Explain what is meant by a Natural Law approach to Ethics 33 marks
Aquinas , absolutist , deontological . Purpose of humans to glorify God and spend eternity with God . Natural Law = principles which guide towards human purpose , and which are observable within nature .
Primary precepts – P . O . W . E . R - they define human purpose and further human progress to God .
Secondary precepts – practical , daily ways to apply primary precepts . They are deduced from Primary precepts ( Give example ( s ))
Real and apparent goods : Humans basically good , and want fellowship with God . Want to do good . But sometimes get confused and do wrong thing , believing it to be good . (A pparent goods )
Interior / exterior A ct You must do the right thing ( exterior act ) for the right motive ( interior act ) if your action is to have moral worth . ( example )
Natural Law is unjust – Discuss 17 marks
Absolutism of NL seems harsh when dealing with sensitive issues , and widely differing social situations ( Example )
Deontological approach could be unfair as it ignores the immediate outcome of an action when judging its worth . This approach could result in avoidable unhappiness , especially in the short term . ( example )
But NL seeks to promote the long term good of humanity , which may not be served by short term avoidance of pain . ( Example )
NL is a total system of behaviour . Where ‘doing the right thing’ causes problems / distress , NL prescribes a compassionate response , ( eg Catholic responses to unwanted pregnancies or care of the terminally ill .)
The strict application of Natural Law goes against common sense 17 marks
Use of casuistry to apply NL to current moral problems can seem clumsy and contrived . Example – Natural Law approaches to contraception in marriage , or ‘ double effect’ principle on women whose pregnancy might endanger life .
Assuming the existence of God , and human purpose as glorifying God – which many reject as nonsensical .
However the Five precepts make much sense to many people and although casuistry causes problems in some areas , most accept that placing a high value on
human life and the care and education of children should take high priority when drafting laws .
Also most of the secondary precepts have had some place in the customs and morals of many successful societies in history - even a place for religion , which is practised and believed in by the vast majority of the world’s population even now .
Explain how a relative morality might be applied to euthanasia 33 marks
Ethical questions associated with euthanasia include : Do we have a right to autonomy over our lives ?: Sanctity of life / quality of life : possible abuse of euthanasia procedures by relatives ; pressure on terminally ill to euthanize ; ‘changing of mind’ ; right to ‘opt out’ of assisting suicide : taking euthanasia decision on behalf of another .
Moral Relativism doesn’t look for a priori rules to settle moral questions on euth ; J L Mackie quote ; doesn’t accept a pre - existing , objective ‘good’ . Instead humans must work out correct procedures to adopt ( a ) individually and ( b ) collectively to decide what is best for individual and for society .
Then consider how Situation Ethics and A ct Utility might look at individual responses to euthanasia ; how might Rule Utility look at society’s response to euthanasia , eg in the UK .
NB : This answer could be adapted to address relative morality and any of the medical ethics issues we’ve looked at .
One set of moral principles should apply to all societies 17 marks
Position taken by Kant and A quinas : Both accept existence of ‘objective good’ , which we should aim towards because it lies behind all moral efforts and reaching it is the purpose ( telos ) of humanity ; they go further – one set of moral principles would lead to very similar codes of conduct ; these provide societies with common vision of what a ‘virtuous person’ should be – what we should strive for . Would solve much world conflict as everyone would agree about what behaviour we should call ‘ right’ and ‘wrong’ .
Opposition : Mackie – ‘There is no objective morality . ’ So no point trying to ‘ invent one’ ; instead society must work out its own goods and other must work for them ; Sumner – cultural relativism – no objective morality ; ‘good’ is what ancestors have handed down – it’s wrong ( racist , colonialist etc ) to pass judgement on other cultures ;
Fletcher might agree to some extent . The universal moral principle might be ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ or ‘Treat others as you would like them to treat you’ . But these are principles – and they should not extend into moral rules applying to all .
NB This question comes up in all kinds of different wordings . Look out for it !
Explain the difference between meta - ethics and normative ethics 33 marks
Do in paragraphs with examples :
Meta - ethics is the study of whether moral terms such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ , ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions describe an objective reality : e . g . Emotivism says they only have a subjective meaning whilst Intuitionism says they describe an objective reality .
In contrast Normative Ethics doesn’t question that moral terms carry real meaning , and that those meanings can be discovered by reason , context etc ; e . g . Natural Law says that right actions done with right motives will lead humanity towards the right goal – fellowship with God .
