ethics

What type of theory is virtue ethics ? Who was it created by and what are its teachings?

- virtue ethics is a character based and teleological theory created by Aristotle. It looks at virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action rather than looking at ethical duties rules or consequences.

​- As well as dealing with smth being right or wrong , virtue ethics also provides guidance to the sort of characteristics and behaviour that a good person will seek to achieve.

• - this suggests that the way to build a good society is to help its members to be good people, rather than using laws and punishment to prevent or deter bad actions.

  - virtue ethics suggests that a person needs only a minimum set of characteristics possessed to be regarded as virtuous.

  - virtuous behaviour = having or showing a virtue, especially moral excellence. This is a quality considered morally good and desirable in a person.

• Virtues are not inate but are cultivated through habitualising our virtuous actions and experiences. Therefore it takes time to internalize these virtues.

  ​

  - its not a theory to be used when faced with a reaction to a single circumstance because this theorys emphasis is on habitualising virtues over time.

Who was Aristotle and what teleological and character based means?

Teleological

• The word teleological comes from the Greek word “telos”, meaning end, goal, or purpose.

• A teleological theory is one that judges actions by their outcomes or purposes — whether something is good depends on what end it leads to.

• In ethics, this means an action is right if it achieves a good purpose or aims toward human flourishing (eudaimonia).

Character-based

• A character-based approach focuses on the kind of person you are, not just what you do.

• Instead of asking “Is this action right or wrong?”, it asks “What does this action say about my character?”

• It’s about developing virtues — good habits or moral qualities like courage, honesty, and generosity.

• Moral goodness comes from being a virtuous person rather than simply following rules or calculating outcomes.

Who was Aristotle?

• Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher and student of Plato.

• He is known as the founder of Virtue Ethics, a teleological and character-based ethical theory.

• Aristotle taught that the ultimate goal (telos) of human life is eudaimonia — often translated as flourishing or living well.

• He believed we achieve eudaimonia by cultivating virtues — balanced traits between extremes (the “Golden Mean”), e.g. courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness.

Who was Aristotle and what was the context of the society he was living in?

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher writing during the Classical period, a time when the polis (city-state) was central to identity, politics, and ethics. In this context, living a good life meant being a good citizen—actively involved in civic life and guided by reason. His virtue ethics, found in Nicomachean Ethics, reflects this societal focus on character, purpose, and practical wisdom.

Influences and Relevance:

• Polis culture: Aristotle saw humans as political animals—flourishing (eudaimonia) was only possible within a society. Virtue ethics is therefore about becoming the kind of person who contributes to the community through good character and rational action.

• Plato and Socrates: He built on their moral focus but rejected Plato’s abstract Forms, grounding ethics in daily life and habit. This makes virtue ethics more applicable and realistic.

• Teleology: Greek thought viewed everything as having a purpose (telos). Aristotle applied this to human nature: our purpose is to reason well and develop virtues like courage, temperance, and justice to fulfil our potential.

Why this matters: It shows that virtue ethics is not just personal but deeply social and practical—it aims to shape individuals who can thrive in and strengthen their communities. This makes Aristotle’s ethics highly relevant to discussions of moral development, responsibility, and the role of society in shaping virtue.

How to structure an AO1

Intro - contextualising . Who created the theory? Who is your main scholar for this ethic? What type of theory is it? Use tier 3 vocab. When was the ethic put forward? What is the context of society? What book is the ethic written in? What is the main aim of this ethic? What does it achieve? Brief sentence on how the aim is reached and be careful because this isn’t process para.

Process para - terminology - tier 3 vocab when describing theory process. Key parts to theory? How does scholar outline moral agent achieving aim? Fulfillments/considerations? Quality over quantity and be detailed and specific. Include quotes to fulfill success criteria. Write in context of a moral agent. Keep linking elements back to aim from contextualising par - how’s it allow the moral agent to fulfill the aim?

Application para - outline specific scenario applying the ethic to. Work through the process you gave in previous paragraph in context of your specific scenario - what parts of the theory does the scenario/action fulfill/contravene. Would the action in the scenario be permitted or not under this ethic. Why? Are there any exceptions or alternative views in which the outcome would be different according to the theory? What is it? Why is the outcome different?

Aristotle quotes from Nichomachean ethics

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit”

“Happiness (eudaimonia) depends on ourselves”

Tell me about aims and eudsimonia in relation to virtue ethics

“ Every art and every investigation and similarly every action and pursuit is considered to aim at some good” - Nichomachean ethics

- What Aristotle means by this quote is that all parts of action and interaction should be aimed at moral goodness

​

- For Aristotle, he breaks down aims into  subordinate aims  and  a  superior aim.

- the fulfillment of subordinate aims contribute to the achievement of the superior aim which is eudaimonia (human flourishing).

​

“ All agree that eudaimonia is chief good for humans, but that there is considerable difference of opinions as to what eudaimonia consists in”.

Aristotle acknowledges the subjective nature of eudaimonia but still proposes that it is still the superior aim for all human action.

​

— Aristotles definiton of happiness includes being happy, healthy and prosperous - not everyone may agree w this.

According to Aristotle , what are the three types of friendship?

• Utility : where both people derive some sort ot benefit from eachother. Find eachother useful e.g business partners. Bond lasts as long as the benefits are present.

• Pleasure :  may be attracted to one anothers wit, good looks or other pleasant qualities.

• Goodness : both admire one anothers goodness and help one another strive for goodness.

• - The first two kinds of friendship are only accidental , because in these cases friends are motivated by their own utility and pleasure, not by anything essential to the nature of their friend. Both of these friendships are short lived because ones needs needs and pleasures are bound to change over time.

• Goodness is an enduring quality, so friendships based on goodness tend to be long lasting (perfect friendships). This friendship is rare and takes time to develop but is the best.

  -Bad people can be friends for reasons if pleasure utility but only good people can be friends for eachothers sake.

• - On the whole friendships consist of equal exchanges whether of utility, pleasantness or goodness. However by nature, there are relationships that exist between two of unequal standing e.g mother and son or ruler - subject.

  - In these relationships a different love is called from from each party and the amount of love should be proportional to the merit of that person.

• When there is too great a gap between people, friendship is impossible, and often two friends will grow apart if one becomes more virtuous than the other. The true mark of friendship is that it consists more of loving than being loved. Friendships endure when each friend loves the other according to the others merit.

• - since justice, friendship and community are closely related, it is far worse to abuse a close friend or family member than a stranger.

  - Friends are a help and comfort along the way, but we cannot expect them to share all our goals and values.

Tell me about moral virtue and include a quote

“Virtue is one of two kinds, intellectual and moral … None of the moral virtue arises in us by nature for nothing in nature can change its nature ;

“we are adapted by nature to recieve them and by habit , perfect them”. I+M

Doctrine Of The Mean posits that moral virtue is achieved by finding a balance position between excess and deficiency. Practical wisdom (phronesis) can steet a person to the golden mean which is where moral virtue lies. Moral virtue involves choosing the right action, at the right time, for the right reason, in the right way.

What are the virtues of mean, excess and deficiency?

Mean (Virtue)

– Key Moral Virtues:

• Courage (between rashness and cowardice – essential in ethics and politics)

• Temperance (moderation in pleasure – key for self-control)

• Liberality (generosity in everyday spending)

• Magnificence (grandeur in public spending – important for leaders)

• Proper pride (knowing your worth – important in self-respect)

• Proper ambition (having realistic goals – relevant to flourishing)

• Good temper (moderating anger)

• Truthfulness (honest self-expression)

• Friendliness (balance in social interaction)

• Modesty (healthy shame)

• Proper indignation (justified anger at injustice)

Excess (Vice)

– Common Pitfalls:

These are key vices of excess to avoid:

• Rashness (acting recklessly)

• Self-indulgence (over-enjoyment of pleasure)

• Prodigality (wasting money)

• Vanity (exaggerated self-worth)

• Ambition (overreaching or aggressive desire for success)

• Irascibility (too easily angered)

• Boastfulness (showing off)

• Buffoonery (trying too hard to be funny)

• Obsequiousness (flattery to gain favour)

• Envy (resenting others’ success)

Deficiency (Vice)

– Common Weaknesses:

These show failures to act virtuously, often due to fear or passivity:

• Cowardice (failure to act bravely)

• Insensibility (failure to enjoy life properly)

• Meanness (stinginess)

• Pusillanimity (undervaluing yourself)

• Lack of ambition (no drive to succeed)

• Lack of spirit (apathetic in face of injustice)

• Mock modesty (false humility)

• Cantankerousness (being unpleasant socially)

• Shamelessness (no moral self-awareness)

• Spite (delighting in others’ suffering)

Tell me about intellectual virtue and include a quote

“ Intellectual owes it “.

• A trait of mind or character that helps a person think well, seek truth, and understand the world.

  They are about how we think, reason, and learn — not just what we know.

  • promote intellectual flourishing, truth-seeking, and good thinking.
    

  • Sophia (Theoretical Wisdom): Understanding of eternal truths (e.g., science, philosophy).

  • Phronesis

  • Episteme: Knowledge of facts and logical reasoning.

  • Techne: Skill or craft knowledge (know-how).

  • Nous: Intuitive intellect or direct understanding of fundamental principles.

What is theoria and why does not everybody agree with it?

An intellectual virtue and Aristotle decided on it rather than on flourishing through moral virtue as leading to eudaimonia for the following reasons

1.  Reason / intelligence is the highest aspect of human life, particularly when used for the highest objective of knowledge

2. Contemplation of the world as it really leads to the greatest happiness and because it is done for its own sake, it is intrinsically good.

3. Theoretical reasoning is essentially contemplation of the divine whereas practical reason is only human.

​

Not everyone agrees :

-  Subjective argument

- Most ppl dont have the oppurtunity for the type of contemplation Aristotle refers to

- Some see eudaimonia in terms of a well rounded character, with no one virtue superior to another

Tell me about Aristotles beliefs on the soul and its different parts

• Happiness = activity of the soul and its correct and full use

• “Before any description of a truly ethical person can be given, an account of the soul needs to be offered”.

