Unit 5

Moral Philosophy (Ethics)

Introduction
This Unit will introduce you to the study of ethics from an academic and philosophical
perspective. It will also introduce you to a wide variety of historical and contemporary
approaches to ethics. By examining theories such as relativism, subjectivism, absolutism,
subjectivism, cultural relativism, consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontological Ethics, and
Virtue ethics. Therefore, you will be encouraged to discover the strengths and weaknesses of
differing ethical approaches, and to recognize that, for an ethical theory to be successful it needs
to have a proper understanding of human nature.
In this Unit you will be challenged to apply, in your own lives, some of the principles and
lessons you will learn during the course of the study.

Objectives

As you study this unit, you should be able to:

 Explain and discuss the major ethical theories.

 Analyze and discuss various contemporary moral issues and dilemmas.
 Identify and possess your own moral ethical stance on various moral issues.

Divisions of Moral Philosophy

1. General Ethics (Normative Ethics, metaethics)
2. Applied Ethics

Normative Ethics
a) Cultural Relativism
b) Consequentialist Ethics
c) Utilitarianism
d) Deontological Ethics
e) Virtue ethics
Applied Ethics
a) Abortion
b) Euthanasia
c) Animal Rights
d) Homosexuality
 e) Capital Punishment

5.1 Definition of Moral Philosophy or Ethics

Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of
morality and what it asks of us, it is the attempt to discover how we ought to live and why.

Ethics or moral philosophy is the study of people’s responsibility in view of their call to self-
actualization; it is the study of their freedom and its demands; it is the study of the knowledge
that brings people to experience greater freedom and greater fulfilment in their life.

Ethics are rules, or norms, or principles of behavior based on the ideas about what is morally
good or bad by the use of reason.

It concerns with what is the best way of people to live, and what actions are right or wrong in a
particular circumstances.

In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality. By defining concepts, such as
good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.

The Human act.

Every human action is considered to be carried out voluntarily. There are three constituents of
human act:

(i) Knowledge - human act must be knowing and deliberate.

(ii) Freedom – human act must be free.
(iii) Voluntariness – human act is a voluntary act.

The human act directed towards the good.

In every human act the will is directed towards an end, towards something apprehended as or
thought to be good.
It is concerned with evaluative statements as opposed to descriptive statements or statements of
fact. It investigates the concepts of good, right, evil, obligation etc. It asks questions such as,
"Are there values of greater importance to human life than others?"
The name ethics comes from the Greek word ‘ethos’, which means a “characteristic way of
acting”. Ethics often referred to a code or set of principles by which people live. Thus, we speak
of medical ethics, public service ethics and many others.

Ethics and reason

We should be very careful about making ethical decisions based on our feelings and emotions.
Our feelings may be irrational. They may be the products of prejudice, selfishness or cultural
conditioning. And our feelings and emotions often change. Throughout centuries there has been
a dispute concerning the role of reason in motivating moral actions. For example, a statement
such as “abortion is morally wrong”, is it a rational assessment or only an expression of one’s
feelings?

Moral judgements are different from mere expression of personal taste, such as if someone says
“I like coffee” he does not need to apply a reason because he is only making the statement about
himself , as such there is no implication that everyone else should have the same taste. But if
someone says that something is morally wrong, he should give reasons for assessing so, and if
his reasons are sound, then other people must acknowledge them.

5.2 Overview of Ethics (General Ethics and Applied Ethics)

5.2.1 General Ethics
General ethics is a branch of moral philosophy, or ethics, which is concerned with general
criteria of what is morally right or wrong. It involves the formulation of moral rules through
different theories that have direct implication for what human actions, institutions, and ways of
life should be like. It includes normative and metaethics.

5.2.1.1 Metaethics: Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism; Objectivism vs.

Subjectivism
a) Ethical Absolutism
Moral absolutism is an ethical that some (potentially all) actions are intrinsically (naturally)
right or wrong. For instance, stealing, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done
for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in
the end promote such a good.
Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such
as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the
consequences or the context of the act.

b) Ethical Relativism.
Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is
morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. One example is
the theory of cultural relativism.

c) Moral Objectivism

In ethical objectivism moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on anything outside
of them. In ethical objectivism moral law is uncreated and eternal and not subject to any will,
divine or human. (One form of ethical objectivism is moral absolutism.) No will can lessen the
consequence of acts against the law. There is no grace in ethical objectivism. In order to avoid
punishment, one must perfect one's life and follow the law perfectly. The law of karma,
continuous birth, death and rebirth until such moral perfection is reached, appears to be the
ultimate expression of ethical objectivism. In Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, for most people
one lifetime is not enough for such moral perfection.

