, saying that the right course of action would be to do the loving thing in
any situation. A situationist who believed the embryo was a person would
respond very differently from one who didn't - the theory cannot be used to
comment on the status of the embryo, merely on what to do if the embryo were a
person.

Virtue Ethics

As is often the case, Virtue Ethics is the most difficult theory to apply here. Virtue
Ethics tells us what sort of people we should strive to be, and how to become
such a person. When considering embryo research, one should be courageous,
temperate, kind, as well as acting justly, with wisdom. The theory can't tell us
what a wise person would do, but, being wise, the wise person whould know!

The concept of eudaimonia may be helpful here. Stem cell research offers cures
to paralysis, Parkinson's disease, and many other seriously debilitating
conditions. These conditions are not part of the eudaimonian ideal. Eudaimonia
is complete happiness, and such a state would not be possible with the agony of
such conditions. Just as we should strive to develop our character, we should
prevent things that stand in the way of eudaimonia.

MacIntyre's approach is worth commenting on here. He attempts to understand a

dilemma in its context, believing that having a better understanding of an issue
helps us in making the right choice. This approach o embryology can be found on
the excellent Canadian website ReligiousTolerance.org. This website sets out to
explain the ethics surrounding controversial issues. With many of these issues, it
is difficult to find a source that is without bias. ReligiousTolerance.org manages
to stay impartial. As such, it does not say that euthanasia or abortion or same-
sex marriage is right or wrong. It presents the facts, explains the different
viewpoints and says why people disagree.

44
On the issue of embryo research, ReligiousTolerance.org makes one point very
strongly. Pro-life groups actively protest against stem-cell research (which could
benefit millions) but make little fuss about IVF (which helps only individual
couples). They say:

... in addition to the hundreds of thousands of embryos that have been deep-
frozen in fertility clinics, there is speculation that hundreds of thousands of
additional unused embryos have been actively destroyed. 2 But very few of pro-
life demonstrations are directed at the labs that have killed these massive
numbers of embryos. Attention has been concentrated on the few dozen
embryos whose stem cells were removed and used to create cultures in medical
research labs.

We are at a loss to understand why pro-lifer leaders in the U.S. have

concentrated on the few dozen embryos used in stem cellresearch, while almost
ignoring the hundreds of thousands of embryos who have died in other ways in
IVF clinics.

[read the full article]

Even though MacIntyre is a relativist, he may argue against the way stem cell
research is targetted, using much the same approach as above.

45
Ethical responses to Genetics

What is Genetics?What are the issues?Case studiesEthical

responsesChristian responsesResources
Find out more
BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself

InteractExam practice

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism looks at the benefits and risks associated with genetics. One of the
problems with this sort of approach is that it is impossible to know the effects of,
say, GM crops. Genetically modified crops could potentially affect all farming, but
how likely is this to occur? The hedonic calculus allows us to weigh up extent and
certainty, but relies on us having a good idea what the extent will be and how
likely the problems are to occur.

Bentham considers all sentient creatures, and therefore may have problems with
using animals for pharmaceuticals or to grow human organs. Singer would want

46
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.

Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant takes a very different approach from utilitarianism. Kant's theory deals in
absolute rules. Rather than asking what the benefits of embryonic stem-cell
research might be, he would ask whether there was anything in principle wrong
with such research. Could you will that embryonic stem-cell research became a
universal law? If it was, it could mean that you had been experimented on
instead of being implanted. This is contrary to the will - an imperfect duty.

Kant would be happy with xenotransplantation (using animals to grow organs for
humans) as long as there were no risks to humans. Animals have no intrinsic
value for Kant as they are not rational. Put another way, to ask "Would you will
that you be used to grow organs for humans if you were a pig?" would make no
sense as pigs aren't capable of willing this at all.

Natural Law

Genetic Engineering at first seems to run contrary to Natural Law. Natural Law is
based on the principle that God designed the world. Genetic Engineering
involves tampering with or changing the way the world is. However, we need to
be cautious here. All of medicine involves changing the way the world is in some
way. The real question is whether a therapy or procedure is intended to allow an
organ or part of the body to fulfil its purpose, or to carry out some other purpose.

