theology - ethics/charity/ism's

problems with ethics

subjectivity

* what do you base your ethical standards on
* how do those standards get applied to specific situations we face

components of christian ethics

justice and love

* rooted in the Bible
* separate concepts but should be connected for Christians

christian ethics people

emphasis is not on an abstract concept of how society is to organize itself, its on relationships

* what matters is how people treat and interact with people

call to disciples

love god and love your neighbor (do faith and justice)

* if Christians are called to justice, it is in response to love


* love is not an emotion but an action
* “love is praxis, not theory”

realism

* find roots in “human nature”, define human nature as unchanging
* interest is defined in terms of power/what i will get out of it
* goal = protect set-interest at all costs
* tension between morality and successful political action
* specific moral norms do not equal world norms
* autonomy of political sphere
* get most POWER possible
* at expense of others
* become a hegemony (dominance in a political context)
* goals = have an offensive military, only get involved if the result will affect you, final goal is a form of imperialism

billiard ball scenario

* shoot a cue ball, hit another ball
* what goes inside the hole is irrelevant as long as it is not the cue ball
* goal = control the pool stick and cue ball, win the game by making other lose the game

ethical relativism

* there are no absolute ethical standards
* what is right and wrong varies from society to society
* no objective principles/standards exist
* moral principles are dependent upon cultural acceptance
* no universal truth exists
* examples = slavery, holocaust, genocide, torture
* christian perspective critique = natural law does exist, some things are more acceptable than others, “stand for something or fall for everything”

utilitarianism

* that would ldo the best for the most
* most dominant version of teleological ethics (consequences/ends)
* examples = Sophocles Antigone kill one rather than expose a rebellion
* rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it
* the end justifies the means
* two types
* act = an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative
* rule = an act is right if and only iff it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules that would lead to a greater society
* peter singer = says infanticide/killing babies who are mentally handicapped is permitted, some animals have higher moral status than some humans
* critique = the best choice is simply highest average, whose happiness do we follow, how do we measure happiness

ethical egoism

* do what is in my own self interest
* be selfish by choice
* self sacrifice is not required
* a life based on the good of others is false
* one does not need to think or live
* “under a morality of sacrifice the first value you sacrifice is morality”
* critiques = can result in chaotic anarchy, everyone out for self, assume humans are inherently selfish, maybe anti-democratic, radically critical of any divine based or natural law ethics
* more personal

cosmopolitanism

* all human beings belong to a single community


* national borders are irrelevant
* diagenes = we are citizens of the world not a certain state or nation, interventions across borders can be morally justified
* critiques = can lead to violation of sovereign nations, could support unilateral action by a nation
* double effect principle = says there is a difference between intending evil to occur and seeing that it will occur as an unintended side-effect of a morally permitted act, it sometimes is permissible to do “good” knowing that something bad will occur as well
* prima facie = at first glance, a presumed duty that may be overridden by actual duties
* example = chemotherapy does end good but has bad side-effects

solipsism

* extreme ethical egoism
* a view of a person that only they exist in the world

epistemology

* study of how we know what we know
* gets to the roots of knowing

venial sin

* slight sins


* Do not break our friendship with God, only injure
it

mortal sin

* an action so contrary to the will of God that it results in
complete separation from God and his grace
* 3 conditions must be met
* Act must involve grave matter
* The person must have full knowledge of the evil of the act
* The person must give their full consent in committing the act

sin of omission

* a sin that is the result of a failure to do something required by God’s moral law
* Something you fail to do

sin of commission

* sin that is the direct result of a freely chosen thought, word, or deed
* Something you did, in fact, do

ethics

given standard of right and wrong for one distinct field

* business, bio, sports
* practical way to search for good

tsedaqah

Hebrew word for justice or righteousness

* not just an ideal or set of rules
* explains how a real relationship between 2 parties is conducted
* emphasis is not on an abstract concept of how society is to organize itself, but on relationships
* what matters is how people treat and interact with people
* “right relationship with God is possible, only if people act justly toward each other”
* relationship with God is based on how we treat others
* danger of not recognizing the importance of relationships in justice can lead to the rejection of God

praxis

putting a theory or idea into action

* doing


* love is not an emotion but an action
* “love is praxis, not theory”

double effect principle

* says there is a difference between intending evil to occur and seeing that it will occur as an unintended side effect of a morally permitted act
* it sometimes is permissible to do “good” knowing that something bad will occur as well
* example = chemotherapy does end in good but has side effects, good result is worth the bad side effects
* it’s ok to accidentally have bad side effects since the goal is good
* good outweighs the harm

utilitarian approach

* ethical action is the one that does the most good or the least harm (greatest balance of good over harm)
* ends justify the means (teleological ethics)

rights approach

* ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected
* people have a right to be treated as ends and not merely means to other ends
* fits well in Christian ethics
* consider the impact on every single person in a community
* protects all people’s rights in a situation

fairness or justice approach

* ethical action is the one that treats all human beings equally OR fairly based on a defensible same standard if unequal
* example = pay people same or based on year/seniority

common good approach

* relationships of society/communities are basis of ethical reasoning/respect/compassion for all (especially the vulnerable) are required
* ethical action is the one that does the best for the whole group but especially the most vulnerable
* example = system of laws, departments
* good for a community as a whole

virtue approach

* ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of humanity
* what kind of person will I be if I do this?
* is this action consistent with my best?

ethical decision steps

1. recognize an ethical issue
2. get the facts/relevant information
3. evaluate alternative actions (different approaches)
4. make a decision and test it
5. act and reflect on the outcome