• Rational and irrational part

• 1. The Rational Part of the Soul

  This is the part that can think, reason, and deliberate. It is responsible for making moral decisions and guiding behaviour.

  • Key function: Uses reason (logos) to pursue truth and make wise judgments.

  • Divided into:
    

    • Theoretical reason – concerned with knowledge and truth (e.g. philosophy, science).

    • Practical reason – governs everyday moral choices through phronesis (practical wisdom).

  2. The Irrational Part of the Soul

  This part does not reason, but it can respond to or be shaped by reason.

  Desiderative (Appetitive) Part

  • Linked to desires, appetites, emotions, and drives (e.g. hunger, anger, sexual desire).

  • Though irrational, it is capable of listening to and obeying reason.

  • The goal of virtue is to train this part so it becomes aligned with rational judgement.

  Vegetative Part

  • The most basic and automatic part of the soul.

  • Controls biological functions like breathing, digestion, and growth.

  • Entirely irrational and not responsive to reason—not involved in moral virtue.

• - Vardy and Grosch use the example of a fruitcake to demonstrate thus. If the vegetative part recognises that your hungry, it tells you to eat. The desiderative part may desire cake to alleviate the hunger : something you want but dont neccessarily need. The scientific part of your soul decides that fruit is better and healthier for you than cake and the calculative part, weighing up the evidence, comes up with the suggestion of fruitcake. All parts of the soul have been used in the decision.

What’s the importance of proper intention?

• people are acting virtuously only if they know what they are doing and if their act is a reasoned choice

• Not possible to be virtuous by accident or if the action is motivated by desire in order to impress others

1. Telos (Final Purpose)

Strength

• Telos is empirically grounded. Aristotle observed that all things have a nature inclining them toward a goal; Aquinas extends this to humans.

• Biological facts (e.g., seeds grow into plants, humans reproduce and learn) suggest certain behaviours naturally lead to flourishing, making the concept of telos plausible and observable.

• Strength: it connects ethics to the real nature of human beings, not arbitrary rules.

Weakness

• Modern science rejects final causation. Francis Bacon and contemporary physics/biology (e.g., Sean Carroll) argue only material and efficient causes exist.

• Natural “purpose” can be explained by evolution: traits persist because they enhance survival, not because of telos.

• Aristotle’s idea of seeds having a natural “end” is replaced by mechanistic, evolutionary explanations, making telos scientifically unnecessary.

Defence

• Polkinghorne: Science can explain what happens, but not why. Questions of purpose or meaning (telos) lie beyond empirical science, so rejecting telos on scientific grounds is premature.

Critique

• Dawkins: Asking for a “why” assumes purpose exists. Without evidence, telos is speculative. Material and efficient causation suffice to explain the universe.

Why are some strengths of virtue ethics

1. Virtue ethics provides an unbiased view of moral character by focusing on consistent, habitual action rather than emotion-based responses

Doesn’t rely on rigid rules or external consequences but assesses moral character of person performing the action. Avoids bias by emphasising how a virtuous person consistently acts out of habitualisation/internalisation, not fleeting emotion. While emotions are not ignored, they are trained and regulated through habitual moral practice, ensuring that reason—not emotional impulse—guides behaviour. In this way, virtue ethics offers a clear framework for understanding not just what you do, but why you do it and who you are becoming.

2. Virtue ethics offers a well-rounded view of human morality by focusing on the development of the whole person, not just isolated actions or outcomes. Unlike theories like deontology or utilitarianism, which often reduce morality to following rules or achieving results, virtue ethics emphasises character over time. It sees moral excellence as requiring both emotional maturity and rational thinking. At the heart of this is phronesis (practical wisdom), which helps people make good decisions in real-life situations. This makes virtue ethics a powerful approach, as it values personal growth and the complexity of human experience—things other theories can sometimes overlook.

3. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia—often translated as flourishing—is the final goal of human life and a key strength of virtue ethics. It goes beyond just feeling happy, and instead means living well through reason and virtue. This involves developing good habits that help us control our desires and act wisely. Rather than seeing morality as a set of rules, Aristotle shows how being virtuous leads to a meaningful, fulfilling life. It’s a vision where reason shapes how we live, and moral character becomes essential to our personal and social well-being.

4. Virtue ethics can also work alongside religious moralities by focusing on the kind of person someone becomes. For example, Christian values like agape (selfless love) and humility can be seen as virtues that are developed through habit, reflection, and community. While religious ethics sometimes focus on obeying divine rules, virtue ethics emphasises internal change—helping people become genuinely good and loving. This makes it a useful partner to religious approaches, as it encourages deep, lasting moral transformation through character.

Why are some weaknesses of virtue ethics?

1. The absence of an objective list of virtues makes virtue ethics difficult to apply universally.

Aristotle distinguishes between moral virtues (like courage or generosity) and intellectual virtues such as sophia (theoretical wisdom), nous (intuitive intellect), techne (practical skill), episteme (scientific knowledge), and phronesis (practical wisdom). However, these reflect the values of ancient Greek society—particularly those of elite, educated men—and may not translate easily across cultures or time periods. Different societies emphasise different virtues; for instance, assertiveness might be seen as a strength in one culture and a vice in another. This lack of a universally accepted set of virtues opens the theory to cultural bias and limits its usefulness as a global ethical framework.

2. Virtue ethics struggles with modern moral dilemmas that demand immediate and principled guidance.

Unlike deontology or utilitarianism, which provide clear rules or calculations for action, virtue ethics focuses on character developed over a lifetime. While this makes it rich in moral depth, it can leave individuals uncertain in urgent ethical situations—such as abortion, euthanasia, or stem cell research—where fast, high-stakes decisions are needed. These modern issues often require structured principles and precise moral reasoning, which virtue ethics, with its emphasis on long-term moral development, does not readily provide. In this sense, it remains more effective as a theory of moral character than as a practical ethical decision-making tool.

3. It offers limited practical guidance—there are no firm rules to follow.

Even proponents acknowledge that “it is not obvious how we should go about deciding what to do” in specific situations. Because virtue ethics does not offer clear-cut rules or procedures, it can be criticised for vagueness. The Doctrine of the Mean, for instance, encourages finding the virtuous middle ground between excess and deficiency, but offers little concrete advice on how to locate this mean in practice. This ambiguity can leave moral agents without clear direction, especially in morally complex or emotionally charged situations.

4. The flexibility of virtue ethics can lead to subjective or inconsistent moral judgments.

While the emphasis on moral character allows for context-sensitive judgments, it also risks justifying behaviour too easily. For example, if a poor mother steals a loaf of bread from a large supermarket to feed her starving children, some might argue this reflects the virtue of right ambition—seeking a moral end in difficult circumstances—fitting within Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean. However, if someone already wealthy were to steal out of greed or laziness, it would clearly fall into the vice of excess. Yet the theory offers no strict boundary for these cases, relying heavily on interpretation. This subjective element can undermine moral consistency and raise concerns about how virtue ethics would be applied fairly in practice.

Key terminology for the topic of virtue ethics

• Eudaimonia – human flourishing or living well; the ultimate aim of life.

• Arete – excellence or virtue; fulfilling one’s function well.

• Telos – purpose or end goal (linked to Aristotle’s teleological worldview).

• Phronesis – practical wisdom; the intellectual virtue guiding moral decision-making.

• The Golden Mean – the virtuous balance between two extremes (vices of excess and deficiency).

• Ergon – function or role; the idea that humans have a specific function (rational activity).

Moral Development & Character

• Habituation – moral virtues are developed through repeated practice and habit.

• Moral exemplar – someone who embodies virtues and serves as a model (e.g. Aristotle’s phronimos – the wise person).

• Virtuous agent – someone whose character is shaped by consistent virtuous choices.

• Disposition – a stable character trait that guides behavior (e.g. generosity as a disposition to give appropriately).

• Character-based ethics – unlike rule-based theories, virtue ethics focuses on the kind of person one becomes.

Philosophical Context & Comparison

• Teleological ethics – focuses on end goals (eudaimonia), unlike deontological (duty-based) or consequentialist (outcome-based) ethics.

• Moral relativism vs moral objectivism – debate over whether virtues are universal or culturally relative.

• Agent-centred theory – the moral focus is on the agent’s character, not just the act or its outcome.

• Doctrine of the Mean – Aristotle’s idea that virtue lies between two extremes, relative to the individual and situation.

Application & Evaluation

• Context-sensitive – virtue ethics considers the context and individual, avoiding rigid rules.

• Holistic – evaluates the whole person, not isolated actions.

• Moral flexibility – allows for nuance in moral decisions; critics say this can lead to inconsistency.

• Developmental ethics – morality as a lifelong process of character development.

What is natural moral law about and who was it developed by?

• Absolutist theory developed by Thomas Aquinas (priest and prominent theologian in early church / uses natural order of world as basis).

• Based upon belief that there’s a natural order to the world designed by God

• This natural law is found within human nature as well as humanity search for genuine fulfillment

• Humans use their nature to interpret and understand the NL

• We as humans naturally tend to NML because it’s accessible / universal / unchanging / for all time / relevant / given by God.

Why do we as humans naturally tend towards NML and how would you summarise this theory?

• We as humans naturally tend to NML because it’s accessible / universal / unchanging / for all time / relevant / given by God.

• absolutist / universal / deontological / normative ethics

• Aquinas stated that everything could be understood through a study of the natural world and scriptures. Humanity given free will alongside reason which fulfills God’s purpose for them. By following each stage - individual following NML

What’s some historical context of NML?

• Developed C13 combining classical philosophy + Christian theology.

• Influenced by Aristotle’s idea that everything has a purpose (telos) and humans flourish by using reason.

• Believed moral truths are discoverable through reason and grounded in God’s eternal law.

• Wrote during the Scholastic period, which emphasized the harmony of faith and reason.

• Engaged with Islamic thinkers like Averroes.