 Natural Law would therefore be against enhancement genetic

engineering, but may be happy with somatic-cell therapies that corrected
disorders.
 Natural Law may be against using animals to produce pharmaceuticals or
to grow organs for transplant as this runs contrary to their God-given
purpose. This isn't clear cut. Most Natural Law theologians tend to see
animals as lower beings and accept that they may be used to, for
example, feed humans. I don't know of any Natural Law theologians who
are against the use of animals to test pharmaceuticals, which is clearly not
what they were designed for. The justification may be that one of the
primary precepts of Aquinas' Natural Law Theory is to protect and
preserve human life, in which case 'pharming' and xenotransplantation
would be seen as acceptable.
 Natural Law may well support GM Foods. We mustn't get confused
between natural and artificial with this theory. Natural Law has no problem
with artificial limbs, synthetic fibres etc. as they help humans fulfil

47
 their purpose. The real question is, will GM food be better at feeding the
world? Potentially, modifying food to increase yield could reduce costs,
feeding more people in Africa and reducing human suffering. The
concerns from a Natural Law point of view would therefore be the
unknown effects (will it harm humans - contrary to one of the primary
precepts), and the uneven distribution of knowledge (already western
companies are patenting genes and charging developing countries to use
them).

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics instructs us to love. It is a theory concerned with humans (one of

the four Ps is Personalism). Therefore situationists would be more than happy to
use animals to grow organs or pharmaceuticals. The real question with these
therapies is: is it Pragmatic (another of the four Ps). Do xenotransplantation and
'pharming' work? There is good evidence to suggest they do work very
successfully, so Situation Ethics would support them.

What about human genetic engineering? Gene therapies that are somatic (in one
person's body [soma]) would doubtless be seen as a loving alternative to letting
someone suffer and die. Germ-line therapies are more problematic, as they may
affect many future generations, and Situation Ethics is teleological, concerned
with outcomes. However, situation ethics is Relativist (pRelativism is another of
the easy-to-remember four Ps...). It may be too risky as a general rule to make
changes to a germ-line, but situation ethics is happy to 'throw away [its] principles
and do the right thing' - the rules are only guidelines and the right course of
action is relative to the particular circumstances.

It is more difficult to say where situation ethics would stand with enhancement
gene therapies. A situationist is likely to argue that the money could be better
spent on those who are sick (this would certainly be more loving), but there are
no absolutes here. In special individual cases, the most loving thing to do may be
enhancement gene therapy.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics is never easy to apply to concrete, complex ethical dilemmas.

Ethicists, and doctors, should be habitually kind, courageous, temperate etc.,
which may lead to right decisions made in difficult cases. Aristotle also prized
wisdom above all else, and informed debate may well be helpful in some of these
very difficult areas. Justice was one of the cardinal virtues, so new therapies
would have to be fair - available to the wealthy and poor alike, rather than
expensive enhancement therapies for those with money while the poor die of
treatable conditions due to lack of funding.

48
MacIntyre's Virtue Ethics is relativist, which many ethics students don't like.
Aristotle's theory may be difficult to apply, but my students are generally
impressed with it, agreeing that we should all strive to be courageous (but not
foolhardy), kind etc. However, MacIntyre's approach to ethics can be very useful
here. We have new technologies, and no agreed ethical principles to help direct
our actions. MacIntyre starts by looking at the context. For example, how have
animals been used in the farming industry? What principles have been applied?
What about in medical testing? Do these principles carry across to
xenotransplantation? MacIntyre may come to the conclusion that
xenotransplantation would work in America and Europe, but would not be
appropriate for countries with predominantly pagan belief systems where people
may feel they have spirits from animals in them if the organ grew in an animal.
What decision would you reach about growing a human heart in a pig for a
Jewish patient?

This may seem an unusual way of deciding what is ethical. MacIntyre says you
must understand the context, and that what may be valued in one society may
not be in another.

