Revision

Religious Studies
Religious Ethics
 Ethics

Applied Ethics
Meta Ethics Normative Ethics Descriptive Ethics
(What does (What actions are (How can we
(What do people
“good” mean?) good?) apply moral
think is good?)
knowledge?)

Teleological Deontological Virtue Ethics Euthanasia Business Ethics Sexual Ethics

Cognitivism Noncognitivism
Ethics Ethics

Naturalism
Intuitionism Emotivism Prescriptivism Consequentialism Kantianism Aristotelianism

Utilitarianism

Preference
Act (Bentham) Rule (Mill)
(Singer)

Strong Rule Weak Rule

Normative Ethics – Key Points
• Kant – Duty, Categorical Imperative, 3 Formulas
• Utilitarianism, Principle of Utility + Consequentialist, Act, Rule
• Natural Law Theory – based on idea of telos, synderesis and precepts,
doctrine of double effect
• Situation Ethics – agape and 6 propositions, 4 working principles esp
relativism, Christian basis for SE
 Kant Duty Categorical Hypothetical

Universal
Good Will Ends Means
Law

Kingdom of Prima Facie Summum Practical

Ends Duties Bonum Reasoning

Suprarational
Macintyre Maxim W.D. Ross
aliens
 KANT
PARAGRAPH 1: DUTY AND GOOD WILL
AO1: Good Will: the only thing that is good without qualification is a
good will. Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be
unconditionally good and can exercise pure practical reason.
Duty makes the good will good. Duty is a special motive done only for
its own sake.
Practical reason gives the will two types of imperatives: categorical,
hypothetical
AO2: Weakness – Hume argues morality is founded on feelings of
sympathy
AO2: Response – our emotions can be very bad basis for morality e.g.
Paul Bloom (moral psychologist) argues feelings of empathy is triggered
only for those who are like us – studies e.g. shocking opposite football
fans
PARAGRAPH 3: SECOND FORMULA
AO1: Act according to that maxim whereby you treat another as an end
and never as a means
We cant use people e.g. slavery
AO2: Weakness – Kant says we should treat others as ends and not
means because they are rational agents. Where does this live senile and
children and animals (cf. Peter Singer)? Cf. Suprarational aliens justified
to use us?
AO2: Response – ‘potentially rational’
AO2: Strength - command us to respect human life. Humans cannot be
enslaved or exploited. This is the basis of the Declaration of Human
Rights.
PARAGRAPH 2: FIRST FORMULA
AO1: Formula of Universalizability: act according to that maxim
whereby it can be a universal law
E.g. Suicide, lying promise, utilising talents
AO2: Weakness: Alasdair MacIntyre points out you can use the
universalizability principle to justify practically anything E.g. If you
create the maxim “I may break my promises only when. . .” that gap can
be filled with a description that applies to my circumstances and very
few others
AO2: Weakness: Problem of Universalising trivial actions e.g. tying my
left shoe before my right
AO1: Strength: It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects
the utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so long as the
majority are happy.
PARAGRAPH 4: THIRD FORMULA
Act according to that maxim whereby one acts as a legislative member
of a merely possible Kingdom of Ends
No one decides the moral law, not even God, they are a priori truths
discovered by reasoning e.g. like a triangle has 3 sides
Objection: Kant does not tell us what to do in individual cases where
two or more moral duties conflict. E.g. stealing a drug to help a loved
one to live?
Response: problem of moral dilemmas affects all normative ethical
theories
Strength: Kant’s theory is based on reasoning and makes clear that
morality is about doing one’s duty and we cannot assume that what is
good for us is morally good and so good for everyone else.
 Kantian Ethics Overview
Strengths Weakness
It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects Objection: Alasdair MacIntyre points out you can use the
the utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so universalizability principle to justify practically anything E.g. If you
long as the majority are happy. create the maxim “I may break my promises only when. . .” that gap
can be filled with a description that applies to my circumstances
and very few others
Kant’s categorical imperative gives us rules that apply to Objection: One of the problems that plague all formulations of
everyone and command us to respect human life. Humans Kant’s categorical imperative is that it yields unqualified absolutes
cannot be enslaved or exploited. This is the basis of the and disregards consequences. The rules that the categorical
Declaration of Human Rights. imperative generates are universal and exceptionless. But if the
outcome hurts another person, most people would feel guilty. E.g.
We would want to break a rule and lie to save a person’s life.
It is based on reason and makes clear that morality is about Objection: Kant does not tell us what to do in individual cases
doing one’s duty and not just following feelings or where two or more moral duties conflict. E.g. stealing a drug to
inclinations. This means that we cannot assume that what help a loved one to live?
is good for us is morally good and so good for everyone
else. This is Kant’s equivalent of the Golden Rule of
Christian ethics.
Kant believes an action is good if done for duty’s sake because

