'To what extent is Natural Law the best way to resolve moral problems?'

Thesis: not pragmatic

• foundation of theory is the syneresis rule that people moral compass angles towards good and away from

• we may do bad however due to distinction between real and apparent goods

• Antithesis: this may seem too optimistic of human nature

‘JSM’s Utilitarianism is an improvement on Bentham’s utilitarianism’

Thesis: JSM introduction of secondary principles protects minority issue

• JSM introduces the idea of secondary principles that would abide by the primary principle of utility. e.g harm principle: people are free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others

• seen as principles that through experience produce net utility

• sadistic guard fault of Bentham, a secondary principle can be protection of minorities

• antithesis: Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘a short history of ethics’ claims act utilitarianism would justify nazi prosecution of jews as it satisfied good over minority.

• Antithesis: To base secondary principle of experience then who’s experience are we basing it off as the ‘experience’ of hitler is that he is benefiting the majority

• counter: does not produce enough of an improvement to prevent sadistic acts

thesis: we should not disregard base pleasure

• JSM: ‘it would be better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’

• Unlike Bentham, JSM wants to establish hierarchy of pleasure as through development of higher human faculties of reason and rationality one becomes happier

• the hierarchy of pleasure would be determined by ‘competent judges’ who have experienced higher and lower pleasure

• antithesis: creates an elitism within the theory as people are unable to access the higher pleasure

• antithesis: the lower pleasures he claims food, drink, sex are all beneficial to us and keep us alive and reproducing, why should they be disregarded

• qualitative pleasure over quantitive pleasure does however removes the sadist critic

thesis: The implimenting of rules allows for a greater predictability in society

• hedonic calculus was Bentham 7 criteria in which to measure pleasure by

• apply to doctor killing 1 patient to save 5 ill patients.

• Act utilitarians would allow on basis the suffering of 5 is greater than suffering of one

• hedonic calculus e.g lacks ‘purity’ in that it will effect family of that one person yet ‘fecundity’ as the 5 people will be able to experience more pleasure

• antithesis: does not account for trust in society. we trust being in the hands of a doctor as we trust the justice system. predictability should not be undermined for our well being and wish for reliability

• antithesis: JSM provides theory where rules generate positive ‘expectation effects’ to avoid these issues and although we can’t trust everyone it can condemn wrongful acts

• rule is an improvement

thesis: rules may not prove useful in situations

• R.M hare provides axe murdered scenario a rule stating ‘one should not lie’ is unrealistic

• ‘weak’ rule utilitarianism is an ability to manipulate the rules to benefit you or prevent pain of others

• antithesis: to follow the rules strictly despite it not maximising pleasure would be a worshiping of the rules that is no longer a utilitarian theory

• antithesis: the alternative of ‘do not lie unless it generates more pleasure than pain’ would make the theory no different to act utilitarianism and receive the same critic

‘Assess the view that natural law is of no help with regards to the issue of euthanasia’

thesis: Absolutist nature fails to consider multifaceted nature of euthanasia

• Conscienta: application of 5 primary prevents in order to create secondary precepts

• it doesn’t preserve human life nor arguably worship god if god determines when we die so therefore it is explicit that it expels euthansia as a concept

• antithesis: Peter knauer: proportionalism. primary precepts must be broken if there is a proportionate reason as to why. distinction between doing what is ‘good’ and what is ‘right’. the rightness is dependent on intention

• this does not however improve theory as it is ambiguous what characterises as euthanasia

• e.g Dr David Moor kills seriously ill 85 year old patient after a dose of morphine that caused a stroke and heart attack. his wish was to relieve patient of agony

• it is unclear if action was intended to end life or a byproduct of an action but it does not claim that euthanasia is justified with intention to end suffering

• natural law is therefore not helpful

Thesis: A legalistic approach to bible may disregard Jesus’s values

• natural law follows christian conservatism as to values sanctity over quality

• 1 corinthians: our ‘body is a temple of the Holy Spirit…you do not belong to yourself’

• antithesis: arguably to value sacredness of our body over and above our suffering and for god to determine when we die than we may not have much autonomy

• antithesis: legalistic approach undermines Jesus teachings of love and compassion which are enough to move someone to make such difficult decision about or for loved ones