• Aquinas approach to ethics hugely influential in Catholic Church and major works include Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles.

• Placed NML within a hierarchy: Eternal Law, Divine Law, Natural Law, Human Law.

What are the 4 types of laws?

1. Eternal Law

• The highest form of law—God’s wisdom and plan governing the whole universe.

• It is eternal, unchanging, and known fully only to God.

• All other laws derive their authority and order from this law

2. Divine Law

• The law revealed by God through scripture and revelation (e.g., the Bible).

• Guides humans in areas where reason alone may not be enough, especially concerning salvation.

• Includes moral teachings like the Ten Commandments and teachings of Jesus

3. Natural Moral Law

• The part of Eternal Law that is accessible to human reason.

• Based on the idea that humans have a natural purpose and can discover moral truths by using reason.

• Universal and unchanging—applies to all people, regardless of religion or culture.

• Summed up in the principle: “Do good and avoid evil.”

4. Human Law

• Laws created by human societies to maintain order and justice.

• Should be based on Natural Law and aim for the common good.

• If a human law contradicts Natural or Divine Law, it is not a true law and does not have to be obeyed.

What are the primary precepts?

Protect life

Reproduce

Educate

God - worship

Society - preserve it to be ordered

• these are the guiding duties of NML

• teleological and concerned with our final end - three points of focus = our telos on earth is happiness, complete happiness found in “beatific vision” of God In Aquinas’ the ultimate purpose of human life is to achieve the BV—the direct, eternal union with God in heaven. This is the final telos of all human beings and represents perfect happiness and fulfilment. Achieved through abiding by PREGS

What are the secondary precepts?

• We derive them from primary

• Govern how to act in specific situations e.g from the primary precept “protect life,” a secondary precept would be “do not kill.”

• They guide practical moral decisions and aim to uphold the natural purpose (telos) of human beings as designed by God. Final causes are about intention. In matters of sexuality, they emphasize that sex must be open to reproduction and take place within a stable, committed marriage for the good of children and society.

• No maturbation, bestiality, contraception, abortion, homosexual sex, adultery (injustice), consensual sex outside marriage and polygamy

• All violate different precepts of PREGS.

What are real and apparent goods?

- Apparent good are those of which are still pleasurable but lead us to fall short of reaching our potential e.g drugs, alcohol and sex.

- Real good bring us closer to the ideal of human nature and we can understand and find them using reason. Real goods are an improvement of self. Brings us closer to the ideal human nature that exists in God’s mind.

• By choosing real goods, we follow the Natural Law, fulfill our purpose, and live a virtuous life in line with reason and God’s will.

• Distinction helps us avoid acting immorally by mistake. For example, someone might pursue wealth (an apparent good) at the expense of justice or honesty, thinking it benefits them—when in fact, it harms their moral character.

What are interior and exterior acts?

• Exterior act: The action itself (what you do).

• Interior act: The intention behind the action (why you do it).

For an action to be truly moral in Natural Moral Law, both the interior and exterior acts must be good.

• A good action with a bad intention (e.g. giving to charity for fame) is not morally good.

• Likewise, a good intention can’t justify a bad action (e.g. stealing to help someone).

What are the cardinal virtues and include a quote.

• Cardinal = Latin cardo ‘hinge’

• Foundation of natural morality. Their importance lies in helping individuals cultivate a balanced, ethical life and contribute to the common good.

• Prudence (Phronesis) , justice, fortitude (courage) and temperance ( self - control ).

• Prudence is the guiding virtue as it is practical wisdom and gives the ability to understand a situation and you use this reason to guide.

• This comes through experience so virtuous life can be learned by observing people who habitually practice the virtues

• Three Christian theological virtues - faith, hope and love - derived from St Paul in the New Testament. These virtues focus on our relationship with God and others, guiding us to trust in God, maintain hope in heaven and the beatific vision, and love unconditionally. Seven virtues that complete moral framework for living a virtuous life.

• “Binds everything together in perfect harmony”

What is the doctrine of double effect?

• Intended outcome and significant unintended outcome

  1. The action itself must be good or morally neutral. The act you’re doing should not be wrong in itself

  2. The bad effect must be unintended.

  3. The good effect must outweigh the bad effect - proportionality

  4. The bad effect must not be the means to the good effect.

     A doctor gives strong pain medication to a terminally ill patient, knowing it might shorten the patient’s life.

     The doctor’s action is morally good (relieving pain). The bad effect (shortened life) is unintended, and the good (relief from pain) outweighs the harm (early death). The harm isn’t the goal—only the relief of suffering is intended.

     This is morally acceptable because the harm is proportional to the good.

What is the synderesis principle?

• The synderesis principle is the idea that humans have an innate understanding of basic moral principles. It suggests that everyone has an inborn sense of right and wrong, which guides our moral decisions.

• “ Good is that which all things seek after”.

• “ All other principles of Natural Moral Law are based upon this”.

What is casuistry?

• Latin Casus - Case

• Casuistry is a method of ethical reasoning where decisions are made by applying general moral rules to specific cases, often by comparing them to similar past situations. It focuses more on the details and context of the case

• Catholic Church = greater importance in rules rather than morals.

• Can be used as a criticism of those not concerned enough with justice - forget principles and virtues because they are too law driven

What is antinomianism, proportionalism and legalism?

• NML = fixed purpose and actions. Concerned with rules that are clear / absolute - legalistic approach

• Proportionalism = Emphasises that actions should be judged based on the proportion between good and bad consequences. It allows for exceptions to strict moral rules if the benefits of the action outweigh the harm.

• Antinomianism = Rejects the idea that there are moral laws that apply universally, including the natural law. It argues that individuals can act according to their own reasoning or desires, without being bound by traditional moral laws.

What are some strengths of NML?

1. Doesn’t require belief in God – based on empirical observations:

Appeal to both theists and non-theists. While it originated in context of a belief in a divine order (notably through Aquinas), core principles are rooted in human reason and observation of the natural world. NML relies on the idea that we can understand what is “good” by observing human nature and the purposes toward which we are naturally inclined—such as life, reproduction, and living in society. This means that moral guidance can be found not through religious scripture but through rational reflection on human behavior and purpose - accessible , regardless of religious beliefs.

2. Instinctive – natural law is in line with our instincts and intuitions:

PREGS deeply embedded in human nature. People often intuitively recognize these principles as “right” or “good” without needing to be taught them explicitly. This instinctive quality gives NML a strong foundational appeal, as it resonates with our innate sense of right and wrong and supports the idea that morality is not imposed externally but discovered within human nature itself. This makes its principles feel morally obvious and self-evident.

3. Flexible – allows for secondary precepts to vary according to culture:

Natural Moral Law maintains a balance between universality and adaptability. While the primary precepts (e.g., preserving life, reproduction, education of children, living in society, and worshiping the divine) are considered universal and unchanging, the secondary precepts—how those primary goals are practically achieved—can vary depending on cultural context, social conditions, and particular circumstances. This allows NML to be applied across different times and societies while still maintaining a consistent moral framework. For instance, while preserving life is a universal principle, the way a society approaches healthcare or justice may differ, and NML accommodates these variations through reasoned interpretation.

• NML allows limited practical flexibility in how rules are applied, but the underlying principles remain absolute.

What are some counter disagree arguments of NML?

Even though Natural Moral Law uses reason and observation, it is still heavily based on the idea that human beings have a fixed, God-given purpose. Aquinas, who developed the theory, believed that everything in nature is designed by God to fulfill a specific end. Without belief in God, this idea of an objective, built-in purpose becomes difficult to justify. Secular thinkers may argue that human nature is not fixed but constantly evolving, and that what we consider “natural” or “purposeful” is shaped by culture and environment rather than divine design. So, while NML claims to be accessible without faith, its foundations are arguably too closely tied to religious belief to fully stand on their own.

While NML claims to reflect our natural instincts, human instincts are not always reliable or morally consistent. For example, people may have both a natural instinct to protect others and a self-preserving instinct that causes harm. In some cases, instincts can even lead to morally questionable behavior, such as tribalism or aggression. Moreover, different cultures and individuals have very different moral intuitions—what feels instinctively right in one society may be viewed as wrong in another. This challenges the idea that there is a single, shared set of natural moral rules that everyone instinctively agrees with. If instincts can lead us in opposing directions, they can’t serve as a solid moral foundation.

3. “Flexible – secondary precepts can vary across cultures”

Counter: While flexibility might seem like a strength, it can also make Natural Moral Law unclear and inconsistent. If the secondary precepts can change based on cultural values, then what counts as “right” or “wrong” may vary so much that the theory loses its universal authority. For example, if one culture believes capital punishment preserves life by deterring crime, and another sees it as unjust killing, both could claim they’re following the same primary precept (preserving life), yet reach opposite conclusions. This can lead to confusion and moral relativism, which contradicts NML’s claim to provide clear, objective moral guidance.

Strength: Universally Accessible & Timeless

• Content: NML is grounded in human reason and the natural orientation of humans toward the good, not exclusively in divine revelation. Even non-Christians can discover moral guidance through observation and rational reflection on human nature (Romans 2:14–15).

• Implications: This universality makes NML a timeless framework; its moral principles (PREGS: Preserve life, Reproduce, Educate, Live in society, Worship God) are not tied to a particular historical or cultural context.

• Extra nuance: Benedict XVI argues that ignoring natural law produces moral fragmentation, weakened social cohesion, and a loss of purpose, showing that the theory’s universality has practical societal importance, not just philosophical appeal.

• Sophisticated connection: The strength highlights NML’s accessibility across faiths and cultures, and its alignment with intrinsic human orientation toward flourishing, which transcends historical periods.

2. Weakness: Medieval Context & Inflexibility

• Content: Many primary precepts were formulated within the specific socio-economic realities of the medieval period:
  

  • Strict sexual norms (linked to social stability and inheritance patterns).

  • High birth rates (to offset high infant mortality).

  • Absolute rules on killing (to maintain social order in a more violent society).

