1.

Absolutist Theories Kant A moral law that is Strong Utilitarianism universal and applies in
Natural Law all circumstances Deontological - concerned with the actions and also whether
an act is intrinsically good or bad Natural Moral Law for example is absolutist as it is only
concerned with using reason to discern the most moral option, thus the action can be good in
itself, regardless of the consequences
2. 3. Relative Theories Situation Ethics A moral law that Act utilitarianism changes and adapts
to its circumstances and weak rule utilitarianism situations Consequentialist/Teleological concerned with the result and consequences of an action, not the action itself Utilitarianism
for example is teleological and relative because it does not have any categorical rules or
standards, it is purely consequentialist.
3. 4. Ethical theories Explain terms like intrinsically in the exam. Just give a brief explanation!!
Absolute morality Absolutists hold that things are wrong from an objective point of view, not
just from ones perspective Right and Wrong cannot change. They arent affected by
mitigated circumstances. E.g cold blooded murder and crime of passion are exactly the same
Immoral acts are intrinsically wrong. Consequence is irrelevant Plato is an absolutist as there
are immutable forms
4. 5. Ethical theories When in Rome... Relative morality People dont always agree what is right
and wrong Different cultures express different moral codes of conduct Protagoras said Man
is the measure of all things Aristotle is a relativist. He said the forms are in the world and are
thus relative Not possible to have a general rule to cover ever situation.
5. 6. Strengths/Weaknesses Ethical theories Relative Advantages Absolutist Advantages
Encourages cultural Fixed ethical code to diversity measure actions Prohibits a dominant
Universal and equal view of culture ethics. E.g Human Rights Flexible Act is absolutist
Relative Weaknesses Absolutist Weaknesses Existence of different beliefs Doesnt take
circumstances doesnt mean they are all into account equal Intolerant of cultural Cultural
or moral relativists diversity cannot criticise anothers morals. E.g it is dangerous to Doesnt
allow for a lesser evil say that the Nazi ethic was E.g Hiroshima and Nagasaki. right for
them Absolutist says 100% wrong. However war would have Paradox - If the universal gone
on for another 18 belief was relatavism, then it months with more deaths would become an
absolute
6. 7. Natural Moral Law
7. 8. Aquinas Moral Law Stoics: Started the scholastic movement in ethics. Believed that
reason is the way to discern morality Aquinas/Aristotle: Aquinas built on Aristotles belief of
Euidaimonia (Flourishing). He believed that 1. God instilled rational nature into humans
hearts 2. We can ourish by using our nature to discern natural moral laws without God 3.
These rules should be universal and absolutist Aquinas thought that humans could never
knowingly pursue evil. We followed apparent goods. The way to see what was real or
apparent goods was through reason and natural moral law
8. 9. Aquinas Moral Law Telos is the end purpose in all Man, Imago Dei to perfect in us the
image of God God is the nal cause that we all strive towards 1. To preserve life & the
innocent 5 Precepts: 2. Live in an ordered society uti st 3. To acquire knowledge Ab sol 4. to
Reproduce 5. To worship God Secondary precepts could be said to be Relativist Both the
intention and the act are important. It is possible to have a good/bad interior act and a

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

good/bad exteripr act St Thomas believed that God created us Good and wanted us to be
with him, but also gave us free will. Therefore there must have been a set of rules that led us
to the path with God
10. Aquinas Moral Law Is not based purely on the bibles teachings, instead builds on
Aristotles belief that everything has purpose, apparent in its design. Aquinas believed that
reason should be the starting point for any moral decision, as God instilled reason within us.
Aquinas said that we should use reason to discern the precepts already apparent to us
through revelation and that the bible merely supplements this reason Building on Aristotles
principle that everything has a nal cause, i.e a purpose, he believed that God had a purpose
for the earth and that humans are continually striving for that perfection of the image of god
Imago Dei
11. Aquinas Moral Law An Example Sexual Reproduction 1. Sex leads to pregnancy and
child birth 2. The way that pregnancy happens...the actual sex...is all part of the design and
thus purpose 3. Sex can be broken down into causes: Material Cause - the man & woman
Efcient Cause - The method Formal Cause - The actual process. (From attraction to
cuddling) Final Cause - The creation of a new human being 4. Therefore we can see that
as Natural Law (Catholics) are concerned with the nal cause. All the other causes are good
as long as they permit the nal cause. Hence why contraception or genetic engineering is
wrong.
12. Aquinas Moral Law en gt hs Is easy to understand and S tr on human Concentrates
provides a basis for structure characteristic of essential of society goodness instead of rights
Primary precepts apply to all and wrongs cultures (except God) Applies to everyday life
and Concerned with both is a practical ethic intention and act Does not solely dictate
rules. Is based on the use of reason Allows for practical wisdom and emotion Can be both
exible and inexible because of Gives a reason and purpose primary/secondary to be
moral
13. Aquinas Moral Law es ses Is there a one size ts all akn Weinstilled reason, then why
nature that can be summarised If God in the primary precepts? would he instil
homosexuality Humans purpose is not into people so as to contradict necessarily to ourish
and reason? become like God. Could be The secondary precepts are survival and
evolution, in which teleological and could thus case the primary precepts do not contradict
the primary precepts work. Reason can be corrupted and As Hume said. What happens
maybe the ethics in the Bible in reality is not always what should be followed... ought to
happen. Makes an illogical jump between ought Jesus opposed legalistic morality and is.
14. Utilitarianism
15. Utilitarianism Producing the greatest amount of pleasure/happiness for the greatest
number of people Teleological/Consequentialist Three different types of Utilitarianism Act
Weak/Strong rule Preference Not religious at all, believed that God didnt even enter the
equation
16. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Society is a conglomeration of many individuals, if you please
the individuals and treat them equally then society will be happy Hedonic Calculus measure
happiness this way: Its duration Its intensity how near, immediate, and certain it is How free
from pain and whether it will lead to further pleasures Is Quantitative (whatever gives the

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.