The "Law of Karma" holds that if people act in evil ways, that evil will eventually return to
them. Conversely, if people do good deeds, then they will advance in spiritual progress. This is
connected to reincarnation, where those with a "negative balance" in good deeds will come back
in a lower position in society or the animal world.

d) Moral Subjectivism.
Ethical subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing
more. On this view there is no such thing as objective right or wrong.
When we say that an action is evil we are not stating a fact about action. Rather, we are saying
that we have negative feelings about that action. Exactly the same would apply to any moral
judgement whatever.

Ethical subjectivisms is not a theory about what makes an act good or bad. It is theory about the
nature of moral judgments. It suggests that no matter what moral judgment we make we are
simply expressing our personal feelings.

People who accept this theory about will still have moral opinions, but they will not believe that
their ethical view respond to some objective truth

5.2.2.2 Normative ethical theories

a) Cultural Relativism
Morality differs in every society and is convenient term for socially approved habits. (Ruth
Benedict, Patterns of culture, 1934)

There is need to acknowledge that different cultures have different moral code.

The example of Eskimos

 Polygamy - Sharing of the wives with guest.

 Infanticide, and old people left out in the snow to die.

The lesson seems clear. Conceptions of right and wrong would appear to difer from culture to
culture. If we assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples for all times
then we are being naïve.

It is argued that the idea of universal truth in ethics is a myth. All that exist are the customs of
different societies. We cannot argue that these customs are either correct or incorrect because
that would be too imply that there is an independent standard of morality by which they may be
judged. But there is no such independent standard of morality. Every moral standard is
conditioned by the culture to which it belongs.
This argument has come to be called cultural relativism. And it has certainly challenges our
belief in the objectivity and universally of moral truth. It suggest that there is no much thing as
universal truth in ethics, and that all we have are a very variety of cultural codes.

b) Consequentialism
Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action
form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action.
Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good
outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the
means".

The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences
in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.
In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other
considerations.

Some questions that many consequentialist theories address:

 What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
 Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
 How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to
matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs.
According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in a positive effect,
and the best action is one that results in that effect for the greatest number.

c) Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are influential proponents of
the Utilitarianism school of thought.
According to Sober (1991), utilitarian theory is a moral philosophical view which holds that a
morally good or right action is that which promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number
of people. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that describes something as good if it produces the
highest amount of good for the most people. In other words, the action is right if it produces
greatest happiness to the majority or the greatest number of people. The focus is not on the act
but the consequence, whether it brings greatest happiness to the majority. For instance, if the
murder of one person brings greatest happiness to the majority of that community then according
to the utilitarian is a right act.

This theory does not focus on the happiness of the individual actor alone but also others who are
affect by the action, if it makes the greatest number of the members then it is a good act. Simply
because the morality of an action is to be determined solely through an assessment of its
consequences. Utilitarianism demand that we consider the impact of the consequences on
everyone affected by the matter under consideration. The morality right actions is the one which
produces the greatest overall positive consequence for everyone.

Once utilitarianism have claimed that morality is solely a matter of the consequences, they have
to address themselves to several questions.

First, they need to specify the criterion in terms of which consequences are measured. Typically,
futilitarians claim that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest amount of utility. But then
utility must be defined. Pleasure, happiness, preference satisfaction are the most common
candidates for the definition of utility.

Second utilitarians need to indicate how the consequences can be measured.

Third, utilitarians must address the question of how high their standard are, of how much utility
we strive for. How much is enough utility?

Fourth, they must indicate what types of things are to be judged in terms of their consequences.
The three most common candidates here are acts, rules and social policies.

Finally, they must answer the question of whom these are consequences for. Do we take into
account the consequences for all human beings, or just those directly involved? Do we take into
consequences for future generations? Do we take into account the consequences for all sentient
beings, animals as well as human beings?

Defining utility.

Utilitarians claim that the only thing that counts morally is whatever produces the greatest
amount of utility, the greatest overall positive consequences.

Originally, utilitarians became influential with work of Jeremy Bentham who defined utility in
terms of pleasure and pain. He argues that we should act in a way as to maximize pleasure and
minimize pain. Hedonism suggests that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and
minimizing pain. Hedonism is the view that the only thing that is good in itself is pleasure.

However, his disciple, John Stuart Mill, rejected the restriction of pleasure/happiness to
quantitative criteria as it left out a wide range of more specifically human activities that give
qualitative pleasure/happiness. In other words, a small amount of pleasure of high quality could
easily outweigh a greater amount of pleasure/happiness of lower quality. For instance, the
enjoyment obtained from being in the company of friends, of listening to music or reading a
good book could outweigh eating or drinking in large quantities. John Stuart Mill proposed a
major reformulation of the utilitarian position by arguing that utility should be defined in terms
of happiness rather than pleasure. The problem with Mill’s approach, however, is that it is no
longer able to measure “qualitative units” of utility as Bentham wished in a quantitative way.