• Implications: In modern societies, these rules can appear arbitrary, socially outdated, or overly rigid, because contemporary conditions (healthcare, contraception, modern legal systems) reduce the original practical necessity of these rules.

• Extra nuance: While the core goods of PREGS remain valid, the application of specific secondary precepts may fail to align with contemporary social and cultural realities, making NML seem less flexible.

• Sophisticated connection: The weakness emphasizes the historical contingency of some applications, contrasting with the theory’s claimed universality.

1. Telos (Final Purpose)

Strength

• Telos is empirically grounded. Aristotle observed that all things have a nature inclining them toward a goal; Aquinas extends this to humans.

• Biological facts (e.g., seeds grow into plants, humans reproduce and learn) suggest certain behaviours naturally lead to flourishing, making the concept of telos plausible and observable.

• Strength: it connects ethics to the real nature of human beings, not arbitrary rules.

Weakness

• Modern science rejects final causation. Francis Bacon and contemporary physics/biology (e.g., Sean Carroll) argue only material and efficient causes exist.

• Natural “purpose” can be explained by evolution: traits persist because they enhance survival, not because of telos.

• Aristotle’s idea of seeds having a natural “end” is replaced by mechanistic, evolutionary explanations, making telos scientifically unnecessary.

Defence

• Polkinghorne: Science can explain what happens, but not why. Questions of purpose or meaning (telos) lie beyond empirical science, so rejecting telos on scientific grounds is premature.

Critique

• Dawkins: Asking for a “why” assumes purpose exists. Without evidence, telos is speculative. Material and efficient causation suffice to explain the universe.

Key terminology for the topic of NML

Natural Moral Law – Key Terms & Definitions

• Telos – End or purpose; for humans, union with God or full human flourishing.

• Reason – Human rationality used to discover moral truths from nature.

• Deontological – Duty-based ethics where actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

• Absolutism – Moral rules are fixed, unchanging, and universally binding.

• Eternal law – God’s perfect, divine wisdom; the source of all law.

• Divine law – Moral rules revealed through scripture (e.g. the Bible).

• Natural law – Moral knowledge accessible through reason, rooted in human nature.

• Human law – Laws created by humans, which should reflect natural law.

• Primary precepts – Basic, universal moral principles derived from human nature (e.g. preserve life).

• Secondary precepts – Specific rules deduced from the primary precepts (e.g. do not murder).

• Objective morality – Moral truths exist independently of personal opinion.

• Universal moral order – The belief that the same moral laws apply to all people at all times.

• Casuistry – Applying general moral principles to specific, individual cases.

• Doctrine of double effect – An action with a good and an unintended bad consequence can be moral if the intention is good.

• Real goods – Actions that genuinely lead to human flourishing.

• Apparent goods – Actions that seem good but do not align with true moral purpose.

• Interior act – The intention behind the act.

• Exterior act – The physical or visible action itself.

• Imago Dei – The belief that humans are made in the image of God and share rationality.

• Moral objectivism – The belief that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of cultural or personal views.

• Natural order – The belief that creation reflects a moral structure designed by God.

• Rational nature – The idea that humans, by nature, are rational beings capable of moral reasoning.

• Intrinsic rightness/wrongness – The view that some actions are right/wrong in themselves.

• Proportionalism – A modern revision of NML suggesting rules can be broken if the good outcome outweighs the bad.

• Manualist tradition – A Catholic tradition of moral teaching based on rigid application of NML through manuals.

• Teleological foundation – The idea that NML is rooted in the belief that all things have a purpose.

• Innate purpose – The in-built goal or function of human life (to do good and avoid evil).

• Law written on the heart – Biblical idea (Romans 2:15) that natural law is inherent in all human beings.

• Sanctity of life – The belief that life is sacred and must be protected as part of divine law.

• Fulfilment of human nature – Acting in accordance with reason and virtue to reach one’s moral end.

Who was Joseph Fletcher?

• Fletcher believed a reassessment of Christian morality was needed because traditional, rule-based ethics could not address modern issues like IVF, genetic engineering, and advancements in science. The perceived absence of God during the World Wars, the rise of science, and weakening family structures highlighted the need for a more flexible, context-driven approach to ethics, which Fletcher’s “Situation Ethics” aimed to offer.

  • (1905–1991): An American ethicist and theologian, best known as the founder of Situation Ethics.

  • Published “Situation Ethics: The New Morality” in 1966: This was his key work outlining his ethical theory.

  • Context: Lived through major 20th-century events—two World Wars, the rise of secularism, scientific advancements, and social change in the 1960s (e.g., sexual revolution, civil rights movement).

  • Critic of legalistic morality: He believed traditional Christian ethics were too rigid and couldn’t respond to modern ethical issues.

  • Influence: His ideas reflected the growing demand for more personal, compassionate, and realistic approaches to morality during a time of rapid social and technological change.

What is situation ethics ?

• Situation Ethics is a Christian ethical theory developed in the 1960s by Joseph Fletcher. It offers a middle path between two extreme approaches to morality:

  • Legalism: Following set moral rules or laws no matter the situation.

  • Antinomianism: Rejecting all rules and acting with no moral structure.

  Fletcher rejected both. Instead, he argued that the only absolute moral principle is agape love—selfless, unconditional, Christian love. Every moral decision should be made based on what is the most loving thing to do in a given situation, not on strict rules or personal feelings. We should follow the rules until we need to break them for reasons of love.

  This makes Situation Ethics teleological (focused on outcomes), and relativist (dependent on the context).

What are the four working principles?

1. Pragmatism, it has to work in daily life and be practical

2. Relativism, there should be no fixed rules

3. Positivism, it must put faith before reasoning. we have faith in love as the best way to make moral choices. Then we use reason to figure out how to act lovingly in each situation.

4. Personalism, people should be at the centre of the theory. Moral decisions should prioritize human well-being over following laws or traditions.

What are the six fundamental principles? Try to include a quote for each.

1. Love is the only absolute as it’s intrinsically good
   – Love is always good, no matter what. Other actions are only good if they bring about love.

   “only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good ; namely love : nothing else at all”

2. Christian decision-making is based on love
   – Love is more important than following fixed rules. Every moral choice should be guided by love. Love replaces the law and is the only law.

   “ the ruling norm of Christian decision is love : nothing else”

3. Justice is love distributed
   – Justice isn’t separate from love—it’s how love is shared fairly and equally in society.Theres no love without justice. If love was properly shared out there would be no injustice

   “love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributes, nothing else”

4. Love wants the good for anyone, whoever they are
   – Love is unconditional. It seeks the best for everyone, even those we might not like or know. MLK thought of Christian love to be non selfish and a “creative, redemptive goodwill to all men” and asked those who were oppressed not to violently respond.

   “ Love wills the neighbours good whether we like him or not”

5. Only the end justifies the means
   – An action is right if it leads to a loving result. Outcomes matter more than strict rules. If an action causes harm then it’s wrong but if good comes of it then it’s right.

   “Only the end justifies the means ; nothing else”.

6. Love is acted out situationally, not prescriptively
   – There are no one-size-fits-all rules. The most loving action depends on each unique situation. You decide there and then in each situation what the most loving action is.

   “ Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively”.

What are 2 quotes for agape (sacrificial and unconditional)?

“ Father! into your hands I place my spirit” - Jesus’ crucifixion = most loving action - atoned for sins of humanity. Reflects putting others’ needs first, even at great personal cost.

“ I may give away everything… but if I have no love, this does me no good”. About intention - can only sacrifice for others with intentions of love and agape. A loving motive is what truly matters therefore it should be centered around all actions.

What are 2 quotes for Jesus’ advice on behaviour?

“ love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you”.

• encourages acting with compassion and kindness towards all, even those who may be hostile.

• In Situation Ethics, this aligns with the principle that love should guide moral decisions, transcending personal feelings or societal norms.

“ For the whole law is summed up in one commandment “ love your neighbour as you love yourself” .

• love is the foundation of all moral laws.

• The Golden Rule: This aligns with the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated, promoting empathy and mutual respect.

How is situation ethics a middle ground between antinomianism and legalism?

• Offers a middle ground by replacing absolute laws with a dynamic, love-centered approach that adapts to complex, real-world scenarios.

• Outcome-Oriented Decision-Making:
  

  Prioritizes the results of actions (their capacity to express love) over mere rule compliance, bridging the gap between dogmatic adherence and moral anarchy.

• relative theory - does not require rigid adherence to fixed moral laws or rules regardless of circumstances

What are the 3 types of love?

Storage - family

Eros - romantic

Philia - friends

What are Fletcher’s 4 possible theories on conscience? Include a quote to summarise his overall views.

1. Innate, Radarlike Faculty (Intuition)

This theory views conscience as an inborn, intuitive mechanism—a kind of internal radar. It suggests that our sense of right and wrong operates automatically, alerting us to moral truths without the need for deliberate reasoning.

2. Introjection (Internalized Cultural Values)

According to this perspective, conscience is formed by internalizing the values and norms of the culture and society around us. Our moral standards are largely learned from family, community, and societal expectations, becoming an integral part of our inner guidance.

3. Inspiration from an Outside Decision Maker (Divine Guidance)

This approach posits that conscience is influenced by an external, spiritual force—such as guidance from the Holy Spirit or a guardian angel. It suggests that our moral direction comes from a higher power, offering insights and guidance that surpass our own understanding.

4. Thinking Tool (Analytical Decision-Making)

In this view, conscience is seen as a cognitive instrument used to make moral judgments. It involves deliberate reasoning and reflection, enabling us to weigh different values and options carefully in order to arrive at ethical decisions.

“ There is no conscience ; ‘conscience’ is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively, fittingly”. - Fletcher.

Saying that our conscience is our active process of creatively and thoughtfully figuring out what to do in each situation.

Tell me about situation ethics on lying

Lying

General view:

Lying is not always wrong. Whether it is right or wrong depends entirely on whether it produces the most loving result.

Example:

If a Nazi officer asks whether you are hiding Jewish people, the most loving action would be to lie, because telling the truth would lead to innocent deaths.