22.

23.

most happiness is the best option) and laws were irrelevant Strictly relative. Every situation is
different. Injustice can be acceptable if the majority benets
17. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Qualitative not Quantitative. The happiness resultant of reading
a book is not the same as going to a club Happiness not Pleasure. Happiness results from
the use of reason and advancement of virtues It is better to be a human dissatised than a
pig satised Rule utilitarianism still takes the individual into account, but frames general
rules that will benet society as a whole. Eg if society knows justice is upheld ... it will he
happier Strong Rule does not allow for exceptions or situations Weak Rule has a general set
of guidelines however certain circumstances may allow variations Past Cases should be
taken into consideration.
18. Preference UtilitarianismPeter Singer Believed that neither pleasure nor happiness
should be the basis of utilitarianism. Instead the Best Interests of the individual should be
taken into account My interests cannot, simply because they are my own, count more than
the interests of anyone else Peter Singer Believed that in any situation the interests of all
concerned should be evaluated E.g Someone who doesnt want to die but is killed is wrong
(Involuntary Euthanasia). But at the same time someone who wants to die but isnt allowed to
is also wrong (voluntary euthanasia) If i wanted to go to the pub, but my girlfriend wanted to
stay at home, neither of us would have the right to assert our preferences
19. Strengths Easy to understand Important to think of others preferences (Preference
Pragmatic and useful in real life Utilitarianism) We naturally deduce consequences Is exible
and allows for exceptional of actions and happiness/pain circumstances (weak/act Util)
Weaknesses Consequences are v.difcult to Hedonic Calculus cannot be predict effectively
used in day to day life Injustice is not upheld as not all No respect for duty. E.g promises
treated fairly. Evil majority rule cease to hold any value Not possible qualify pleasures
Naturalistic Fallacy. Ought doesnt Rights can be abused for the lead to is. Desire is not
always good greater good. e.g removal of By focusing on the greater good all liberties
individual interests are removed
20. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Singer says that Act Utilitarianism defeats itself
21. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of
promise keeping. Singer says that Act Utilitarianism defeats itself
22. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of
promise keeping. Singer says that Act Promises are made on the understanding
Utilitarianism that they will be kept, something the rule defeats itself utilitarian recognises as
promoting happiness.
23. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of
promise keeping. Singer says that Act Promises are made on the understanding
Utilitarianism that they will be kept, something the rule defeats itself utilitarian recognises as
promoting happiness. However, whilst Act utilitarians may make a promise in a particular
situation there can be no guarantee that they will always uphold promise keeping; and so one
could never trust them as there is no condence they will keep their promise!
24. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism

24. 25. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Society functions by people recognising their obligations once
they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patients
medical condentiality.
25. 26. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Society functions by people recognising their obligations once
they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patients
medical condentiality. An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce the greatest
happiness) might report her patients condition (e.g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girls
parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking the trust and code of the medical
profession.)
26. 27. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Society functions by people recognising their obligations once
they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patients
medical condentiality. An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce the greatest
happiness) might report her patients condition (e.g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girls
parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking the trust and code of the medical
profession.) Rule utilitarians however recommend following the professional code of patient
condentiality as in the past such a code has promoted the greatest happiness; i.e.
teenagers are happy to go to doctors for help and support as opposed to dealing with the
situation on their own.
27. 28. Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism Act Utilitarians think that justice is only important if it serves the
principle of utility. Justice has no intrinsic value. Tom, a black If the racist, white, jury adopted
an farm-hand, is act-utilitarian approach it would be made a scapegoat justied in nding
Tom guilty of a and is unjustly crime he did not commit, on the accused of having grounds
that the predominantly white townsfolk would have justice seen to raped a young, be done
and so the majority of white woman. people would be happy.
28. 29. Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy
29. 30. Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of
psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake
30. 31. Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of
psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake one cannot deduce
the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired.
31. 32. Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of
psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake one cannot deduce
the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired. People
may desire something that they ought not to desire, something which is not really desirable.
32. 33. Act & Rule Utilitarianism The Naturalistic Fallacy From the mere statement of
psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake one cannot deduce
the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired. People
may desire something that they ought not to desire, something which is not really desirable.
e.g People may desire to take hard drugs as it produces pleasure. But is taking hard drugs
good?
33. 34. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesnt Work

34. 35. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesnt Work When making decisions in the
heat of the moment, lacking reection, it is not practical to apply the felicic calculus to moral
dilemmas.
35. 36. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesnt Work When making decisions in the
heat of the moment, lacking reection, it is not practical to apply the felicic calculus to moral
dilemmas. Adding up `pleasure units is a dubious exercise and is difcult to measure
accurately.
36. 37. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus Doesnt Work When making decisions in the
heat of the moment, lacking reection, it is not practical to apply the felicic calculus to moral
dilemmas. Adding up `pleasure units is a dubious exercise and is difcult to measure
accurately. The whole idea of assessing different varieties and intensities of pleasures is too
subjective.
37. 38. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Egotistical Hedonism to
include the welfare of others lacks support.
38. 39. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Each person desires his /
her own happiness. Egotistical Hedonism to include the welfare of others lacks support.
39. 40. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Each person desires his /
her own happiness. Egotistical Hedonism to include the Therefore each person ought to aim
for his or welfare of others her own happiness. lacks support.
40. 41. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism This jump from Each person desires his /
her own happiness. Egotistical Hedonism to include the Therefore each person ought to aim
for his or welfare of others her own happiness. lacks support. Therefore everyone ought to
aim at the happiness of everyone
41. 42. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism
42. 43. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism In On Liberty Mill drew an important
distinction between public and private acts.
43. 44. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism In On Liberty Mill drew an important
distinction between public and private acts. He famously remarked, Your freedom to punch
me ends where my nose begins.
44. 45. Act & Rule Utilitarianism Egotistical Hedonism In On Liberty Mill drew an important
distinction between public and private acts. He famously remarked, Your freedom to punch
me ends where my nose begins. Any law which has a serious detrimental effect on the
qualitative well being of others is wrong.
45. 46. Kant
46. 47. Kant The Good Will - What you should do! We can exercise our will, but all human beings
should want to do the right thing. The Categorical Imperative - We have a moral obligation to
do the right thing in every circumstance. The categorical imperative to protect life The
Hypothetical Imperative - If we want to achieve something, then we should do this thing. e.g
If i want to get money, i should work Duty - Our actions should be entirely free from self
interest. Never use a human as a means to an end A PURELY MORAL PERSON IS
SOMEONE WHO THINKS NOTHING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS
AND DOES THEM PURELY BECAUSE IT IS GOOD AND NO OTHER REASON.