Pleasure and happiness are not only the possible standards of utility, and the 20th century has
seen attempts to re-define the standards of utility in terms of ideal goods, such as freedom,
knowledge and justice, and also in terms of individual preferences. These versions, ideal
utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism provide variation on the utilitarian theme.

No single candidate has emerged as the sole among philosophers for the standard of utility. The
disagreement among philosophers over this issue seems to reflect a wider disagreement in our
own society. If consequences count so much, we still have to decide upon what yardstick to use
in measuring them.

Measuring the consequences of our actions

Once we accept a standard of utility, we are still faced with the task of specifying how that
standard is to be applied in the world in which we live in. This is a crucial issue for utilitarians
because utilitarianism promises precision in the moral life.

Utilitarianism is grounded in the metaphor of the scale. We are able to weigh the consequences
of our actions, to do what on balance will produce the greatest consequences.

Once utilitarianism agree upon the nature of utility, they must still arrive at some consensus
about the way in which individuals units on measuring scale are to be marked off. Many
utilitarians have referred to the units of pleasure or happiness as hedons and units of displeasure
or pain as dolors. In other words, it is possible to speak of a utilitarian calculus.

Utilitarians would argue that there is something we do quite naturally in our everyday lives. The
utilitarian calculus is simply a refinement and formalization of that everyday activity of
assigning relative value to various occurrences and of ranking them in relation to each other
according to the amount of pleasure or pain they yield.

How do we go about deciding upon the moral worth of an action? The utilitarian would argue
that in any given situation we must , to the best of our ability, determining the consequences of
the various courses of action open to us, weigh up the pleasure and pains associated with each
alternative , and them perform that action which results in the greatest total amount of pleasure.

How much utility is enough?

One of the difficulties the utilitarians have faced centres on the question of how much utility we
are obliged to produce. The usual answer is that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest
amount of utility. When we compare competing courses of action we should choose the best one,
the one which maximizes utility.

It is easy to understand the initial plausibility of the answer. If we are weighing the alternatives
impartially, there is no attraction towards anything else. Yet, when it comes to making decisions
about our own personal lives, our personal desire and wants to have a prominent role.

Still, utilitarianism demands that we must choose the specific action that produces the
most happiness or pleasure. That might mean sacrificing out own desires and wishes. Thus,
utilitarianism prove to be a very demanding moral view, since it asks us to be prepared to
sacrifice out own pleasure or happiness for the greater good, for social utility.

The question of consequences.

The utilitarian maintains that we ought to prefer whatever produces the greatest overall utility
and this is determined by weighing the consequences. But how do we begin to weigh the
consequences? In terms of utilitarianism, three different answers have been given, answers that
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. These answers are to do with consequences based on acts,
rules and practices.

There are two types of utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism.

i) Act utilitarianism
In act utilitarianism the principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation
of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least
amount of bad results).

The most common version of utilitarianism says that we should look at the consequences of
each individual action when determining its moral worth. This position, which is called Act
Utilitarianism maintain that we should always perform that action which will maximize utility

One of the principal attractions of acts utilitarianism is that it deals with individual decision on a
case-by- case basis. There is no such thing as an exception for the act utilitarian because every
case is judged on its individual merits.
There have, of course, been a number of objection raised about act utilitarianism.

 The first of these is that it is too time-consuming to calculate the consequences of each
individual act. Also, there are many moral situations where we do not have the time to
make a proper calculation of the consequences.

Act utilitarians have an answer to this criticism:- they argue that we can live most of our
live on the basis of rules of thumb, rules which summarise our past experience in similar
situations. Indeed, many of our general moral rules in society are of this nature.
 However, we should be clear about thermal status of these rules. They are not absolute,
and there will be times we need to call into question a particular rules of thumb.

It is argued that this approach allows the utilitarians the best of both worlds. They are
able to recognise the advantages of generally relying on rules in the moral life without
having to characterize there rules as absolute.
 A second difficulty with act utilitarianism is concerned with how accurately we can
predict the consequences, especially long-term consequence of individual actions.

Those in favour of act utilitarianism accept that our predictive powers are limited, but this
is a difficulty with life and not with act utilitarianism alone.

The proper response to this limitation is to simply recognize it as part of the human
condition. The best that we can do is to try to increase our ability to foresee
consequences. But, the moral life contains an ineluctable element of uncertainty, which
can be reduced but never eliminated.