In this case, lying is morally right because it protects life and expresses love.

Summary:

Lying can be right when it protects others, prevents suffering, or promotes love.

It is wrong if it causes harm, breaks trust, or results in less love overall.

Tell me about situation ethics on theft

General view:

Theft is not absolutely wrong either. It can be justified if it helps achieve the most loving outcome.

Example:

If someone steals food to feed their starving family, the act of stealing is loving because it saves lives and puts human need above property rights.

Here, stealing would be considered morally right.

Summary:

Theft can be right when done out of love to help others or prevent serious harm.

It is wrong if it is selfish, greedy, or causes more harm than good.

What are some strengths on situation ethics.

Positivist – Focus on Love

Situation Ethics is described as positivist because it centers on the principle of love. In this view, love is the ultimate measure of what is right—characterized by patience, kindness, and selflessness. This form of love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” The focus on agape (unconditional love) means that every ethical decision is measured against how well it promotes love, rather than adherence to rigid rules or laws.

Autonomous – Individual Decision-Making

The approach is autonomous, meaning it empowers individuals to make their own ethical decisions from a place of love. Instead of following established authorities—which many have lost trust in—each person is free to choose what they believe is most loving in a given situation. This idea is echoed by the biblical insight that “we have died to the law and are not under the law but under grace,” suggesting that moral freedom and grace replace strict rule-bound behavior.

Up to Date – Adapting to Modern Contexts

Situation Ethics is considered up to date because it is flexible enough to adapt to the changing norms of modern society. It allows ethical decisions to evolve alongside new developments in areas like marriage, sexuality, and medical ethics. By emphasizing context and the central guiding principle of love, it accommodates shifts in cultural values and scientific advancements, ensuring that moral reasoning remains relevant in today’s world.

What are some weaknesses on situation ethics? Include Barclay

Against “Positivist – Focus on Love”

Weakness: Love is too vague and subjective

• Fletcher’s focus on agapē love sounds admirable, but in practice it’s unclear what “the most loving thing” actually is.

• People may interpret love differently — one person’s “loving act” could harm others.

• It gives too much moral freedom and risks people justifying selfish or immoral acts as “loving.”

• Barclay’s criticism: If we do not have rules, we will always be uncertain of what to do.
  He argued that love alone cannot guide every situation — society needs laws and moral structure to prevent chaos.

2. Against “Autonomous – Individual Decision-Making”

Weakness: Gives too much moral freedom and ignores human weakness

• Allowing everyone to decide for themselves what is most loving assumes people are wise and selfless, but often they are not.

• Human emotions, bias, and self-interest can distort judgement.

• Without clear rules, individuals might act impulsively or justify wrongdoing.

• Barclay’s criticism: Fletcher’s theory “puts too much weight on individual conscience,” and most people are not good at always choosing selfless love.
  Believed it was much easier to know what to do when we are told. Rules, therefore, help protect society and provide consistency.

3. Against “Up to Date – Adapting to Modern Contexts”

Weakness: Leads to moral relativism and unpredictability

• Fletcher’s flexibility makes ethics adaptable, but also unstable.

• What is “loving” can change from one situation to another, leading to moral inconsistency.

• There is no fixed moral truth, which can justify almost any action if claimed to be done out of love (for example, lying, adultery, or even euthanasia).

• Barclay’s criticism: A society without firm moral boundaries would be unsafe — people need some absolute principles to live together peacefully.
  He said Fletcher’s theory only works if people are “angels,” but in reality, they are not.

What are the different stages of fetus development?

• 0–4 Weeks:
  Fertilisation occurs, and the embryo implants in the womb. Basic cells begin forming.

• 5–8 Weeks:
  Major organs start developing. The heart begins to beat, and limb buds appear.

• 9–12 Weeks:
  The embryo is now called a fetus. Organs continue forming, and facial features start to develop.

• 13–24 Weeks (Second Trimester):
  The fetus grows rapidly. Movements may be felt, and it starts responding to stimuli. Viability begins to increase after about 24 weeks.

• 25–40 Weeks (Third Trimester):
  The fetus gains weight, organs mature (especially lungs), and it prepares for birth. From around 37 weeks, it’s considered full term.

What’s the definition of an abortion?

An abortion is the medical or surgical termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the womb. It can happen spontaneously (a miscarriage) or be intentionally induced for various reasons, including medical, personal, or legal circumstances

When may the law allow an abortion after 24 weeks?

• Necessary to save the woman’s life

• To prevent grave permanent injury to physical / mental health of woman

• Substantial risk child born with physical / mental abnormalities / seriously handicapped

What is the medical criteria for an abortion?

If 2 doctors confirm her need for an abortion fits the legal criteria then

• a woman does not need the consent of her own doctor, partner or family

• Some women under 16 can have an abortion without parental consent in some circumstances

What are the 3 types of abortion and tell me about each

1. Early Medical Abortion (up to 9 weeks):

This involves taking two pills (mifepristone followed by misoprostol) to end a pregnancy. It causes the lining of the womb to break down and the body to expel the pregnancy, similar to a heavy period. It’s usually done at home with medical supervision.

2. Vacuum Aspiration (Suction Termination):

Typically done up to 14–15 weeks, this procedure uses gentle suction to remove the pregnancy from the womb. It’s a quick procedure, often done under local anaesthetic, and is one of the most common methods used.

3. Surgical Dilation and Evacuation (D&E):

Used after around 15 weeks, this method involves dilating the cervix and removing the pregnancy with surgical instruments and suction. It’s done in a clinic or hospital, usually under sedation or general anaesthetic.

What is pro life and pro choice?

Pro-Life:

This view holds that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is morally wrong because it ends an innocent human life. Pro-life advocates often support strict limits or a total ban on abortion, believing that the fetus has a right to life regardless of the circumstances.

Pro-Choice:

This position emphasizes a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, including the choice to have an abortion. Pro-choice supporters believe access to safe, legal abortion is essential for personal freedom, health, and equality, and that the decision should lie with the pregnant individual, not the state or religious authority.

Tell me some ethical issues and questions raised by abortion?

• When does life begin?
  Is a fetus a person with rights from conception, or does personhood develop later (e.g. at viability or birth)?

• The rights of the mother vs. the fetus:
  Should the mother’s right to bodily autonomy outweigh the fetus’s right to life, or vice versa?

• Moral status of the fetus:
  Is a fetus morally equal to a born human, or does its moral value increase as it develops?

• Circumstances of conception:
  Does abortion become more ethically acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or severe fetal abnormalities?

• Disability and selective abortion:
  Is it ethical to terminate a pregnancy based on potential disability or genetic conditions?

• Late-term abortion:
  Is it ever morally justifiable to have an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy?

• Access and inequality:
  Do all women have equal access to safe abortions, and is it ethical to restrict access based on laws, location, or cost?

• Religious vs. secular values:
  Should religious beliefs influence abortion laws, or should decisions be based on individual choice and human rights?

What is conception and ensoulment?

The moment a sperm and egg combine to create a fertilised ovum. Unique selection of genetic info present. If allowed to continue and successful - develop

ensoulment = when the soul enters the body. Aristotle’s idea of delayed ensoulment suggests that a fetus does not become a full person at conception but only later in development—around 40 days for males and 90 days for females. Pope Innocent III = 13 weeks. This perspective has influenced abortion debates by implying that early-stage fetuses may not have the complete moral status of personhood

What is potentiality and the ‘primitive streak’?

Potentiality:

This term describes the inherent capacity of an embryo to develop into a full human being. In abortion debates, potentiality is used to argue that an embryo’s ability to eventually become a person carries moral weight, even if it hasn’t yet reached personhood.

Primitive Streak:

The primitive streak is a structure that appears about 14 days after fertilisation. It marks the beginning of cell differentiation and the establishment of an individual identity. Thought that at this point, young embryo can experience pain and has primitive sensations.

What’s consciousness?

Explores how the capacity for self-awareness, rational thought, and complex language can serve as markers for consciousness. Self consciousness / awareness defines our personhood?. Although advanced communication in some animals (for example, chimpanzees using sign language) complicates the picture, the emphasis is on distinguishing human-like self-awareness as a key element of moral status. Most people agree that killing a baby is wrong like killing a person, but that doesn’t mean the law should treat a fetus the same just because it has the potential to become a person. John Locke = foetus doesn’t have human complex traits so they lack personhood. Pro choice concept - supports abortion

What is the concept of pre existence and viability about?

Pre-existence = Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists hold a belief in reincarnation, implying that life continues beyond a single lifetime. Returning valuable life and not a newly created existence. This concept supports the idea that all life has intrinsic worth, as each existence is viewed as part of a greater, ongoing cycle. Pro life concept.

Viability = Viability supports the pro-choice view because it marks the point (around 20–24 weeks) when a fetus can survive outside the womb. Before this stage, the fetus depends completely on the mother, so many argue she should have the right to choose.

What would virtue ethics say on abortion?

• for Aristotle abortion should take place before there are signs of an individual human. These signs appear very early so Aristotle seems to be taking the similar approach that it’s better abort potential babies rather than actual babies.

• Supports Abortion:

  • Phronesis (practical wisdom):
    A virtuous person would assess the specific situation with maturity and thoughtfulness. If abortion is chosen after serious reflection, it can demonstrate moral wisdom and responsibility.

  • Eudaimonia (flourishing):
    If carrying the pregnancy would prevent the woman (or future child) from living a flourishing life, abortion may support long-term well-being, which is the ultimate goal of Virtue Ethics.

  • Virtue of compassion and justice:
    Choosing abortion out of concern for the welfare of others (e.g., a child born into suffering, or the impact on existing children) can reflect compassion and fairness—core virtues.

  Opposes Abortion:

  • Lack of temperance or responsibility (vices):
    If abortion is chosen impulsively or out of convenience, it may reflect self-indulgence, irresponsibility, or recklessness—vices that go against the balanced moral character Virtue Ethics promotes.