47. 48. Kantian ethics The Good Will Only the will is 100% in our control. Therefore only this can
be fundamentally good and can exercise reason A good wills only motive would be to act out
of a sense of duty Duty doesnt involve self interest, consequences or any kind of emotion,
generosity or love The Hypothetical Imperative The idea of ought has nothing to do with
morality. If i want to be a painter, I ought to take lessons The Categorical Imperative Moral
requirements are categorical. i.e you ought to do such and such regardless of your own
thoughts/interests Universalisation Apply maxims to ones actions and then ask whether that
particular action
48. 49. Kantian ethics 3 Motives that shouldnt be Doing something as you will immediately
benet from it... Acting out of self interest, even if it appears that it is to help others. e.g
shopkeeper lowering prices (it would seem that it is helping customers, but really it is to
attract more customers) Doing something out of natural interest ... Acting in a moral way for
our own self interest is not moral. e.g being fascinated in surgery and doing an experimental
operation out of interest which saves a life. It is for our own gain that we did this. Doing
something because someone in authority tells you to ... This is not done out of a sense of
intrinsic duty and there is no free will involved, and is thus not moral.
49. 50. Kant Duty/Categorical imperative The highest good is to perform ones duty (Summum
Bonnum) We have an obligation to do this, free from self interest This is called the
Categorical Imperative This is only for categorical decisions, for hypothetical decisions, we
have no obligation. Called the Hypothetical Imperative We should do things that can be
universalised. This is similar to Natural Moral law as we use reason to discern Act only by the
maxim by which at the same time will that it should become a universal law categorical
imperative noun Philosophy (in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is
binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.
50. 51. Kant Duty/Categorical imperative Contradiction in Nature Where doing this thing would
lead to a contradiction in the laws of nature. Such as the law that everyone should kill the
person next to them, as everyone would die Contradiction in Will Where if you chose not to
use your talents/skills, then you cannot logically expect others to use theirs to help you.
Where a woman does not use her talents (sowing) to help others. She cannot expect a
doctor to help her when she needs it
51. 52. Kant - The postulates of morality Heteronomy & autonomy of the will Our reason must not
be subservient to anything else, even if this is the happiness of the majority. The only motive
you must have must be free from self interest and from the consequences heteronomous
adjective subject to a law or standard external to itself. (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting
in accordance with one's desires rather than reason or moral duty. Compare with
autonomous autonomous adjective (in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with
one's moral duty rather than one's desires. Act only by the maxim by which at the same time
will that it should become a universal law
52. 53. Strengths & Weaknesses Kant Strengths Straight forward and based on reason Clear
criteria to what is moral Deontological Categorical Imperative is a rule that applies to
everyone Commands respect for human life Justice - Corrects utilitarianism which says
that injustice can be justied by majority benet Kant distinguishes between duty and
inclination. Stops the idea that was is pleasurable and what is good.

53. 54. Strengths & Weaknesses Kant Criticisms Can be cold and inhuman. E.g the Eichmann
case The result of an action is vital to decision making It is impossible to make a decision
free from emotion & feelings. Its not pragmatic The ability of a rule to be universalised does
not guarantee that is will be a moral action or rule Contradiction in the will - Kant states that
by rejecting universalised rules, all will nd the same things objectionable. But not all people
have the same morals. Some may be happy to say that if they dont help others, others wont
help them. Contradictions in nature - Doesnt allow any exceptions to the rule. Many would
argue that absolute moral objectives are right, as in pacism. However exceptions are vital.
E.g the Axe Murderer demanding to know where your friend is hiding. Not allowing
consequences, yet trying to universalise decisions is a contradiction
54. 55. Christian
55. 56. Christian Ethics A strict christian bases his morality on either The Bible, Christian
Tradition or Situation Ethics Christian ethics is based on a principle of religious authority and
does not rely on reason. it focuses on Inspiration, Tradition and scripture Morality is
Theonomous as God is the ultimate cause for all morality The Bible All Christians would
argue that the bible is the word of God, however there are different views as to how to follow
the Bible: It is the word of God (literalism) and is to be 100% obeyed It has lost some of its
meaning in trnaslation and needs to be interpreted It is a historical document documenting
ethics of the time, but is irrelevant now (liberals) It is a source of guidance but requires
reason to discern its real meaning
56. 57. Ethics found in the bible The world has purpose and meaning Morality is an objective
reality which is part of the nature of things and comes from God We have been given a
conscience which provides us with an intuitive sense of right and wrong (Moral Law) The
Fall led to a break up of the harmony in the world and replaced it with disharmony, death,
chaos and conict. This can be overcome by entering a covenant with God The 10
commandments are the moral rules that are absolute Jesus Ethical Show concern for poor
and weak of - - Very rarely gave direct moral society community ethic teaching commands
overall principles in ones - do unto others as you would have them life. do to you
Universalising - Basis of his teaching is love agape - Special relationship with God
(unconditional love for others) no boundaries enemys kingdom of god a desire to follow
Gods will the love commandment
57. 58. Ethics found in the bible St Paul If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have
not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and
can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to
the ames, but have not love, I gain nothing. St Paul St Paul also taught that love was the
most important thing. If you act in a loving way then all the other moral rules will be upheld.
Tradition The Catholic Church places a great emphasis on tradition and teaching of the
church. Mainly seen through announcements and records from the pope Protestants tend to
rely much more heavily on the teachings of the Bible and from Jesus Catholics tend to feel
that where issues are not addressed directly in the Bible, they need to be interpreted by the
Church. E.g Abortion