A third, perhaps more serious, objection raised against act utilitarianism is that it opens
the door to abuses of justice because of its neglect of general moral rules.

ii) Rule utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism claims that we ought to act in accordance with those rule which will produce
the greatest overall amount of utility for society as a whole. By insisting that we justify rules
rather than individual acts, the rule utilitarianism seems to avoid certain injustices involved in
act utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism would argue that we ought to act in accordance with those rules which have
been shown in the past to produce the greatest overall amount of good for the greatest number. In
rule utilitarianism the principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct
(moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of
a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding.
Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules.
Questions are asked about the value of this particular theory too.

Does not rule utilitarianism also require us to perform acts which clearly violate our common-
sense moral expectations about justice?

Does not rule utilitarianism ignore the moral place of motives and intentions in our actions?

The question of consequences

Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism. It makes moral judgments on the basis of

consequences. However, we need to ask: consequences for whom? This topic has been a
controversial matter for all those interested in utilitarianism. Some questions need to be asked
about natural consequences.

1. To what extent, if at all, should the suffering of animals count in our calculations of
utility?

Utilitarianism is dedicated to the reduction of suffering. It is clear that suffering is not

restricted to human beings. Animals also suffer, often at the hands of human beings.
What weight should be given to the question of animal suffering?

2. Are all human beings included in our calculation of utility or should subgroups, such as
our nation or our family and friends, be given special weight?

In theory, utilitarianism maintain that we be impartially concerned with overall utility.

But is it feasible that we can apply our moral principle on an absolutely impartial basis?
3. To what extent should we take into account the consequences for future generation?
The interest of future generation presents a perplexing problem. On the one hand, they do not
yet exist. Yet they will be affected by the consequences of our actions just as we have been
affected by our ancestors’ actions. So should we take into account the consequences for
future generation and if so, to what extent?
 There is another important issue regarding the matter of consequences. One of the attractions
of utilitarianism is that it promises impartiality and objectivity grounded in qualification. But
when one group in society does the calculation for another group it is easy for those
calculation to become partial.

So who should calculate the consequences? Should it not be the case that those who will
bear the consequences should have a say in determining those consequences.

Problems with utilitarianism.

1. We are sometimes hesitant about utilitarianism because it seems to weigh everything,

even human life, in the balance.
2. A criticism of utilitarianism is that it seems not to offer much of a role to the emotions in
our moral decisions.

Some argue that the utilitarian is unable to distinguish between morally justified and
morally unjustified emotions. If all feelings are of equal value and if all that distinguishes
them is their quantity and intensity, then morally good and justifiable feelings have no
more weight than morally evil and unjustifiable feelings of the same quantity and
intensity.

A second problem regarding emotions is that utilitarianism seems to demand that

sometimes a person should give up their most deeply held feelings and convictions.

And if it is precisely these kinds of things that make life worth living for an individual,
then utilitarian morally may demand that the individual gives up his or her reason for
living.

3. Consequences count. Utilitarians will always want to know what actual effects their
choices will have for real people.
 To the extent that we are not able to make predictions accurately, this indicates that there
is an unavoidable element of luck in the moral life. Surely this presents itself as a serious
problem for any moral theory.

4. To live only by utilitarian consideration is to open the door to abuse of individual or

minorities when such abuse yields high benefits for the majority.
It is often argued that ethical theories that emphasize the importance of human and
individual right seem to offer a standard of value in the moral life that escapes from these
dangers.

5. One more difficulty that plagues utilitarian accounts of ethics .it is often said that
utilitarianism necessarily ignores the importance of motives and intentions.

d) Deontology
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -
logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the
RULES and DUTIES that the person doing the act strove to fulfil.

This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an

act, and not the act by itself.

In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it

follows the rule that "one should do unto others as they would have done unto them", and even if
the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.

According to deontology, people have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are
inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as
in rule utilitarianism).

e) Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics describes the CHARACTER of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical
behaviour, and is used to describe the ethics according to Socrates, Aristotle, and other early
Greek philosophers.

Knowledge bearing on human life was placed highest, while all other knowledge were
secondary.
Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good.

To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence,
if he wishes to attain self-knowledge.

He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad
actions are the result of ignorance.

If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his actions, he
would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions.
Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates.
While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise
man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.

5.2.2 Applied Ethics

Applied ethics refers to the practical application of moral considerations. It is ethics with respect
to real-world actions and their moral considerations in the areas of private and public life, the
professions, health, technology, law, and leadership. There are many issues in our societies
which need ethical interventions to resolve them. Applied ethics is used in some aspects of
determining public policy, as well as by individuals facing difficult decisions.