Meta - ethics attempts to describe how moral language functions when we use it : e . g . Emotivism – moral language signals approval / disapproval : Prescriptivism – moral statements are commands to do / not do certain actions .
On the other hand , Normative Ethical systems intend to prescribe actions or principles which will benefit individuals and societies , assuming that this is what moral language is for . EG Kant’ categorical imperative .
Meta - ethics invites us to observe the way moral language is used , not to make moral evaluations of actions ; Normative ethics invites us to participate in making value judgements on behaviour and principles for moral decision making .
NB A ll of these points need illustrating with examples , quotes , actual situation , etc .
‘We all know what ‘good’ means ! ’ Discuss 17 Marks ( Many of these arguments can be adapted to answer questions such as ‘Words such as ‘ right / good / wrong’ are meaningless . ’ Discuss )
Do remember to come to your own conclusion . Here are some of the arguments you might use .
Some might agree that our consciences inform our sense of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – but what of those whose consciences tell them that suicide bombing is a good action ? What is a conscience , exactly ? Do we receive it complete , or is it formed by outward influences ? (We do more on this at A2)
G E Moore would agree with statement : Explain how and why . Give examples . Aquinas may well agree – assuming we’ve used our reason correctly – based on widespread agreement of the meaning of those words .
But later Intuitionists ( Ross ) accepted that we might have conflicting intuition of what ‘good’ might mean in a particular situation ( thus prima facie duties to help us to sort out what we should do in a moral dilemma ) A quinas recognised that people commit bad actions , thinking mistakenly that they are good ( apparent goods )
Emotivists claim that what we ‘know’ as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is simply approval / disapproval – not an objective reality , but a subjective emotion .
Kant’s approach to ethics is cold and unattractive . Explain why many people accept this assessment of Kant 33 marks
This view of Kant arises from ( a ) his absolutist , deontological approach which judges an action as intrinsically right or wrong in spite of possible outcomes ; contrast Categorical and Hypothetical imperatives , and show how this affects moral decision making . Ie most relativist approaches use the hypothetical approach to decision making ( teleological ) as it allows flexibility to address similar actions in very different circumstances . Permits for compassion , sympathy , possibility of causing hardship & suffering etc . Contrast this with Kant’s Categorical Imperative , leading to Universal maxims which exclude possibility of flexible approach in applying morals . Give an example showing hardship resulting from application of Kant’s principle , e . g . lying to people who are trying to find and hurt an innocent person , applying a strict rule of ‘no abortion’ etc . Comment on the aspects which could cause people to reject Kant’s approach as unattractive morally .
(b ) Kant’s contempt for the moral worth of any motive apart from ‘good will’ in guiding moral choice . Kant agreed that doing one’s duty would often mean doing something your emotions react against . But he seems to assume that such emotions stem ultimately from selfishness - you will lose out by doing right ; you are more loyal to a friend or family than to truth and duty . A lso argues that emotion is a poor guide to duty . This also suggests that we shouldn’t experience happiness as a result of making the right decision . We should give to the poor because it is our duty , not because we’ve seen a moving film . But what about the happiness / satisfaction we experience after helping a poor person ? Does this make our action morally worthless ?
Kant might argue that if our emotions become hardened , or the person who needs our help is not cuddly or attractive we won’t do our duty . Suppose our emotions lead us to be concerned about the safety of the majority ? They may lead us to agree to the torture of one foreign person to secure the safety of thousands of our fellow countrymen .
Contrast this with other approaches which accept that our emotions and affections can also provide a guide to our duty – compassion for the needy , affection for our parents and family , Ross’s prima facie duties provide a good contrast to Kant’s approach .
Illustrate all these points with examples and bring out wherever you can why lots of people feel Kant’s rejection of emotion and affection as a guide to ethical behaviour is cold and unattractive .
‘In ethics , duty is more important than happiness’ 17 marks (There are several approaches you could take – but here’s one which employs some of the principles you’d already have talked about .
Kant would agree , for the motives given above : Bentham would disagree , placing people’s happiness – including that of the person making the moral decision - as a key benchmark for moral decision making ( quote , Hedonic calculus , etc ) Develop these ideas .
There are definitely times when people will believe that making the correct moral decision involves lessening their personal happiness or the happiness of others . e . g . my students would be really happy if I used film exclusively when I taught – and my life might be happier too ! But I would not be doing my duty by them as a teacher . Use some of your own moral examples – finding a wallet with £ 200 cash in it …… .
But could argue that performing duty is actually the path to true happiness , so the implied contrast between duty and happiness when applied to ethics , is actually a false one .