• 10 commandments: thou shall not kill

• antithesis: crucial distinction can be made between active or passive euthanasia and the killing that violates the preference and interest of another being (euthanasia does opposite)

Thesis: Situation ethics provides more useful theory

• natural law is not outdated (in communism you could call capitalism outdated) yet must take into account socio-political context

• moral laws needed to guide much less civilised society

• Joseph fletcher saw sanctity of life as ‘Sophia’ which were general rules of wisdom and not to be legalistically applied in favour of most loving outcome

• e.g four working principles: personalism is fundamental in holding peoples welfare above the law. Pragmatism would also consider distribution of medical attention for passive euthanasia

• antithesis: Agape: selfless, self sacrificing love can be interpreted in different way. Conflicting views in family e.g one may wish to terminate a life as inheritance will go to something better. this abuses purpose of euthanasia to help those suffering

• although can cause conflict, compared to natural law significantly more sympathetic

‘is Kant too reliant on reason’

Thesis: reason isn’t enough of an incentive

• hypothetical imperative: do x if you wish to achieve y

• categorical imperative: do x (a priori - without experience - and intrinsic good through use of reason)

• three main strands: universalisability, treating people as ends, treating world as kingdom of ends

• summon bonnum: highest good you would reach following duty

• Kant saw as reason is what separates us from animals than it must have intrinsic value in our morality (religious perspective)

• antithesis: David Hume: ‘reason is a slave to the passions’ A contemporary admired by Kant yet saw us less inclined to follow theory based on reason. Theory such as utilitarianism may prove more useful as we may be more inclined to follow our desire

• counter: Desire however can be argued as no longer a question of morality as its good can harm others

• Kant provides theory that uses reason to diminish the exploitation of others

Thesis: May not be as useful when acted

• French writer, Benjamin Constant’s axe murderer scenario

• By following Kant’s Hypothetical Imperative: You cannot universalise lying as then we would have no access to truth so must be absolute and universal that ‘one should not lie’

• Theory based on self governance would mean to lie would be to take autonomy from axe murdered to act in the knowledge of the person being their

• Antithesis: Kant would argue that our emotions are not a constant to base a moral decision off. E.G if your friend friend had hurt you you may feel more inclined to let the axe murderer in based off your emotions

• counter: It is clear however that Kant is unrealistic providing a theory that undermines other emotional factors and also does not evidently prevent the harm of others

Thesis: How do we know how to reason our duty

• Kant saw duty as doing the logically right thing by suppressing our self fulfilling desires

• e.g A celebrity may film them doing charity work. Kant would see this as more rooted in they desire to look good than reasoned as their duty

• good will: the purest good as intention and desire is to do the right thing whilst suppressing inclinations

• antithesis: Wrong Duty: One may conflate duty with obedience and authority. e.g A nazi officer may suppress emotions in order to serve hid country

• Antithesis: Conflating Duties: Sartre gave scenario of looking after sick mother and going to war. both follow categorical imperative yet one is unable to fulfil both duties.

• Counter: Kant saw this as the result of poor reasoning. distinction between perfect and imperfect duties in which one has multiple ways of fulfilling (perfect duty to tell the truth as their is only one way of fulfilling it) e.g you can get someone to look after sick mother

• Antithesis: Kant removes possibility for motivating factors such as love to look after motherin final days, duty through reason does not account for

‘How christian is situation ethics’

Thesis: biblical justification

• first two proposition: love is the only thing intrinsically good, the ruling norm in christianity is love

• Love is fundamental as shown in scripture: Romans 13 ‘he who loves another has fulfilled the law

• marc 12 ‘love thy neighbour as thyself, there is no greater commandment’

• therefore enables christians to act by the bible

• antithesis: he taught other principles that mustn’t be undermined e.g forgiveness

• w.d Ross argues ‘single facto'r’ moral theories do not work as our lives are too complex, he proves 7 prima facie duties that include gratitude, fidelity, justice

• fears to reduce our lives to a christian ethic in a growing atheist society

• counter: Jesus proved to be a situationist in mark 3 he heals man on the sabbath

• Jesus proves love may override any other value he teaches

Thesis: How pragmatic

• despite appealing ideology, logically redundant as method of decision making

• gordon dustan argued that it is admirable for fletcher to propose this theory yet at fault of the publishers for publishing, meaning it is not pragmatic and therefore useless