58. 59. Ethics found in the bible Divine Command Theory Gods will is taken arbitrarily no
satisfactory explanation for why anyone is bound to follow it. If God commands something for
good reasons, then it is these reasons which are the source of moral obligations, regardless
of God or any other religious law We make judgements about what is right and wrong without
seeing any involvement from God Does he give people a reason to be moral? Euthyphro
dilemma problem of doing something because Gods commands it. Moral rules are true
because God commands them DC Laws of the OT can be seen as a good example of this
theory. If we do good acts simply out of obedience to God are we being good for the right
reasons? God commands things which are right and wrong in themselves murder is
intrinsically wrong and his is why god forbids it. This seems that there is a standard of right
and wrong which is independent of God. Unqualied obedience to god abandons personal
autonomy the rightness of an action must come from the fact that an action is right in itself.
59. 60. Situation Ethics hat you and do w Love like ust ine ) (st Aug
60. 61. Situation Ethics Created by Joseph who was suspicious of an absolute bases of morality
He felt that Loving your neighbour is the most important thing and created an Agapeistic
moral code This was entirely relativist as although he said you should always act in the most
loving way. No advice was given on how to do this He believed that every situation should be
taken as new and unique. And that as God is personal, compassion for people should be the
most important thing Involved the following 2 principles: Only one thing is intrinsically good.
Love. Actions are good if they help human beings. and Bad if they do not. Justice is simply
love universalised. If you have love for all your neighbours unconditionally, then you will
always do the right thing towards them. Every decision should be made situationally
61. 62. Situation Ethics Fletcher rejected the other 2 main principles of morality as being too
extreme: 1. Antinomianism completely situationalist without any guiding principles to live by.
Every situation is completely unique and will resolve itself with the best possible unique
outcome 2. Legalistic the belief that absolutism is the only way to ensure that morality is
upheld. By creating binding systems it means that future generations are safeguarded and
have a system on which to build its own morals on Fletcher felt that Antinomianism left
people in a state of immorality as they had nothing on which to base their ethics on. However
at the same time he thought that legalistic morality bound people to outdated ideas. How
could the Bible know and teach about gene therapy? He believed that the only principle is
love. Essentially the same as utilitarianism, except replacing pleasure and happiness with
Love
62. 63. Situation Ethics AGAPE A correct moral action is the one that produces the most loving
result Positivism Personism Pragmatism Asserts Ethics centered love as around people A
Ethic should that over rid ing prin the should be followed ciple and not on ly if it can work &
impersonal at all p roduce good results Relativism ount of a huge am ethics has s the rule of
love Situation bviously till accept O wever it s rela tivism, ho
63. 64. Situation Ethics AGAPE A correct moral action is the one that produces the most loving
result Ethics centered Kant - people around people should be treated as and Personalism
ends never as means How can you love God who you cannot see if you cannot love your
neighbour who you can see

64. 65. Situation Ethics AGAPE Joseph Fletchers 6 Precepts only one thing is intrinsically Good ;
namely Love The ruling of Xianity is to put love rst Love and justice is the same, for justice is
love distributed Love wills the neighbours good, whether we like them or not Only the end
justies the means, nothing else Loves decisions are made situationally
65. 66. Situation Ethics AGAPE There are no universal moral rules or rights, each case is unique
and deserves a unique solution It rejects Prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules
Moral judgements are decisions not conclusions nothing is inherently good or bad, except
love and its opposite The opposite of the impersonal detached universal other moral laws
66. 67. Situation Ethics AGAPE ge va nta Ad Easy to understand as follow a single principle
Flexible as everyone can do what they feel is right, irrelevant of others decision and opinions
Enables an emotional and rational response and means one never has to do anything that
conicts with deepest sense of morality Based on love, which is a key feature of all moral
systems
67. 68. Situation Ethics AGAPE e ega tiv N It excludes most universal moral truths - destroys
universal human rights The concept of love is vague and not dened and thus following it is
confusing Its difficult to implement - totally consequentialism - the person has to consider
every consequence and how everyone is affected to make a right decision it cant produce
consistent results - what might be the right thing one time and is done may not be done the
next time... It could allow evil decisions if the outcome is good...
68. 69. App lied Et hics
69. 70. Medical Ethics
70. 71. The 3 cores of medical ethics The issue of rights The issue of sanctity of life Does a
person get more sacred as they get older? To be alive means to be The issue of conscious.
Some kind of socio-economic life form. personhood Is a foetus a person?
71. 72. Abortion In the UK it is permissible to have a social abortion up to 24 weeks. However if
there is a serious medical issue, it can go right up until Birth. The most recent amendment to
this law was in 1991. Needs 2 doctors to ok it! Pro-Choice Pro-Life Women are perfectly
capable of The life of the foetus is sacred and making the decision. Doesnt need more
important than the wishes of the approval of two doctors and the mother. Some mitigating
this should be changed circumstances may be allowed Doctors in the UK can refuse to
provide abortion referral or care, and can refer the case to a colleague Where a woman is
aged over 35 and there is family history of genetic diseases, the foetus can be tested in the
womb, and if serious faults are found, it can be aborted up until Birth. Many fear this is the
rst step to genetic selection and the disability movement campaigns against this.
72. 73. When does life begin? Catholics Life begins at conception. Ensoulment! Everyone else
Life begins sometime after conception. Law says that foetus becomes a viable life at 24
weeks. Not part of womans body Part of Womans Body Is the Although completely reliant,
the baby is separate Some would argue that a foetus is part of a womans body until it is
woma born, they share everything Even from the very rst cell, the baby is biologically baby
p Therefore the baby is essentially different ns bod the same as any other human organ or
tissue up until 24 weeks art of As seen through IVF, the and can be treated as such baby
does not need to be But the HFEA has stated that y? inside the biological mother Any