  • Disregard for potential life (injustice):
    Treating abortion as morally insignificant may reveal a lack of respect for the seriousness of ending a potential life, showing a deficiency in the virtue of justice.

  • Stunted moral development:
    A pattern of choosing abortion without reflection could hinder the development of virtuous character over time, preventing the person from reaching moral maturity and full eudaimonia.

  Hursthouse’s View on Abortion (Separate, Focused Summary)

  Rosalind Hursthouse, a modern Virtue Ethicist, offers a nuanced position on abortion grounded in character rather than rules or consequences.

  • She reframes the debate: the central moral question is not “Is abortion right or wrong?” but “Is this choice made virtuously?”

  • Abortion, for Hursthouse, is morally serious. She criticises both:
    

    • Pro-choice views that treat it as trivial or solely a matter of rights.

    • Pro-life views that overstate the moral status of the fetus.

  • A virtuous decision to abort would involve:
    

    • Phronesis (practical wisdom) – serious, thoughtful judgement of one’s situation.

    • Honesty, responsibility, compassion – recognising limits, caring for others, and facing moral realities.

    • An understanding that motherhood is not essential to a woman’s flourishing (eudaimonia).

  • Abortion is not always permissible. It is wrong when chosen:
    

    • From vices like selfishness, irresponsibility, or emotional avoidance.

    • Without proper reflection or a sense of moral gravity.

  • Importantly, Hursthouse views abortion as a moral training ground: how a woman approaches the decision affects the development of her character—either reinforcing virtue or cultivating vice.

What would NML say about abortion? Include a quote.

• Aquinas held that a human person with a rational soul is present at 60-80 days after conception.

• “ He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful… he will not be excused from homicide”.

• Catholic Church’s Position

  The Catholic Church, which strongly follows NML, teaches that abortion is forbidden at any stage and for any reason, because it deliberately destroys innocent human life, which violates God’s natural law.

  This view is supported by several primary precepts of NML:

  • Preservation of life – abortion directly ends a life.

  • Reproduction – abortion disrupts the natural process of creating new life.

  • Worship of God – destroying life made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) disrespects God as the creator.

  • Living in an ordered society – permitting abortion undermines respect for law and moral order.

  The Church holds a strong sanctity of life view, meaning that all human life, including unborn life, is sacred and has inherent value from the moment of conception.

  The Principle of Double Effect

  While direct abortion is always morally wrong, NML allows for indirect harm if it is a side effect of trying to do good. This is explained through the principle of double effect, which allows an action that has both a good and a bad result, as long as four conditions are met:

  1. The act itself must be morally good or neutral.

  2. The bad effect must not be the means to achieve the good effect.

  3. The intention must only be to achieve the good effect.

  4. There must be a proportionately serious reason for allowing the bad effect.

  For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus, the removal of the uterus (a hysterectomy) is allowed because:

  • The goal is to remove the cancer (a good action).

  • The death of the fetus is not intended, just an unavoidable side effect.

  • The act meets all four conditions of double effect.

  However, a direct abortion, even to save the mother’s life, is not allowed, because it uses an immoral means (killing the fetus) to achieve a good end (saving a life), which NML rejects.

What is situation ethics stance on abortion?

Context of the Case:

• In 1960s Arizona, a woman was prescribed thalidomide, a drug later found to cause severe fetal deformities such as missing limbs.

• Upon learning the risks, she sought an abortion, fearing her child would live a life of pain, disability, and social disadvantage.

• Arizona law, rooted in a legalistic framework, only allowed abortion if the mother’s physical life was in danger—not for fetal abnormalities or mental distress.

• Her request was denied. She was forced to carry the pregnancy, causing significant emotional trauma and raising questions about justice and compassion.

How Situation Ethics Would Respond:

• Founded by Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics promotes a relativist and teleological approach—decisions depend on what brings about the most agape (unconditional, selfless love) in a particular situation.

• It would reject the legalism shown by Arizona law, and instead base the decision on what produces the most loving and just outcome for all involved.

Why Situation Ethics Would Support Abortion in This Case:

• Agape would prioritise reducing suffering for both the mother and the child.
  

  • The child would likely live with lifelong pain, disability, and stigma.

  • The mother would suffer emotional and psychological harm from being forced to carry the pregnancy.

• Key principles that support abortion in this case:
  

  • “Only love is intrinsically good” – if abortion is the most loving option, it is the right action.

  • “The end justifies the means” – abortion is acceptable if it results in a more loving, compassionate outcome.

  • “Love and justice are the same” – denying the woman the right to choose was unjust, as it disregarded her emotional and mental well-being.

  • “Personalism” – the focus is on people, not rules. The mother’s experience and suffering take priority over abstract laws.

  • “Pragmatism” – abortion in this case is practical and compassionate—it works in real life to reduce harm.

Possible Challenges Within Situation Ethics:

• One might apply “Love wills the good of the other” to argue that the fetus deserves a chance at life, even with disability.

• However, most situationist readings would weigh the quality of life and likely suffering of the child, prioritising compassion.

• Some critics argue Situation Ethics can become too subjective or antinomian (against all rules), allowing people to justify almost anything if they claim it’s “loving.”

• But Fletcher did not support antinomianism—he still believed in moral reasoning, just without rigid absolutes.

Key terminology for the topic of situation ethics

Natural Moral Law – Key Terms & Definitions

• Telos – End or purpose; for humans, union with God or full human flourishing.

• Reason – Human rationality used to discover moral truths from nature.

• Deontological – Duty-based ethics where actions are intrinsically right or wrong.

• Absolutism – Moral rules are fixed, unchanging, and universally binding.

• Eternal law – God’s perfect, divine wisdom; the source of all law.

• Divine law – Moral rules revealed through scripture (e.g. the Bible).

• Natural law – Moral knowledge accessible through reason, rooted in human nature.

• Human law – Laws created by humans, which should reflect natural law.

• Primary precepts – Basic, universal moral principles derived from human nature (e.g. preserve life).

• Secondary precepts – Specific rules deduced from the primary precepts (e.g. do not murder).

• Objective morality – Moral truths exist independently of personal opinion.

• Universal moral order – The belief that the same moral laws apply to all people at all times.

• Casuistry – Applying general moral principles to specific, individual cases.

• Doctrine of double effect – An action with a good and an unintended bad consequence can be moral if the intention is good.

• Real goods – Actions that genuinely lead to human flourishing.

• Apparent goods – Actions that seem good but do not align with true moral purpose.

• Interior act – The intention behind the act.

• Exterior act – The physical or visible action itself.

• Imago Dei – The belief that humans are made in the image of God and share rationality.

• Moral objectivism – The belief that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of cultural or personal views.

• Natural order – The belief that creation reflects a moral structure designed by God.

• Rational nature – The idea that humans, by nature, are rational beings capable of moral reasoning.

• Intrinsic rightness/wrongness – The view that some actions are right/wrong in themselves.

• Proportionalism – A modern revision of NML suggesting rules can be broken if the good outcome outweighs the bad.

• Manualist tradition – A Catholic tradition of moral teaching based on rigid application of NML through manuals.

• Teleological foundation – The idea that NML is rooted in the belief that all things have a purpose.

• Innate purpose – The in-built goal or function of human life (to do good and avoid evil).

• Law written on the heart – Biblical idea (Romans 2:15) that natural law is inherent in all human beings.

• Sanctity of life – The belief that life is sacred and must be protected as part of divine law.

• Fulfilment of human nature – Acting in accordance with reason and virtue to reach one’s moral end.

Tell me briefly bout saviour siblings, therapeutic cloning, reproductive cloning and designer babies.

Savior Siblings

A savior sibling is a child conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) with the specific intent of being a genetic match to an older sibling who is suffering from a serious medical condition (e.g., leukemia). The savior sibling may be born to provide stem cells, tissue, or organs to treat the sibling’s illness.

Therapeutic Cloning

Therapeutic cloning involves creating an embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. These stem cells can be used for research or to generate tissues or organs for medical treatments. The goal is to provide personalized therapy for various diseases, without the intent to develop the embryo into a full organism.

Reproductive Cloning

Reproductive cloning is the process of creating a genetically identical organism through cloning, typically using somatic cell nuclear transfer. The goal is to create a full, living organism that is genetically identical to the donor organism. This process has been experimentally applied to animals, such as in the case of “Dolly the sheep,” but remains controversial and illegal in many countries for humans due to ethical concerns.

Designer Babies

Designer babies refer to infants whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected or altered, usually through techniques like IVF and genetic screening. The aim is to enhance desirable traits such as intelligence, appearance, or disease resistance, or to avoid genetic disorders. While the technology has potential medical benefits, it raises significant ethical questions about genetic modification and inequality.

Define euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve them from suffering, usually due to a terminal illness or extreme pain.

What are the different ways of describing euthanasia and tell me briefly about each.

• Active Euthanasia: A doctor administers a lethal injection to a terminally ill patient to end their suffering.

• Voluntary Euthanasia: A person with advanced cancer requests to end their life, and a doctor assists them in doing so.

• Involuntary Euthanasia: A patient in a coma for months is given a lethal injection to end their life, without their consent.

• Passive Euthanasia: A doctor withdraws a patient’s ventilator, allowing them to die naturally due to their terminal condition.

• Non-voluntary Euthanasia: A person in a persistent vegetative state is given a lethal dose of medication by their family, as they are unable to consent.

• Assisted Suicide: A terminally ill patient is given the means (e.g., lethal pills) to end their life but does it themselves.

• Suicide: A person struggling with severe depression decides to take their own life.

Contextualise the theory of utilitarianism

• Ethical theory based on outcomes (teleological) — focused on purpose of action - pleasure in util

• Action is useful if it brings about goal of producing pleasure. Intention irrelevant - consq matters

• Consequentialist theory
  

  • Grounded in hedonism (pleasure is the ultimate good) and consequentialism (only results matter).

  • Principle of Utility: maximise happiness, minimise pain, for the greatest number.