The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is
euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how
do we determine them?" "Do animals have rights as well?" and "Do individuals have the right of
self determination?“
In this section we will discuss situations such as, abortion, euthanasia, animal rights,
homosexuality and capital punishment.

For example, the bioethics community is concerned with identifying the correct approach to
moral issues in the life sciences, such as euthanasia, the allocation of scarce health resources, or
the use of human embryos in research. Environmental ethics concerned with ecological issues
such as the responsibility of government and corporations to clean up pollution.

Issues in Applied Ethics:

a) Abortion
b) Euthanasia
c) Animal Rights
d) Homosexuality
e) Capital Punishment

a) Abortion
Abortion is the expulsion or removal of a fetus or an embryo from the uterus. An abortion may
occur spontaneously, and in case it is called a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Abortion also
may be brought on purposefully, and in this case it is often called an induced abortion.

Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, occur for many reasons, including disease, trauma,
genetic defect, or biochemical incompatibility of mother and fetus or an embryo. Occasionally a
fetus or embryo dies in the uterus but fails to be expelled, a condition termed a missed abortion.

Induced abortions may be performed for reasons that fall into four general categories:

a) to preserve the life or physical or mental well-being of the mother;

b) to prevent the completion of a pregnancy that has resulted from rape or incest;
c) to prevent the birth of a child with serious deformity, mental deficiency, or
genetic abnormality;
d) to prevent a birth for social or economic reasons (such as the extreme youth of the
pregnant female or the sorely strained resources of the family unit).
The morality, right or wrong of the act of abortion primarily depend on the definition of
personhood. When is the point we can say the fetus or fertilized egg possess personhood? Is the
fetus a person? A person has absolute right to life by law and morality.
There are many different answers to the question, when is the fetus become a person?

One of the most important issues in biomedical ethics is the controversy surrounding abortion. This
controversy has a long history and is still heavily discussed among researchers and the public—both
in terms of morality and in terms of legality.

The following basic questions may characterize the subject in more detail:
a) Is abortion morally justifiable?
b) Does the fetus (embryo, conceptus, and zygote) have any moral and/or legal
rights?
c) Is the fetus a human person and, thus, should be protected? What are the
criteria for being a person?
d) Is there any morally relevant break along the biological process of
development from conception or the unicellular zygote to birth?

Three Views on Abortion

There are three main views:
a) first, the extreme conservative view (held by the Catholic Church);
b) second, the extreme liberal view; and
c) third, moderate views which lie between both extremes.

Argument of Human Person has right to life.

i. Some opponents (anti-abortionists, pro-life activists) holding the extreme view,
argue that human personhood begins from the time of fertilization (conception)
unicellular zygote and thus – according to the religious stance – one should not have an
abortion by virtue of the imago dei (image of God) of the human being (Schwarz 1990).

To have an abortion would be, by definition, homicide, or to the extreme is committing

murder.
 The advantage of the extreme conservative view is the fact that it defines human
personhood from the beginning of life (at conception or the unicellular zygote); there is
no slippery slope.

Argument of Potentiality
In its contemporary philosophical repetitions, the potentiality principle proposes that
embryos and fetuses should not be killed because they possess all the attributes that
they will have as full persons later in life. The potentiality principle is summarized in
the words of one author who writes about “abortion and the golden rule”: “If it would
be wrong to kill an adult human being because he has a certain property, it is wrong
to kill an organism (e.g., a fetus) which will come to have that property if it develops
normally” (Hare1975:209).

Today, the potentiality principle is invoked almost exclusively by Catholic moral

philosophers to assert full moral status for nascent human organisms, that is, stem
cells, in vivo and in vitro embryos, and fetuses. Advocates argue that “all potential
persons have a serious right to life” and that because stem cells, embryos, and fetuses
are potential or intrinsic persons, they should not be killed (Gosselin 2000:437).
These philosophers attach potentiality to notions of humanness, especially as
humanness is manifested in the qualities of personhood that they most value:
sentience, consciousness, and rationality

ii. The extreme liberal view is held by proponents (abortionists). They claim that human
personhood begins immediately after birth or a bit later (Singer). Thus, they consider
the relevant date is at birth or a short time later (say, one month).

The proponents of the moderate views argue that there is a morally relevant break in the
biological process of development - from conception or the unicellular zygote to birth -
which determines the justifiability and non-justifiability of having an abortion.
 According to them, there is a gradual process from being a fetus to being an infant where
the fetus is not a human being but a human offspring with a different moral status.
However, it seems implausible to say that the zygote is a human person.

The advantage of the extreme liberal view is that its main claim is supported by a
common philosophical usage of the notion "personhood" and thus seems more sound than
the extreme conservative view because the offspring is far more developed; as the
unicellular zygote.