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

handling of tissue should be to survive. Similar to the treated with sensitivity dependence
once born
74. Xian responses to Abortion Catholics/ Natural law St. Thomas Aquinas taught in
absolutes and that acts can be intrinsically wrong. Abortion seems to conict with the 5
primary precepts: 1. Preserve life Abortion, if personhood happens at conception, directly
contradicts this 2. Reproduce This again contradicts this God liven law. Catholics are also
against masturbation, anal/oral sex etc. 3. Educate Children You cannot educate a dead
foetus 4. To live in society Laws in society legally allow abortion, and thus this does not
contradict this precept 5. Worship God Love of God would mean following the primary
precepts and would outlaw abortion The law of Double Effect dictates that if your primary
intent is to save the life of the mother, and the foetus dies as a result, this is not immoral as
the intent was never to kill the foetus.
75. C of E/ Xian responses to Abortion Protestant Abortion is evil, but in an imperfect world, it
may be the lesser of two evils the mother has sanctity of life also Abortion is acceptable in
exceptional circumstances Rape, disabilities and harm to the mother are all situations where
it may be acceptable If the baby is causing harm to the baby then it is seen as an aggressor,
and abortion may be seen as acceptable Abortion can never be seen as a commodity and
freely available
76. Xian responses to Abortion Situation Ethics Believe that an embryo is not a person until
further on in the pregnancy In the case of rape situation ethics would favour abortion due to
sake of victims respect, reputation, happiness No unwanted or unintended baby should ever
be born In the case of rape there would be 2 aggressors, the baby and the rapist, and it
would be merely self defence
77. responses to Abortion Utilitarianism At a basic level, the happiness and security of a
mother & family should be protected Would argue that the Autonomy of the mother is vital
and that she has the right to choose Over himself, over his own body and mind, the
individual is sovereign J.S Mill Mills feelings on higher pleasures would dictate that the
adults and parents desires and pleasures outweigh the foetuses The suffering of an
unwanted baby would justify abortion The foetus has no real interests and is unaware of
happiness The ability of the foetus to feel pain is a large factor in the utilitarian approach
(Sentience) Abortion may mean less child poverty, fewer teenage mothers, less strain upon
the state and family, and ultimately freedom
78. responses to Abortion Utilitarianism Sentience is extremely important to utilitarians Act
Utilitarianism sees pain as intrinsically bad and pleasure as intrinsically good It is morally
worse to kill a sentient being than to kill a non-sentient being If a baby is killed before it is a
sentient being (16 weeks) then it is of little moral value Peter Singer says that by killing a
foetus before 16 weeks you are not killing anything of any intrinsic morality. Animals should
hold more moral value than foetuss We are hypocritical by not caring about animals, but lots
about foetuss
79. responses to Abortion Disability It is cruel to bring a life into the world which has extreme
suffering Utilitarianism says that for humans to live only with suffering is a great evil Xianity
states that by looking at Jesus inclusion of the weak/sick and the marginalised shows that all

79.

80.
81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

are welcome in Gods eyes and that none should be killed Similarly Kant states that no
human life should ever be used as a means to an end and that
80. responses to Abortion Kant No human life should ever be used as a means to and end.
The categorical imperative never to kill shows that abortion should never take place
completely deontological and thus not concerned with the consequences or outcomes of the
abortion and its problems It can never ever be universalised as we cannot say that killing
children should be held as a good thing. It would both be a contradiction in nature and a
contradiction of the will If we are rational agents capable of thought, which we are, then we
cannot universalise any maxim that would have prevented our existence as it would be a
contradiction in the will! It cannot be Good Will as it would not be performed out of
disinterested duty Practical Imperative never use a human life as a means to an end, this is
achieving relative happiness by killing a human life
81. Embryo Research
82. Embryo Research The Catholics All life is sacred Life begins at conception - ensoulment
Use of embryos and treating of life as disposable is Gods decision and we should not play
God Killing embryos is the same as murder Even if great good will come of it, it does not
justify taking innocent life Embryos must be treated like any other person as they have a right
to life
83. Embryo Research M y View The Catholics There is a balance between those which need
to be protected, and what is right in terms of society and mankind as a whole It purely
depends on your view at which life starts; for if you believe that before 14 days they are not
human, conscious and most importantly have no rights, then there is no issue. I think the
Catholic church can be blinded by ideals and traditions that mean that they never fully
evaluate a situation or ethic and merely rely on a convoluted textbook of faith which they
mindlessly adhere to
84. Embryo Research Utilitarianism Utilitarianism weighs up the overall gains and pleasures
against the pains and suffering Benthams hedonic calculus says that all count for one and all
pleasures are equal The issue arises as to whether an embryo should count for one and
whether their feelings should be taken into account John Stewart Mill said that children and
savages did not count, therefore one could assume embryos dont either Therefore
utilitarians would either have to weigh the pleasures against the pains of the embryo, or they
would see no wrong whatsoever.
85. Embryo Research Kant Kantians would argue that embryos below 14 days are not
rational and thus have no intrinsic worth however they could also argue that an embryo is a
human being, and by using that embryo for research, you are using another human being as
a means to an end, which contradicts the practical imperative We cannot universalise the
taking of innocent life, and therefore it is wrong The deontological approach would say that it
is either always wrong, regardless of the positive it could produce, or always right.
86. Embryo Research Justied Embryo testing can be justied in some
circumstances...depending on the severity of the case If the rules of only under 14 days are
kept to, when it is still just a blastocyst, then it is difcult to nd moral problems with embryo
testing However there is the fundamental problem of whether that embryo constitutes a
human life or not, and if the answer is that it is, then we either have to say that we nd