  Historical context :

  • Enlightenment – shift to reason and secular morality.

  • Industrial Revolution – rising inequality and reform needs; utilitarianism seen as a practical guide for social change.

  Key figures:
  

  • Jeremy Bentham – founder; hedonistic utilitarianism and hedonic calculus.

  • John Stuart Mill – refined theory; stressed quality of pleasures and individual liberty.

  Public relevance:
  

  • Used in law, policy, and ethics; focus on collective welfare and rational, outcome-based decisions.

What’s a key Bentham quote and explain what he meant

“ Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure”.

Bentham believed that everything we do is based on the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This is called hedonism — the idea that pleasure is good and pain is bad.

For Bentham:

• We think something is good if it brings happiness or helps people feel good.

• We think something is wrong if it causes pain or makes people unhappy.

He said that morality (what’s right or wrong) should be about what causes the most happiness and the least pain for everyone. The best action is the one that brings the most pleasure and the least pain to the most people.

So, pleasure and pain are what we use to decide if something is right or wrong.

What is act utilitarianism?

Act utilitarianism is the idea that we should judge each action based on whether it produces the most pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people in that situation.

The term utilitarianism comes from the Latin word “utilitas”, meaning usefulness, and focuses on maximizing happiness. Hedonistic utilitarianism (like Bentham’s) says pleasure is the highest good, while non-hedonistic views may define good differently.

The word hedone is Greek for pleasure, and Epicurus believed that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain was the key to happiness, which influenced later thinkers like Bentham.

Who was Jeremy Bentham and what were his beliefs?

• Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was a British philosopher and the founder of utilitarianism. Social reformer who spent his life campaigning for social justice that would offer greatest possible benefit for greatest number of people.

• He believed in psychological hedonism, which means humans are naturally motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. They are the ends to our actions. Bentham argued that all actions, even those that seem selfless, are ultimately driven by the pursuit of personal happiness. The sovereign masters determine all our actions. He developed the Principle of Utility, which states that actions should aim to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people.

What is Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism? Include a quote.

Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is a moral theory that judges each action based on its consequences, specifically in terms of the happiness or pain it produces. The right action is the one that creates the greatest overall happiness for the greatest number of people in that particular situation - utility principle.

“… it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong” - Bentham

Unlike rule-based ethics, act utilitarianism doesn’t rely on general moral rules. Instead, it evaluates each decision individually, considering the unique context. For example, lying may be justified if it leads to a greater good in a specific case, even if lying is typically considered wrong. The goal is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering in every situation, based on its unique outcomes.

What is the hedonic calculus - list them and tell me it’s purpose.

• Benthams method for measuring the amount of pleasure and pain different actions will cause. Intended to make it easier to decide which actions bring the most happiness / pleasure.

  1. Intensity - how strong is the pleasure

  2. Duration - Short term pleasure not as significant and good as long term/permanent

  3. Certainty - likely / unlikely pleasure will occur?

  4. Propinquity - how soon will pleasures happen?

  5. Fecundity - This looks at how much more pleasure (or pain) an action is likely to cause in the future. For example, helping someone may lead to more positive outcomes later.

  6. Purity: This refers to whether the pleasure (or pain) from an action is free from any opposite effects. For example, if an action creates happiness without causing any pain, it’s “pure.”

  7. Extent: This measures how many people will be affected by the pleasure (or pain) of an action. The more people affected, the greater the extent.

Give me 4 problems with Bentham’s hedonic calculus

1. Measuring Pleasure

One significant problem with Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus is the subjectivity of pleasure. Pleasure varies from person to person, making it impossible to measure consistently. For example, eating Marmite might be pleasurable for one person but unpleasant for another, and the satisfaction of completing a philosophy essay could differ greatly between individuals. This creates a lack of common currency to compare and quantify pleasure, complicating the application of utilitarianism.

2. Quality vs. Quantity of Pleasures

Bentham’s approach treats all pleasures as equal, famously stating “pushpin is as good as poetry”. However, critics, notably John Stuart Mill, argued that some pleasures are of higher quality than others. Mill believed intellectual and moral pleasures (like philosophical thinking or art appreciation) are superior to physical or simple pleasures (like playing games or eating food). This distinction challenges Bentham’s view of all pleasures being equal and complicates the moral calculation.

3. Justifying Morally Questionable Actions

Utilitarianism risks justifying morally questionable behaviors. If an action results in the greatest happiness for the majority, it could be deemed right, regardless of its harm to a minority. For instance, if a group of sadistic guards gains pleasure from torturing a prisoner, Bentham’s framework might justify the action because the guards’ happiness outweighs the prisoner’s pain. This raises serious ethical concerns, as it appears to condone harm for the sake of majority pleasure.

4. Ignoring Minority Rights

A further flaw is that utilitarianism fails to protect minority rights. The theory prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, but this means the rights and interests of a minority can be sacrificed if it benefits the majority. In real-world situations, this could lead to the oppression of minorities, as their suffering may be justified by the happiness of the majority, which undermines the concept of justice and fairness.

What did Mill and Bentham agree upon?

• the “one fundamental principle…at the root of all morality’ is the utility principle

• Bentham viewed happiness in terms of pleasure and pain. He believed that the right action is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for the most people. For him, all pleasures are equal, and the focus is purely on the quantity of happiness produced.

  • Mill, while agreeing with Bentham, added a key distinction: he argued that higher pleasures (such as intellectual or moral experiences) are more valuable than lower pleasures (like physical enjoyment). Mill believed that some kinds of happiness should be prioritized over others, but still maintained the overall goal of maximizing happiness for the greatest number.

What was Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism?

builds on Bentham’s utilitarianism by introducing a distinction between higher and lower pleasures to address criticisms of hedonism and the idea that all pleasures are equal.

• Lower pleasures are bodily or sensory pleasures—those that are immediate and physical, like eating, drinking, or sexual satisfaction. These pleasures tend to be more about short-term gratification.

• Higher pleasures are intellectual or spiritual pleasures—those that engage the mind, emotions, or moral faculties. Examples include reading, art appreciation, philosophical reflection, and personal growth. These pleasures are longer-lasting and provide deeper fulfillment.

Mill argued that, although lower pleasures can be more intense or immediate, higher pleasures are more valuable because they engage our higher faculties. He believed that people who have experienced both would always prefer the higher pleasures, even if the lower pleasures provided more immediate gratification. For example, someone might enjoy a delicious meal (a lower pleasure), but someone who has also enjoyed the satisfaction of completing a challenging intellectual task (a higher pleasure) would find the latter more fulfilling in the long term.

Mill’s distinction allowed him to argue that moral actions should not just aim to maximize quantity of pleasure, but should promote the pursuit of higher pleasures. By doing so, Mill defended utilitarianism from the criticism that it encouraged base, short-term pleasures at the expense of more meaningful, enriching experiences.

What did Mill famously say regarding higher and lower pleasures? Explain what he meant by this.

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied ; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”.

• In essence, Mill argues that the higher pleasures (intellectual, emotional, and moral experiences) offer greater value and fulfillment, even if they sometimes involve dissatisfaction or discomfort. The lower pleasures (simple bodily pleasures) may provide temporary happiness, but they don’t lead to the same level of lasting satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from engaging with life’s deeper aspects.

What is Mill’s approach to utilitarianism?

Mill’s approach to utilitarianism begins with the principle of utility—the idea that the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This is the central foundation of all moral decision-making.

However, instead of judging each individual action on its own (like Bentham), Mill used the principle of utility to create general moral rules that everyone in society should follow. These rules are based on past experience and what usually leads to the most happiness overall. For example, rules like “don’t lie” or “keep your promises” tend to promote trust, stability, and happiness in the long term.

By encouraging people to follow these general rules, Mill believed society would be more likely to experience higher-quality pleasures—the kind that involve the mind, emotions, and moral development (like learning, friendship, or creativity)—rather than just short-term physical or lower pleasures (like eating or drinking).

In summary, Mill’s utilitarianism starts with the principle of utility, uses it to form moral rules for everyone to follow, and aims to create a society where higher pleasures are pursued and valued. Living by these rules helps ensure that happiness is not only maximized but also deep and meaningful.

What are the 2 criticisms of Mill’s utilitarianism? What is Mill’s response?

1. Difficulty in Defining Higher and Lower Pleasures (Sidgwick’s Criticism)

Philosopher Henry Sidgwick questioned whether we can really draw a clear line between higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures, as Mill claimed.

• For example, is reading Shakespeare better than listening to Bach? Both are considered higher pleasures, but they’re very different experiences—so how do we compare them?

• Some activities combine both physical and mental effort, like kung fu—does it count as higher or lower?

• And what about things like Banksy’s street art—is it meaningful art or just vandalism? Where does it fit?

Sidgwick argued that many pleasures are hard to compare, and that both quantity and quality are involved in ways that aren’t always easy to separate. This makes Mill’s system feel unclear and subjective.

2. Elitism and Cultural Bias

Others have accused Mill of being elitist—valuing his own preferences over others’.

• For instance, someone might say that watching Question Time is a higher pleasure than watching Love Island—but is that really a moral judgement, or just personal or cultural bias?

• It can seem like Mill is just saying activities he likes (e.g. reading, philosophy) are better than popular or everyday ones, which leads to concerns about cultural snobbery.

So critics ask: Who gets to decide which pleasures are better?

Mill’s Response – Competent Judges

Mill responded by introducing the idea of “competent judges”—people who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures. He argued that:

• People who truly know both types tend to prefer higher pleasures.

• If they disagree, we should follow the view of the majority of these informed people.

Mill believed this gave an objective and fair way to tell which pleasures are more valuable, and avoided simply relying on personal tastes.

What are some strengths and weaknesses of Bentham and Mills approach to utilitarianism and both?

Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism

Strengths:

• Applies moral reasoning to real decisions: It evaluates each individual action based on its actual outcomes, rather than abstract rules.

• Gives equal weight to all individuals: A poor person’s happiness counts just as much as a wealthy person’s, making it inclusive and egalitarian.