Women's rights arguments in favour of abortion

Here are some of the women's rights arguments in favour of abortion:

a) Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies.

b) The right to abortion is vital for gender equality.
c) The right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential
d) Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists
e) The right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women
to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy
This argument reminds us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard the woman as a
person and not just as a container for the foetus. We should therefore give great consideration
to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn.

Pro-choice women's rights activists do not take a casual or callous attitude to the foetus; the
opposite is usually true, and most of them acknowledge that choosing an abortion is usually a
case of choosing the least bad of several bad courses of action.

Abortion affects women disproportionately

Abortion is an important element of women's rights because women are more affected by the
abortion debate than men, both individually (if they are considering an abortion) and as a gender.

Pregnancy has an enormous effect on the woman involved. As Sarah Weddington put it to the
US Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade:
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts
her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire
family life”.

And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such
fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the
choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.

And the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote:

...a great deal turns for women on whether abortion is or is not available.

If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way
that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of
equality; and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the
moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality
requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.

Judith Jarvis Thomson on Bodily rights

Many people regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right. If women are not
allowed to abort an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right.

The simplest form of the women's rights argument in favour of abortion goes like this:

A. a woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body
B. the foetus exists inside a woman's body
C. a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body
D. therefore, a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus
The issue brings many ideas about human rights into brutally sharp focus.

A. every human being has the right to own their own body
B. a foetus is part of a woman's body
C. therefore, that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying
The important US Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade to some extent supported that view
when it ruled that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy came under the freedom of
personal choice in family matters and was protected by the 14th Amendment of the US
Constitution.

This leads some people to claim is that it is unethical to ban abortion because doing so denies
freedom of choice to women and forces 'the unwilling to bear the unwanted'.

Opponents of this argument usually attack the idea that a foetus is 'part' of a woman's body.
They argue that a foetus is not the same sort of thing as a leg or a liver: it is not just a part of a
woman's body, but is (to some extent) a separate ‘person’ with its own right to life.

A second objection to this argument is that people do not have the complete right to control their
bodies. All people are subject to various restrictions on what they do with their bodies - and
some of these restrictions (laws against suicide or euthanasia) are just as offensive.

Childbearing, freedom and equality

The women's liberation movement sees abortion rights as vital for gender equality.

They say that if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue the
pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child for
many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so).

They argue that only if women have the right to choose whether or not to have children can they
achieve equality with men: men don't get pregnant, and so aren't restricted in the same way.

Furthermore, they say, women's freedom and life choices are limited by bearing children, and the
stereotypes, social customs, and oppressive duties that went with it.

They also regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right, and one that women
could only achieve if they had were entitled to abort an unwanted foetus.

No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a
mother.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

In summary:
 a) women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social, and
economic equality with men
b) women need the right to abortion in order to have the same freedoms as men
c) women need the right to abortion to have full rights over their own bodies (including
d) the right to decide whether or not to carry a foetus to birth) - without this right they do
not have the same moral status as men
The US Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, which gave women a right to abortion (under
certain conditions) is seen by many as having transformed the status of women in the USA.

This landmark decision... not only protects rights of bodily integrity and autonomy, but has
enabled millions of women to participate fully and equally in society (Kathryn Kolbert, 1992).

b) Euthanasia
Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patient’s suffering. The
patient in question would typically be terminally-ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.

The word “euthanasia” itself comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death).
The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death,
euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death.”

Types of euthanasia

Different practices fall under the label “euthanasia.” Here are some distinctions demarcating
different versions.

Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a
lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial

life support machine such as, a ventilator or feeding tube.

Voluntary euthanasia: it is done with the consent of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: it is done without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient
is unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown. Some ethicists distinguish between
“involuntary” (against the patient’s wishes) and “non-voluntary” (without the patient’s consent
but wishes are unknown) forms.
Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.
Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

Assisted euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of
another person, such as a physician (medical personnel).

There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are
morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in
some countries.

Mercy-killing: The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or non-voluntary,

other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit
consent to end the patient’s suffering.

Physician-assisted suicide: The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active, voluntary,

assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a
means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will
(involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally
condemned. During the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a
program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parent’s permission)
under the guise of improving the Aryan “race” and reducing costs to society. Everyone now
thinks this kind of euthanasia in the service of a eugenics program was clearly morally wrong.