86.
87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

murder abhorrent whatever the situation, or we take the stance that in most circumstances
we do not agree with it, but if it is for the good of humanity and the future, then perhaps it is
the lesser of two evils?
87. The Right to a child
88. The Right to a child 1. John Locke said that ethics should not be based on divine law, but
on what we can see from humans in themselves. Natural Rights. a) The Government should
respect these rights and thus all should have fundamental 2. Jeremy Bentham said that
fundamental rights was nonsense on stilts. In Utilitarianism there are no absolutes or rights.
Part of being a human means that we have a right to a fullled life. If you do not have an
opportunity to have a child, then you are being denied a fundamental nature of human rights.
Motherhood or Fatherhood Society has a right to provide you with the means to a child
89. The Right to a child The Christians Christianity and the Bible has taught that fertility is
either a reward or punishment from God. For example the Bible says that God closed up
Hannahs womb yet was rewarded by being allowed to conceive by God However the bible
also says things like Go forth and multiply which would suggest that all have a right and
duty to reproduce Natural Moral Law No procreation without sex, and no sex without
procreation! (Catechism) IVF therefore would not be allowed as it is articial conception
Similarly there is an issue regarding spare and wasted embryos, for if life begins at
conception, then that is lives which are not being protected. Contradicts one of the primary
precepts Surrogacy is not allowed as it would count as adultery with the woman being
inseminated by another man or vice versa.
90. The Right to a child Kant Kants categorical imperative dictates that every action or
should be universalised so that it is true for all people for all situations It is impossible to
argue that every single person has the right to a child, it is a contradiction of the will.
Similarly he feels that all actions and moral decisions should be purely objective and free
from self interests, and it is impossible to say that the desire for a child is free from self
interest Also could be argued that it is using a human life (the child) as a means to an end,
happiness. IVF treatment is a contradiction in the will as although it may seem acceptable
that the maxim spare embryos are destroyed, if we were one of those embryos we would not
want this to happen!
91. The Right to a child ism U tili ta rian Jeremy Bentham & Act Utilitarianism Would need
to use the Hedonic calculus to decide whether the pleasure that would be achieved through
IVF would outweigh the pain caused through the failed and wasted embryos. No issue in
terms of rights or sanctity J.S Mill & Weak Rule Utilitarianism It is possible that a natural
birth may be seen as a higher pleasure than that of an articial one. Surrogacy may lead to
pain and loneliness from the surrogate mother. All proponents of Utilitarianism would argue
that there are no inherent rights or sanctity issues. Purely consequentialist and the issue of
spare embryos would not be taken into account
92. The Right to a child Eth ics Sit uat ion Is the greatest agape reached given the
situation? It is possible that the Christian and situationalist would say that the most loving
and compassionate thing to do in terms of IVF would be to give the desperate parents a
child! However Fletcher would still be opposed to the destruction and waste of embryos, as
if they have personhood, as Christianity believes, then the most compassionate thing to do is

92.
93.

94.

95.

96.

not to kill them Does not address people who should not have children morally. For example
the 66 year old who got pregnant through IVF recently. The most compassionate thing for the
child would not be for it to born to a family where they will die soon after its birth!
93. genetic engineering
94. gene therapy G ermline Altering the genetic makeup of human beings in a way that the
mutation/ change is heritable and thus the alteration will be passed down through the
generations and will eventually spread This is illegal under the Human Embryology and
fertilisation act of 1990 Leads to genetic selection, where children can be hand picked and
molded. GATTACA Somatic Used to treat somatic cells that are damaged or unhealthy Not
Heritable Used already in the UK and is under trials to become more widespread Stem
cell treatment for example, by trying to battle Leukaemia with adult stem cells
95. gene therapy Christian Responses Christians believe that human life is sacred and was
created by god. We are created in Gods image. Imago Dei! Human life should not be
altered or tampered with for it was created by God and only God can change it. Many
christians would consider genetics blasphemous However it is also possible that christians
would argue that if we have the ability to prolong life, make it more comfortable and remove
suffering, then we have a duty due to agape to do it. Providing that it is not embryonic stem
cell research and is therapeutic cloning Natural Moral Law would be opposed to embryonic
stem cell cloning because it would interfere with the natural law precept of natural
reproduction and conception However, it depends on the Christians view of when Sentience
occurs. Many would say that it happens after 14 days, and thus before this it is acceptable to
conduct embryonic research
96. gene therapy Kantian Response Should always treat humanity as an end in itself, never
as a means to an end. (2nd formulation of the categorical imperative) Genetic engineering
would be treating the embryo as a means to an end as it would treat it as a commodity, not
as an end. Negative gene therapy (Germline gene therapy/genetic selection) may be
acceptable to Kant as it would be possible to universalise the maxim that all children should
be given the best possible start to life and to have the best genes possible. However if it was
born out of a desire to have the perfect child then it would not be acceptable. Kant believed
that children under the age of 14 days had no intrinsic worth and thus gene therapy would be
acceptable in terms of rights and sanctity
97. gene therapy utilitarianism The potential of removing genetic defects from the human
genome and for curing serious genetic diseases by using a non sentient foetus leads to a
great amount of pleasure for the human race. Bentham therefore would argue that not only is
gene therapy acceptable but that it is preferable J.S Mill however would take a slightly
different line. He would argue that the potential of germ line therapy to damage the human
genome and DNA would make it unacceptable. Future Generations may experience huge
amounts of pain because of an individual desire. Bentham considers all sentient creatures,
and therefore may have problems with using animals for pharmaceuticals or to grow human
organs. Singer would want to consider the interests of animals alongside humans. If it were
simply a case of a single pig dying to save a human life, Singer is likely to value the human
far more than the pig, as the human has far more and greater interests. However, many of