49
Ethical responses to the Right to Life

What is the Right to Life?What are the issues?Case

studiesEthical responsesChristian responsesResources
Find out more
BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself

InteractExam practice

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

50
Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is teleological - it looks at the 'end' or 'purpose' of our actions, not

the acts themselves. There is no sanctity of life principle here. The end justifies
the means, so if we want to decide whether in this specific case it is wrong to kill,
we would need to look at the consequences of the killing. If the outcomes are
good, the action is a good one.

One of the problems with this approach is the need to ascribe a value to a human
life based on the amount of pleasure/pain (or interest/preferences etc.) that the
person is likely to experience. Firstly, it seems wrong to value one person more
than another simply because they are capable of having more preferences,
experiencing a greater amount of pleasure etc. Secondly, it isn't at all clear how
you could say how much pleasure or pain was lost if an embryo was not
implanted. Even if we assumed an average amount of pleasure, how much
pleasure are we talking about for a whole lifetime?

Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant knows that we cannot prove moral principles based on experience. Morality
is synthetic a priori - statements about the world that cannot be confirmed by
looking at the world. Kant asks "If there were such a thing as morality, what
would it be like?" The simple answer - we should all treat people as we would like
to be treated. This leads to an obvious sanctity of life position, as rational people
don't usually want to be killed.

However, it is easy to imagine a universal rule that allows you to kill terminally ill
people with no hope of recovery who want to die. We could make a law of nature
that said as soon as a terminally ill person loses the will to live, they will die. Kant
is likely to come back here with his third statement of the categorical imperative -
never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Killing someone to end their
pain would be to use them.

What you get with Kant is a strong sense of moral duty. We should ignore our
emotions, disregard the outcomes of our actions and do the right thing. You also
get a thorough use of reason. It may be the importance of reason that explains
how Kantians respond to the question "Where does life begin?" Rationality is
what separates us from other animals. As such, a foetus, or even a baby, does
not rate above an animal. They are not part of the 'kingom of ends'. However,
they will develop reason, and once they have that faculty they will be able to act
according to universalisable maxims. In other words, they will be able to ask
"Would I want to have been destroyed as a foetus?"

This means, using Kant's theory, that as soon as human life is genetically
distinct, and would, if allowed to, grow into a rational being, it is wrong to kill
them.

51
It is important to remember that Kant came up with the idea of the United Nations
(League of Nations) with common moral rules. The idea of 'rights' - universal,
absolute deontological principles - is entirely consistent with Kant's ethical theory.

Natural Law

Natural Law is, like Kant's theory, deontological. It deals with absolute moral
principles that look at whether an action is right or wrong. Killing, whether
abortion or euthanasia, is seen as equivalent to murder. This explains why the
Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, euthanasia, Embryo Research etc. The
Catholic Church said it was wrong to kill Mary to save Jodie. Life and Death
issues are much more black and white with Natural Law.

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics demands that you do the most loving thing in any circumstance.
There are no hard and fast rules. Situation Ethics is Pragmatic, and would look at
what is in people's best interests. In the case of Baby Theresa, using her organs
to help other babies would be a practical, useful thing to do. Situation Ethicists
would probably have advocated ignoring rules about sanctity of life in order to do
the pragmatic thing. That doesn't mean that you should discard the rule about not
killing one person to save others. It's a good rule, but in some situations (each
situation is different) love will motivate you to break the rules.

Virtue Ethics

It's important to remember that Virtue Ethics is advocated by Natural Law

theorists (Aristotle and Aquinas) who have a very strong belief in the sanctity of
human life. You could argue that doctors are courageous to carry out abortions in
places where anti-abortionists threaten them, or that euthanasia is an act of
kindness. Aquinas would disagree. Wisdom and Justice are cardinal virtues, and
to end a human life would not be just or wise.

