Eduqas Alevel RS ethics Theme 2F Application of Finnis’ natural law and Hoose proportionalism

apply Finnis' development of natural law to the issue of capital punishment

FOR:

- supports one of the basic goods of friendship - alleviates suffering of a friend.

- practical reasoning - it removes the risk that the criminal poses to society and other inmates - garder 2010

- common good - collective feel safer and criminal went against the laws that protect people and should loose the rights

AGAINST:

- doesn't prioritise any of the goods but says that they should all be upheld. CP means you are ending life which goes against both versions of natural law. A Basic good can never be directly harmed but through CP you are directly and intentionally going against them. He goes against the consequentialist by saying you can never really know if by killing one it saves others or allows the basic goods to be upheld by others

- practical reasoness - killing is wrong, how you can teach murder is wrong when you still kill through CP. It also increase brutality and does not deter criminals such as crime rates which continue to rise

- our conscience should tell us that it is wrong which should be guide by God. But Finnis supports the law and says that if the law supports it then it should be supported by the followers because that country see it as morally correct.

natural law and capital punishment in general

- legal in 142 countries

- it is the authorised killing of people as a punishment for a crime

- done by the government

- Thomas Aquinas supported CP on certain grounds = If any man is dangerous to the community and Is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended to execution to defend the common good. He is supported by the Bible reference of Matthew 5 "if a eye causes you to stumble gouge it out, it is better to loose one part of your body than your whole body be thrown into hell"

- RC once supported this but not any more

apply Hoose' development of Proportionalism to the issue of capital punishment

1. preserve innocent lives: it is the first basic good so is against CP. But the proportionalism maxim is ' it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason enough to justify it', there is never a fully evil act.

2. doctrine of double effect cannot apply to CP when there is a direct good and an indirect bad, there are two intentions, to kill and death of a criminal. Introduction of the precepts doesn't see any conflicts in CP

3. rear occasion to act quick and immediate such as in a terrorits attack, as it conflicts the precepts then only the CP should be allowed as it saves many lives

4. value and disvalue - disvalue of CP will always trump value as there is a direct killing and won't definitely lead to a decrease in crime rate even though it could be seen a a detterant and the safety of the community

what is immigration

the movement of individuals into an area for permanent residence

what is a refugee

A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster

what are reasons for migration

money, jobs, war, health, education, religion and poverty

What is the UNDHR (1948)?

Universal Nations Declaration of Human Rights

what did the UNDHR say about immigration

- everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and return to his country

- people have the right to seek and enjoy a country asylum from persecution

- right to move between is a right given but there is no right to be able too live there permanently

what does the church say about immigration

Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

- supports without question, has a world migrant day to help support them

- ' when a foreigner resides among your native land you shall not mistreat them, the foreigner among you must be treated as native born, for you were once a foreigner in your land;

how does natural law support immigration

(link to 9 practical reasonings)

1. friendship - engage with the community globally

2. fullness of life - moral obligation to let those in pursure life to the best that they can

3. allows for pursuit of knowledge such as education

4. allows for play and aesthetic experience such as culture, art, experience and sport

5. brings in new world views through religion, allows it to spread and be learnt by new people

6. practical reasonableness says that you should allow everyone to access goods, uphold religion and common goods, pursue basic goods and shouldn't prevent others from seeking the basic goods provided it is organised by the correct authorities

how does natural law not support immigration

however uncontrolled migration can disrupt the achieving of the basic goods, where it poses a risk to life and can affect the common good and erode laws, culture and tradition.

- friends are taught not to encompass strangers (in a literal way)

- aesthetic exieprinces such as culture and art may be lost and the law may become disrupted when more people have different opinions

- prevent access to goods as they become to stretched and overcrowded

- prevent common goods - if the law of the country is opposed to immigration you must adhere to the common good of the law

what is Finnis' opinion on immigration

depends on how ut is done, it has to be controlled and organised. Managed based on the situation such as the country or religion but the CC complete rejects this saying that everyone should help to the b best of their abilities

what does proportionalism think about immigration

yes to immigration as it doesn't threaten POWER, it actually supported them. Pursue the goods of power and doesn't often challenge the precepts or goods. It does not trigger doctrine of double effect;.

- if immigration causes harm to others its cannot be justified - lacks an intention and consequences will need to be considered.

- value and disvalue: V is that someone seeks to protect their life, DV greater sharing of resources that stretches thinner education and health care for example. In this case V trumps DV