these technologies involve harming a much larger number of animals, which would be a
concern for Singer
97. 98. War and
98. 99. Key Terms Proportional Just War Realism Competent authority Jus Ad Bellem Jus in
Bello Absolute Pacism
99. 100. Vocabulary of war & Peace International Law The conduct of war. Jus In Bello. Found
through the Geneva Conventions although mainly formed at the Hague. War Crimes has
been seen as an example of international law. Collateral Damage The unavoidable evils
associated with war. E.g Dick Cheney stating that collateral damage was necessary with
Guantnamo Jus Ad Bello Just reasons for going to war Jus In Bellum The just way of
conducting a way Jus post bellum restoring justice afterwards Just War Is a just war righting
a wrong or is it simply self defence? E.g Iraq War was intended to right a wrong
Proportionality Ethics of the state vs Individual The state has the responsibility of all its
citizens, an individual has the right and chance to take whatever stance they wish. Can the
state inict either extremes on their citizens Pacism
100.
101. Just WarSttheory believed that Christians Mainly accredited to St Aquinas and
Augustine. They should not love violence and should promote peace at all costs. However, it
is necessary to ght evil and advance Good, and if this is the case then important guidelines
need to be in place The conditions or principles of the just war theory: The war must be
started or controlled by a proper authority (e.g government or ruler) There must be a just
cause or sufcient reason Must be intended to promote good and reduce evil. Peace and
justice must be reinstated afterwards The act of war must always be a last resort Must be
proportional, i.e civilians must not be killed with nuclear bombs if they only attack an air base
Must be a reasonable chance of success Must be distinction between combatants and
non combatants
101.
102. When to ght Jus ad bellum
102.
103. When to ght Jus ad bellum Just cause human rights abused, another
country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state
103.
104. When to ght Jus ad bellum Just cause human rights abused, another
country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state Right intention never
from revenge, always to right an obvious wrong
104.
105. When to ght Jus ad bellum Just cause human rights abused, another
country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state Right intention never
from revenge, always to right an obvious wrong Lawful authority governments
(especially elected ones) have the authority to ght other states; terrorists do not
105.
106. When to ght Jus ad bellum Just cause human rights abused, another
country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state Right intention never
from revenge, always to right an obvious wrong Lawful authority governments
(especially elected ones) have the authority to ght other states; terrorists do not Last
resort other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed before force is used
106.
107. When to ght Jus ad bellum Just cause human rights abused, another
country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state Right intention never

from revenge, always to right an obvious wrong Lawful authority governments

(especially elected ones) have the authority to ght other states; terrorists do not Last
resort other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed before force is used
Realistic chance of success since was is the lesser of two evils and is, therefore, intended
to cause less harm than doing nothing, a nation should not go to war if it is likely to fail as this
would lead to more rather than less suffering
107.
108. When to ght Jus ad bellum Just cause human rights abused, another
country is amassing arms with the intention of attacking your state Right intention never
from revenge, always to right an obvious wrong Lawful authority governments
(especially elected ones) have the authority to ght other states; terrorists do not Last
resort other methods, especially diplomacy, must have failed before force is used
Realistic chance of success since was is the lesser of two evils and is, therefore, intended
to cause less harm than doing nothing, a nation should not go to war if it is likely to fail as this
would lead to more rather than less suffering Proportionality there has to be a cost
benet analysis: the gains of war must exceed their likely cost in human life [this is very
difficult to assess]
108.
109. How to ght Jus in bello
109.
110. How to ght Jus in bello How to behave in war:
110.
111. How to ght Jus in bello How to behave in war: Discrimination force
should be used against the military not civilians
111.
112. How to ght Jus in bello How to behave in war: Discrimination force
should be used against the military not civilians Proportionality only enough force
should be used; tactical use of chemical or biological weapons is ruled out (as, even more
so, are nuclear weapons)
112.
113. How to ght Jus in bello How to behave in war: Discrimination force
should be used against the military not civilians Proportionality only enough force
should be used; tactical use of chemical or biological weapons is ruled out (as, even more
so, are nuclear weapons) Weapons bad in themselves mass rape, ethnic cleansing,
torture, biological and chemical weapons (as they have incalculable therefore,
disproportionate, effects)
113.
114. What to do after a war Jus post bellum
114.
115. What to do after a war Jus post bellum What to do after the war. The original
objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights.
115.
116. What to do after a war Jus post bellum What to do after the war. The original
objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights. There are
conditions for peace:
116.
117. What to do after a war Jus post bellum What to do after the war. The original
objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights. There are
conditions for peace: Just cause to end war violated human rights can now be restored
and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic)
117.
118. What to do after a war Jus post bellum What to do after the war. The original
objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights. There are