• Hedonic Calculus offers a method: Bentham tried to make moral choices measurable, using factors like intensity and duration of pleasure.

Weaknesses:

• Fails to distinguish meaningful from trivial pleasures: Watching cartoons and studying medicine could be valued equally if they produce the same level of pleasure.

• Allows harmful actions if they benefit the majority: For example, punishing an innocent person might be acceptable if it pleases enough people.

• Difficult to apply in urgent or complex situations: Calculating all consequences for everyone involved is impractical, especially in fast decision-making.

Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism (Qualitative Hedonism)

Strengths:

• Improves moral depth by ranking pleasures: Mill recognised that intellectual, emotional, and moral development lead to more lasting fulfilment than simple physical pleasure.

• Uses moral rules grounded in experience: By identifying actions that usually promote happiness (like honesty or fairness), Mill avoids justifying immoral behaviour.

• Encourages personal and societal growth: Supports education, creativity, and civic responsibility by valuing higher forms of pleasure.

Weaknesses:

• Higher vs. lower pleasure distinction is unclear: It’s difficult to categorise activities like gaming, film, or modern music—are they lower pleasures or meaningful ones?

• May reflect personal or cultural bias: Mill’s view can be seen as favouring the preferences of educated elites, making it seem less universal.

• Less flexible than act utilitarianism: Strictly following general rules may sometimes reduce happiness in specific, unique scenarios.

Shared Strengths of Both Approaches:

• Focus on human wellbeing: Both versions aim to maximise happiness and minimise suffering, making them relevant in healthcare, policy, and law.

• Secular and inclusive: Doesn’t rely on religion or tradition—uses reason and outcomes to guide moral decisions.

• Challenges moral traditions: Encourages critical thinking about whether traditional rules actually benefit people.

Shared Weaknesses of Both Approaches:

• Happiness is hard to define and compare: What brings joy to one person might bore or upset another—there’s no objective scale.

• Can justify sacrificing individuals: Both theories risk defending harmful actions (like oppression or inequality) if they benefit a larger group.

• Too demanding in everyday life: Always calculating the best outcome for the most people can lead to guilt, burnout, or paralysis in decision-making.

What’s the difference between strong rule and weak rule utilitarianism

Strong Rule Utilitarianism

• Holds that rules should always be followed, even if breaking a rule would lead to more happiness in a particular case.

• The idea is that following established rules consistently (e.g. don’t lie, don’t kill) will lead to the greatest overall happiness in the long run.

• It prioritises stability, trust, and fairness in society.

Example: You shouldn’t lie even if lying would save someone’s feelings, because following the rule “always tell the truth” brings more long-term happiness overall.

Weak Rule Utilitarianism

• Starts with rules, but allows them to be broken if doing so clearly leads to more happiness in a specific situation.

• It’s more flexible than strong rule utilitarianism and closer to act utilitarianism in practice.

• The rule is a guideline, not an absolute.

Example: You can break the rule “always tell the truth” if telling a lie in a particular case would avoid serious harm or produce more happiness.

Key terminology for the topic of utilitarianism

• Utility – Usefulness; the idea that actions are right if they promote happiness or pleasure.

• Hedonism – The ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

• Principle of Utility – “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”; central to utilitarian ethics.

• Consequentialism – The moral value of an action depends solely on its outcomes or consequences.

• Act Utilitarianism – Assesses each individual action based on whether it produces the most pleasure (Bentham).

• Rule Utilitarianism – Follows general rules that usually lead to the greatest happiness (Mill).

• Hedonic Calculus – Bentham’s tool to measure the pleasure and pain of an action based on criteria like intensity and duration.

• Higher and Lower Pleasures – Mill’s distinction between intellectual pleasures (higher) and physical ones (lower), valuing quality over quantity.

• Quantitative hedonism – Focuses on the amount of pleasure (Bentham).

• Qualitative hedonism – Focuses on the type or quality of pleasure (Mill).

• Impartiality – Everyone’s happiness counts equally; no one’s pleasure is more important than another’s.

• Preference Utilitarianism – A modern version (e.g. Singer) that seeks to satisfy the preferences or interests of those affected, not just pleasure.

• Negative Utilitarianism – Focuses on minimising pain rather than maximising pleasure.

• Tyranny of the majority – A criticism that utilitarianism can justify harming a minority if it benefits the majority.

• Moral flexibility – The ability to adapt moral choices to changing circumstances based on outcomes.

• Teleological ethics – Ethics based on achieving the right end result (in this case, happiness).

• Relativism – There are no fixed rules; right and wrong depend on the situation and consequences.

• Utility Monster – A thought experiment (Nozick) challenging utilitarianism by imagining one being whose happiness always outweighs others’.

• Calculation problem – A challenge to utilitarianism: it’s hard to predict or measure all consequences accurately.

• Justice objection – A critique that utilitarianism can justify immoral acts if they maximise happiness (e.g. punishing the innocent).

What is meta ethics ?

The philosophical study of reality and existence itself fundamental questions going beyond the physical world to explore the nature of things why they exist and the basic qualities such as space casualty and mind and body relationship.

• Asks what does it mean to be or to exist and the underlying structure of reality and seeks to understand the most general features of everything that exists such as objects properties and how they relate to each other

Goes into topic stuff physical sciences don’t cover like the nature of possibility in necessity and God and the soul

• e,g question, what’s existence?

Naturalism in meta ethics

Naturalism is part of meta-ethics because it explains what moral terms mean and whether moral statements (like “stealing is wrong”) can be true or false. It argues that moral properties—such as goodness or badness—are natural features of the physical world, just like other facts we can observe.

• Moral Realism: Naturalism is realist because it believes moral facts exist independently of human opinion — goodness is a real quality in the world, not just a personal feeling.

• Natural Properties: These are physical or psychological features, such as pleasure, happiness, or flourishing, which can be identified and measured.

• Bentham’s Utilitarian Naturalism: Bentham defined goodness as pleasure and badness as pain. Since pleasure and pain are natural, observable features of human experience, moral truth can be discovered by studying what actions increase or reduce them.

• Cognitivism: This makes naturalism cognitivist, because moral statements describe facts that can be true or false. For example, saying “stealing is wrong” means “stealing reduces overall pleasure” — a factual claim about the world.

Hume’s Challenge: The Is/Ought Gap

Hume’s argument challenges the core claim of naturalism — that moral truths can be derived from natural facts.

Naturalists argue that we can discover what is morally right or wrong by looking at what is naturally the case (for example, what causes pleasure or pain).

Hume disagreed, insisting that you cannot logically move from an “is” (a factual statement) to an “ought” (a moral claim).

• Just because something is a certain way in nature (e.g. people seek pleasure) doesn’t mean it ought to be that way (that pleasure is morally good).

• In meta-ethical terms, Hume was arguing against moral cognitivism and realism: he claimed that moral judgements are not objective facts but expressions of human emotion or sentiment.

• This means naturalists make a logical leap — they assume that observing what people naturally desire automatically tells us what is morally right.

Example:

Bentham says “pleasure is good” because it’s a natural human goal. Hume would reply: “You’ve only described what people do (seek pleasure), not proven they ought to.”

Responses and evaluation

• Naturalist Response: Thinkers like Bentham and Mill defended naturalism by saying that pleasure and happiness are not just natural facts but intrinsically valuable goals — it’s part of human nature to see them as good.

• Virtue Ethics Response (Philippa Foot, Anscombe): They revived Aristotle’s idea that moral goodness is rooted in human nature.
  

  • Foot: “Ought” works like “need” — just as plants need sunlight to flourish, humans ought to do what helps them flourish.

  • Eudaimonia (Flourishing): Goodness equals human wellbeing, which is a natural, observable property.

• MacIntyre: Argued that modern society lost the connection between moral “oughts” and human nature. Reconnecting morality with real human needs restores ethical meaning.

Strengths and weaknesses

Summary: Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

• Grounds morality in real, observable human experience (pleasure, happiness, flourishing).

• Makes moral statements objective and truth-based.

• Compatible with science and psychology (wellbeing as measurable).

Weaknesses:

• Hume’s challenge shows that facts alone don’t automatically create moral duties.

• Risks oversimplifying morality by reducing it to natural facts.

• Critics (like Hume and Emotivists) argue morality is based on feeling and attitude, not fact.

Intuitionist Non-Naturalism (Realist & Cognitivist) - How It Fits into Meta-Ethics

Intuitionist non-naturalism is part of meta-ethics because it explains what “good” means and how we know moral truths. It rejects naturalism’s claim that goodness is a natural property like pleasure or happiness. Instead, it argues that goodness is a simple, non-natural property that we recognise through intuition — a kind of moral awareness or insight.

Moore’s Critique of Naturalism

G. E. Moore rejected naturalism using two key arguments:

1. The Naturalistic Fallacy:
   

   • It’s a logical mistake to assume that because something is natural, it must be good.

   • For example, saying “pleasure is good” wrongly equates a natural property (pleasure) with a moral property (goodness).

   • This developed Hume’s “is/ought” gap — Moore formalised it as a fallacy: we cannot derive moral value from natural fact.

2. The Open Question Argument:
   

• If “goodness = pleasure,” then asking “Is pleasure good?” would be meaningless — but it clearly isn’t.

• Because this question always remains open, goodness cannot be identical to any natural property.

• Therefore, what goodness is can never be fully defined in natural terms.

Conclusion: Goodness cannot be reduced to natural properties — it’s non-natural and understood through intuition, not empirical observation.

Goodness as a Non-Natural Property

• Moore argued that reality includes more than just physical facts — there is a non-natural dimension.

• Goodness is part of this — it’s real, but not measurable or physical.

• He compared it to the concept of numbers: numbers are real, yet not part of the physical world.

• Goodness is known directly through intuition, not through reasoning or observation.

Analogy:

Moore said knowing goodness is like knowing the colour yellow — we can’t define it, but we instantly recognise it when we see it.

Likewise, we just see that kindness is good or cruelty is bad through moral intuition.