What are key disputes in the controversy over euthanasia?

i. Advocates of active euthanasia typically argue that killing the

patients in question is not worse than letting them die.
ii. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia often claim that patients should
have the right to do what they want with their own lives.
iii. Advocates of mercy killing argue that for patients who are in
vegetative states with no prospect of recovery, letting them die
 prevents future needless and futile treatment efforts. If they are
suffering then killing them prevents further suffering. Advocates of
physician-assisted suicide argue that a physician assisting a terminally
ill or suffering patient is merely helping the patient who wishes to die
with dignity.
Critics

i. Critics of the euthanasia typically argue that killing is always wrong,

that nonvoluntary or involuntary euthanasia violates patient rights, or
that physician-assisted suicide violates an obligation to do no harm.
Killing vs. letting die: There is dispute over whether killing a patient is really any worse than
letting the patient die if both result in the same outcome.

Common sense morality usually thinks that letting a person die is not as bad as killing a person.
We sometimes condemn letting an innocent person die and sometimes not, but we always
condemn killing an innocent person.

Consider different instances of “letting die.” One might claim that it is wrong to let our
neighbour die of an accident if we could easily have saved his or her life by calling an
ambulance.

On the other hand, we let starving people in poor countries die without condemning ourselves for
failing to save them, because we think they have no right to demand we prevent their deaths. But
if someone killed a neighbour or starving people we would think that wrong.

Likewise, we would condemn a healthcare professional who kills a patient. But we might accept
the healthcare professional who at patient and family request withholds artificial life support to
allow a suffering, terminally ill patient to die.

The distinction between killing and letting die is controversial in healthcare because critics
charge there is no proper moral basis for the distinction. They say that killing the above patient
brings about the same end as letting the patient die. Others object to this and claim that the
nature of the act of killing is different than letting die in ways that make it morally wrong.
Ordinary vs. extraordinary treatment: Ordinary medical treatment includes stopping
bleeding, administering pain killers and antibiotics, and setting fractures. But using a mechanical
ventilator to keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care.

Some ethicists believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or
care is acceptable but withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not. This view is
controversial. Some claim the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment is
artificial, contrived, vague, or constantly changing as technology progresses

Death intended vs. anticipated: Some ethicists believe that if a suffering, terminally-ill patient
dies because of intentionally receiving pain-relieving medications, it makes a difference whether
the death itself was intended or merely anticipated.

If the death was intended it is wrong but if the death was anticipated it might be morally
acceptable. This reasoning relies on the moral principle called the principle of double effect.

c) Animal Rights

The idea of giving rights to animals has long been contentious, but a deeper look into the
reasoning behind the philosophy reveals ideas that are not all that essential.

What are animal rights?

Animal rights are moral principles grounded in the belief that non-human animals deserve the
ability to live as they wish, without being subjected to the desires of human beings. At the core
of animal rights is autonomy, which is another way of saying choice.

In other words, animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the
possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid
suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.

Animal rights advocates want to distinguish animals from inorganic objects, as they are so often
considered by exploitative industries and the law.
The animal rights movement strives to make the public aware of the fact that animals are
sensitive, emotional, and intelligent beings who deserve dignity and respect.

Animal rights come into direct opposition with animal exploitation, which includes animals used
by humans for a variety of reasons, be it for food, as experimental objects, or even pets. Animal
rights can also be violated when it comes to human destruction of animal habitats. This
negatively impacts the ability of animals to lead full lives of their choosing.

Do animals have rights?

Very few countries have enshrined animal rights into law. However, the US and the UK do have
some basic protections and guidelines for how animals can be treated.

Advocates oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of
species membership alone—an idea known since 1970 as speciesism, when the term was coined
by Richard D. Ryder—arguing that it is a prejudice as irrational as any other.

They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing,
research subjects, or entertainment because animals have moral rights.

In parallel to the debate about moral rights, animal law is now widely taught in law schools in
North America, and several prominent legal scholars support the extension of basic legal rights
and personhood to at least some animals. The animals most often considered in arguments for
personhood are bonobos and chimpanzees. This is supported by some animal rights academics
because it would break through the species barrier, but opposed by others because it predicates
moral value on mental complexity, rather than on sentience alone.

Critics of animal rights argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract, and thus
cannot be possessors of rights, a view summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton. He argues
that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have rights. A parallel argument,
known as the utilitarian position, is that animals may be used as resources so long as there is no
unnecessary suffering; they may have some moral standing, but they are inferior in status to
human beings, and insofar as they have interests, those interests may be overridden, though what
counts as necessary suffering or a legitimate sacrifice of interests varies considerably.

d) Homosexuality
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behaviour between members of
the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of
emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a
person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviours, and membership in a
community of others who share those attractions."

Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, which is bisexuality and
heterosexuality.

Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they believe that it is caused by
a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, and do not view it as a
choice.