MacIntyre is a relativist, and works very differently. He would say that we need to
understand the context of decisions about the sanctity of life. Increasingly in
hospitals, ethicists are being employed to advise on medical cases with complex
ethical dimensions. However, the ethicists generally don't say what
the right course of action is. They simply 'unpack' the issue, explaining what the
decision really is. For example, in one hospital they will not put patients with
Downs' Syndrome on the waiting list for a lung transplant, and they argue that
this is the same as not doing lung transplants on smokers. An ethicist could
explain whether they were actually the same arguments.

We may think that a smoker doesn't deserve a transplant. However, surely a

murderer or rapist would be less deserving. We simply do not make medical

52
decisions based on what people deserve. Lungs are allocated on utilitarian
grounds - what would bring about the greatest good? For this reason, people can
move up the transplant list if their life is at threat - for them, waiting would be a
greater risk. Young people go higher up the list than the elderly - they will get
more use out of the lung. Smokers are likely to die younger, and get less use out
of new lungs. People with Downs' Syndrome are also likely to die younger, and
will therefore get less use out of new lungs.

So, the ethicist may conclude that the reasons for refusing lung transplants for
smokers and people with Downs' Syndrome are consistent. This doesn't mean
that the decision is right or wrong, just that the arguments don't contradict
themselves.

53
Ethical responses to abortion

What is abortion?What are the issues?Case studiesEthical

responsesChristian responsesResources
Find out more
BooksLinksMultimediaIn the news
Test yourself

InteractExam practice

 Utilitarianism
 Kant
 Natural Law
 Situation Ethics
 Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is teleological, concerned with ends or outcomes. Utilitarians would

ask whether having an abortion brings about the greatest good. Having an
abortion because of financial pressures, other family members' needs, education,
work - any of these reasons may be justified by the hedonic calculus.

Utilitarianism challenged traditional views that abortion was an 'evil' act, arguing
instead that the end justifies the means. Utilitarianism generally supports a pro-
choice position, and Mill strongly believed in individual sovereignty:

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”

However, the pro-choice movement argument that a woman has the right to
choose is not supported by classical utilitarianism. The concept of absolute rights
is compatible with deontological ethics such as Kant or Natural Law, but not
utilitarianism. Mill can be seen as arguing for rule utilitarianism, saying we should
give freedom of choice to all people. Rule utilitarianism says that we should make
rules that bring about the greatest good. I don't think this is Mill's point, however.
Either way, a utilitarian response should accept that it may in some
circumstances be right to deny a woman the right to choose to have an abortion
if doing so would bring about the greatest good.

54
Kant's Ethical Theory

The best place to start with Kant is to take a maxim and universalise it. If it is a
self-contradiction or a contradiction of the will, you have a duty (perfect or
imperfect) not to act according to that maxim.

The maxim "You should have an abortion" becomes a self-contradictory

universal maxim "Everyone should have abortions". It couldn't possibly work, as
there would be no people to have abortions.

Choose a different maxim, such as "People who have been raped should have
abortions" and you no longer have a self-contradiction. However, this must be a
contradiction of the will. Would you want to make a law of nature that ended
pregnancy naturally if it arose out of rape? At first we might think this would be a
perfectly desirable state of affairs - people who have been raped would almost
certainly prefer not to be pregnant. However, if I willed such a law of nature, I
might be willing myself out of existence, as there are undoubtedly rational agents
who have been born as a result of rape. I couldn't will a universal law of nature
that would have prevented my own existence.

Could Kant's theory ever support abortion? It seems that even in the case of a
threat to the mother's life, it would be 'using humanity merely as a means to an
end' to have an abortion.

A lot hinges on the status of the foetus. Does the foetus count as 'humanity'? For
Kantians, it should. This does not depend on whether the foetus has brain activity
- clearly even an infant isn't capable of the sort of rationality that following the
categorical imperative requires. However, at some stage, if allowed to live, the
foetus and infant will be able to imagine different universal laws, and ask whether
they could will them to be laws of nature. It would be contrary to the will to
universalise a law that would have prevented me from being born.