conditions for peace: Just cause to end war violated human rights can now be restored
and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic) Right intention the victor must
not pursue revenge
118.
119. What to do after a war Jus post bellum What to do after the war. The original
objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights. There are
conditions for peace: Just cause to end war violated human rights can now be restored
and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic) Right intention the victor must
not pursue revenge Discrimination civilians must be treated differently from their leaders
of those who committed atrocities
119.
120. What to do after a war Jus post bellum What to do after the war. The original
objectives have to have been met, especially the restoration of human rights. There are
conditions for peace: Just cause to end war violated human rights can now be restored
and those responsible tried for war crimes (e.g. Milosevic) Right intention the victor must
not pursue revenge Discrimination civilians must be treated differently from their leaders
of those who committed atrocities Proportionality the defeated must not be humiliated
120.
121. Realism - An Alternative to Just War Theory e.g a person would say do not
murder, but a realist Some people thought that would say this doesnt Just War Theory was
too apply to the state in times idealistic; whereas realism of warfare is pragmatic The state
should protect Morality of the state is its self interest at all costs separate from personal
morality This is a moral Dualism approach In other words; the morality of the individual
Realists would say that do not have to apply to you should still apply the state moral
principles to warfare. e.g treatment of prisoners of war
121.
122. Realism - An Alternative to Just War Theory Christian Realism 1960s Reinhold
Niebuhr said that human beings are essentially sinful and concerned with self interests. War
is inevitable considered this nature; however it may be the lesser of two evils to try and
uphold justice He said that it was the lesser of two evils to ght Nazism Pacism is wrong
122.
123. Pacism Was Jesus a Pacist?!
123.
124. pacism Ethical ABSOLUTE Contingent selective
124.
125. Ethical pacism War is wrong on humanitarian grounds Is not dependent on
religious beliefs at all Can oppose war and violence on humanitarian grounds Belief that
there is a fundamental right to life and peace And a right to live in a world where conicts are
not solved with violence E.g the people who served in the medical sections of the army in the
2nd world war
125.
126. Absolute pacism It is never acceptable to use force under any circumstances
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword (Jees Mouse) Tertullian - No person can
take up arms... because of what Jesus said Absolute Pacism does not mean doing nothing!!
The most classic example of this is Martin Luther King who led an active campaign of
pacism Passive Resistance by Ghandi It is Never acceptable
126.
127. conditional pacism War is evil. But it is sometimes Neccesaary Defending the
innocent is the most important War always involves killing the innocent and this is morally
unjustiable They accept war in some circumstances, such as self-defence and defence of
others, but the innocent must always be protected. So war and violence is acceptable in

theory, but not in practice Some wars may be seen to be the lesser of two evils e.g Bertrand
Russel was a pacist but felt WW2 was a necessary evil to remove Hitler
127.
128. Selective pacism Matter of degree of the war Depends on how serious and the
scale of the war that is taking place A war that is disposing of an evil leader for example may
be acceptable However a nuclear or chemical war would never ever be acceptable to a
select pacist Active pacism Actively helping in the war effort but not thru violence.
128.
129. Weaknesses/Strengths What are the strengths and weaknesses Promotes the
ideas Pacism is wrong that violence is never because it denies the the way to solve a
dispute right of self defence Follows the teachings State has a duty to of Jesus protect its
citizens Pacists are less likely Allows evil to to provoke war dominate through Promotes
absolute doing nothing to stop value of human life evil.
129.
130. How do you think Utilitarianism approaches the subject of war and peace Rule
Utilitarianism The general moral principle which will benet society is that killing and war is
wrong; however there is also the principle of the feelings of security and safety Looks at
previous examples of similar warfare and see whether greater happiness resulted Difcult to
judge the consequences; e.g USA should have won Vietnam War does not bring the higher
pleasures and thus cannot be acceptable Act Utilitarianism Does the end justify the means
Entirely done on the pleasure and pain that would result They can reassess situations as
they change depending on the loss of life etc The pain suffered from the soldiers would far
outweigh any pleasure the soldiers would have However the mass suffering of the people, if
a just war, would in the long run outweigh this
130.
131. How do you think Kant approaches the subject of war and peace K ant Act only
by the maxim you can universalise You cannot universalise the right to kill others; as it is a
contradiction of both nature and the will It is acceptable to use force as self defence It is a
duty to protect the innocent; and some of the intentions in the just war theory would be
acceptable by Kant Kants focus on the Good will has parallels to the Jus in Bello condition
which requires there to be a right intention By killing people for the greater good of others we
are treating people as means to an end, not an end in themselves The consequences of not
going to war and the peoples suffering remaining are irrelevant. Kant is Deontological
131.
132. How do you think a Christian approaches the subject of war and peace Image of
God Human beings are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) We therefore should protect
life. Does this mean not killing, or killing to protect? Shall not Murder The Bible clearly states
Thou Shalt Not Kill Is killing in war murder? Some say it is exactly the same, others say its
different Blessed are the peacemakers Jesus said Blessed are the peacemakers. Peace
not war was his message UN security council think that they are peacemakers? still have
soldiers in war Turn the other cheek An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind
Ghandi Was turning the other cheek meant as a public insult instead of an ethic?
132.
133. How do you think a Christian approaches the subject of war and peace All
Christians tend to be one form of pacists Some believe that all violence is wrong on
religious pacist beliefs due to Jesus teachings of love and peace. These people are
absolute pacists and were called Conchies (conscientious objectors) Some felt that
although violence was wrong, mass evil such as the Nazi Regime must not be allowed to
continue, therefore they got involved in the army. These people are conditional pacists

Some Christians refused to ght and kill other human beings, but felt that the war was just
and was the right thing to do in religious terms. Therefore they helped with the war effort by
being front line priests, medical staff, weapons makers etc. These people are active pacists
Some Christians feel that wars such as the 2nd world war are justied, but nuclear war is
always wrong, such as N.Koreas attempts to engage the war in one. These people are called
Selective pacists