In psychology, a person’s behaviuor is a product of nature (genetic factors) and nurture

(environment, social factors).

The proponent of homosexuality argue from the genetic point of view. They argue that it is GOD
who created homosexuals that way.

Opponents of homosexuality state that homosexual activity is unnatural. It is against the law of
nature. But, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to
change sexual orientation.

The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for females and gay for males,
though gay is also used to refer generally to both homosexual males and females. The number of
people who identify as gay or lesbian and the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual
experiences are difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons, including
many gay or lesbian people not openly identifying as such due to homophobia and heterosexist
discrimination.

The opponents of homosexuality base their arguments on two grounds, i) law of nature, and 2)
biblical text, book of Genesis). The two creation accounts which introduce the notion of
sexuality in the creation story attest to this fact (Gen. 1:26-27). This indicates that;

 created beings are sexual, either male or female, responsibility to be fruitful, carries
out his or her activities as either as a male or female, his or her sexuality is an
inseparable part of him or her

 femininity and masculinity are Complementary gifts

 Human Sexuality is a gift from God to human as part of God’s creation.

When we read Gen. 2:18-25 Human Sexuality is understood as a force that draws two persons of
complementary sexes together.

 God as concern about man’s loneliness in the statement “It is not good that man should
be alone” (Gen.2:18)

 creates a woman, another human person of different gender, to provide companionship

for man

 Sexuality is not here associated primarily with propagation or genital expression rather,
as a gift of God to man so that man might live in fellowship and not be lonely.

 Woman comes in as the expression of God’s creativity through which loneliness is

overcome (Gen.2:20-23)

 Man brightens at appearance of a woman i.e. He becomes emotional, excited and

exclaims: “This at last is bone of my bones, and flesh from my flesh” (Gen.2:23).

The underlying teachings of this text are twofold:

i. Sexuality is basically good in that it enables man to be more complete, more as God
wants him to be, not alone and isolated but in fellowship; a kind of fellowship that birds
and animals cannot provide.
Human sexuality “… part of that created gift which God saw as being ‘very good’… in so far as
it a way of relating and being open to others…” (Cf. The Truth and Meaning of Human
Sexuality, n.11)

ii. Sexuality is a gift from God. (“sex is not demonic…not dirty, shameful or impure” (Cf.
Dwyer, Human Sexuality, 5)

Therefore Human Sexuality is;

“…a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of

communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love.” (Cf. The Truth
and Meaning of Human Sexuality, n.10)

Homosexual relationships and acts have been admired, as well as condemned, throughout
recorded history, depending on the form they took and the culture in which they occurred.

Since the end of the 19th century, there has been a global movement towards increased visibility,
recognition, and legal rights for homosexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil
unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, equal access to health care, and
the introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect gay minors.

e) Capital Punishment
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned practice
whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that
someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of
carrying out the sentence is known as an execution.
Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, and
commonly include offences such as murder, treason, espionage (spying), war crimes, and
crimes against humanity and genocide.

The term capital is derived from the Latin capitalis ("of the head", referring to execution by
beheading). Capital Punishment: legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal
law.
 Throughout history people have been put to death for various forms of wrongdoing. Methods
of execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning, burning at the
stake, impaling, and beheading. Today capital punishment is typically accomplished by lethal
gas or injection, electrocution, hanging, or shooting.

Moral arguments

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have taken
the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital
punishment is a just form of retribution (payback), expressing and reinforcing the moral
annoyance not only of the victim’s relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general.

The opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of Cesare Beccaria (in particular
On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very behaviour that the
law seeks to repress (which is killing) capital punishment is counterproductive (self-
contradiction) in the moral message it conveys. In a way you say do not kill but you yourself you
call the offender.

Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes (treason, spying etc), capital punishment is
immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Capital punishment also violates
the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading.

Although death was prescribed for crimes in many sacred religious documents and historically
was practiced widely with the support of religious hierarchies, today there is no agreement
among religious faiths, or among denominations or sects within them, on the morality of capital
punishment. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious
leaders—particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital
punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes against
humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.”

Utilitarian arguments

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on
potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint.
Opponents, however, point to research that generally has demonstrated that the death penalty is
not a more effective deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term imprisonment.

Practical arguments

There are also disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner
consistent with justice. Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to
fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are
executed.

The opponents argue that the past shows discrimination in the application of capital punishment.
In most cases the poor, ethnic and religious minorities and political aligned persons are often not
have access to good legal assistance. That racial and social prejudice motivates predominantly
white juries or political party aligned judges in capital cases to convict black and other non-white
defendants or opposition political members in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors
are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for
crimes they did not commit.

Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is prolonged, those
condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their
fate.