There are potential exceptions. For example, Natural Law holds that abortion in
ectopic pregnancies is wrong. In ectopic pregnancies, the foetus will not survive,
but Natural Law sees abortion as an evil act even in this case, even though it
may save the mother's life. Could a Kantian will that abortions happened
naturally in ectopic pregnancies? Yes, because such a law could not have
prevented that agent from being born. There are no rational agents alive after
ectopic prenancies, so it wouldn't be contrary to their will to have a law of nature
that prematurely ended ectopic pregnancies.

A further potential exception would be foetuses with severe learning disabilities. If

there were mental illnesses that prevented a person from imagining maxims as
universal laws, it could never be contrary to the will to will that these pregnancies
naturally terminated before birth. You wouldn't be willing a law that would have

55
prevented you from being born, as the mere willing of it means that the law would
not have applied to you.

Natural Law

Natural Law asks what our design or purpose is as humans. One of the primary
precepts is to protect and preserve the innocent. This alone leads to a secondary
precept 'Do not abort.'

Secondary precepts are absolute deontological principles - there are no

exceptions. Many Catholics say that this takes the pressure off people faced with
difficult decisions, such as a woman whose pregnancy is threatening her life.
Abortion is not an option. Imagine a different issue. A transplant surgeon needs a
dozen organs to save the lives of 12 people. He sees a healthy man who has all
of these organs. A utilitarian calculation says the greater good would be served
by secretly killing this man and saving the other 12 people with his organs.
Natural Law says that killing an innocent person is not an option, so you don't
have to even consider it.

There are no exceptions, but it may appear as though there are because of
double effect. Imagine an ectopic prenancy - the foetus is growing in the fallopian
tube, and both the mother and foetus will die. Abortion is an evil act, and
therefore not an option. However, removing a fallopian tube, with the secondary
effect that the pregnancy ends, is not an evil act. When carrying out an act with
two (or double) effects, you ask whether the second effect is proportionate. In
this case it is. In other words, it is unethical to abort an ectopic pregnancy (which
would leave the woman able to have another child), but ethical to remove an
ovary (which, in cases where a woman has one working ovary, would leave her
unable to have future children).

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics grew out of a tradition that viewed abortion as an evil act.
Fletcher said we should not get rid of rules - they are a useful guide in most
situations. However, the only thing good in itself is love, and we may be required
to 'push our principles aside and do the right thing'. The Church of England's
position, that abortion is evil but may be the 'lesser of two evils' is consistent with
a situationist approach. If a woman has been raped, abortion may be an act of
love.

Although being very closely linked to utilitarianism, situation ethics should give
quite different results. It doesn't see pleasure as good in itself. However, both
Singer's utilitarianism and Fletcher's situation ethics say you should act in the
'best interests' of those affected. The real question is what counts as being in
someone's best interests. This is where a Christian ethics will include the idea
that God created us, instructed us to reproduce etc. Seen in this light, Situation

56
Ethics will start from the belief that it is generally in our interests to create
families, nurturing and educating our children. However, in exceptional
circumstances the situation might demand a different, loving response. Abortion
would be an exception in extreme circumstances, not a method of birth control
(as it has become in some countries).

In an exam, it would be helpful to consider case studies. For example, where a

foetus has a serious disability and the parents are worried that they would be
unable to bring up the child financially, or that doing so might take time away
from their other children, it may be a compassionate response to abort the foetus
to take away such a great burden.

Virtue Ethics

It is always a more difficult to apply Virtue Ethics, as it is concerned with the sort
of people we should be. What would a kind, temperate, courageous person do?
This is not at all clear. Watch Vera Drake or The Cider House Rules and you will
see compassionate, courageous people performing abortions to help others.
There must equally be kind, noble, courageous people campaigning against
abortion. Again, the status of the foetus is key here. Would a courageous person
let someone kill a foetus? Well, if the foetus wasn't a person yet, then yes they
might. If the foetus was a person, it would surely be more courageous to prevent
their being killed.

Put a different way, virtue ethicists see justice as a cardinal virtue. If justice
includes the foetus, abortion is wrong. However, in the UK, America and most
other countries, the foetus does not have the rights of a person, and justice
doesn't include them in this way. As with many ethical responses, the status of
the foetus affects the response you give.

57