Kant believes an action is good if done for duty’s sake but

 
Kant believes an action is good if done for duty’s sake so
Duty and Good Will
• AO1: Good Will: the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will.
Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be unconditionally
good and can exercise pure practical reason.
• Duty makes the good will good. Duty is a special motive done only for its own
sake.
• Practical reason gives the will two types of imperatives: categorical, hypothetical
• AO2: Weakness – Hume argues morality is founded on feelings of sympathy
• AO2: Response – our emotions can be very bad basis for morality e.g. Paul
Bloom (moral psychologist) argues feelings of empathy is triggered only for those
who are like us – studies e.g. shocking opposite football fans. Kant is right to
claim ethics needs to be based on reasoning.
First Formula: Universal Law
• AO1: Formula of Universalizability: act according to that maxim whereby it can be a
universal law
• E.g. Suicide, lying promise, utilising talents
• AO2: Weakness: Alasdair MacIntyre points out you can use the universalizability
principle to justify practically anything E.g. If you create the maxim “I may break my
promises only when. . .” that gap can be filled with a description that applies to my
circumstances and very few others
• AO2: Weakness: Problem of Universalising trivial actions e.g. tying my left shoe
before my right
• AO1: Strength: It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects the
utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so long as the majority are happy.
Second Formula:
• AO1: Act according to that maxim whereby you treat another as an end
and never as a means
• We cant use people e.g. slavery
• AO2: Weakness – Kant says we should treat others as ends and not means
because they are rational agents. Where does this live senile and children
and animals (cf. Peter Singer)? Cf. Suprarational aliens justified to use us?
• AO2: Response – ‘potentially rational’
• AO2: Strength - command us to respect human life. Humans cannot be
enslaved or exploited. This is the basis of the Declaration of Human Rights.
Third Formula: Kingdom of Ends
• Act according to that maxim whereby one acts as a legislative member of a
merely possible Kingdom of Ends
• No one decides the moral law, not even God, they are a priori truths discovered
by reasoning e.g. like a triangle has 3 sides
• Objection: Kant does not tell us what to do in individual cases where two or
more moral duties conflict. E.g. stealing a drug to help a loved one to live?
• Response: problem of moral dilemmas affects all normative ethical theories
• Strength: Kant’s theory is based on reasoning and makes clear that morality is
about doing one’s duty and not just following feelings or inclinations. This means
that we cannot assume that what is good for us is morally good and so good for
everyone else. This is Kant’s equivalent of the Golden Rule of Christian ethics.
Three postulates of morality
Kant said that if he accepts that there is an objective obligation then this implies belief in the Three Postulates of
morality:

1. Freedom
An action is moral if one is free to do it.

2. Immortality
Actions aren’t always rewarded by happiness, fulfilled in the afterlife

3. God
If there is an afterlife there must be a God that connects the virtuous behaviour with the summum bonum
Review Questions
1. (intro.) What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge? Give an example of each.

2. (para. 1) Why is good will Kant’s starting point for morality? What makes the ‘good will’ good?

3. (para. 2) What is the difference between the Categorical and Hypothetical Imperative? Give an example of
each.

4. (para. 2) What are the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative?

5. (para. 3) What are Kant’s four examples that demonstrate the Universal Law?

6. (para. 3) What is the problem with the Formula of the Universal Law?
Review Questions
1. What is the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative?

2. Why do humans have a special status as ‘ends’?

3. What is the third formulation of the Categorical Imperative

4. Can people decide their own moral rules?

5. What is the advantage over utilitarianism?

6. What is the disadvantage compared to utilitarianism?

Consequentialist Utility Pleasure Hedonic Calculus

Gladiator Slavery Rule Act

Mill Bentham Universalizability Peter Singer

Preference Gangsters Strong Weak

 UTILITARIANISM
PARAGRAPH 1: PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
Principle of Utility = maximise pleasure and minimise pain
Consequentialist Principle = an action is right or wrong depending on its
consequences
Strength: Simple = apply principle of utility cf. Kantian ethics which has
many formula
Strength: Commonsensical = we really do think of goodness in terms of
alleviating suffering
Strength: example the girl running from Nazis, gangsters
Weakness: by focussing on consequences potential to justify any action
e.g. TORTURE to save lives
Weakness: difficult to predict consequences e.g. Baby Hitler, euthanasia
PARAGRAPH 3: NOZICK’S OBJECTION
OBJECTION: Robert Nozick criticised utilitarianism with his thought
experiment ‘The Utility Monster’. He asks us to imagine that there is a
monster that is able to convert resources into utility at a more efficient
rate than human beings. This would allow it to consume a group of
people because its happiness outweighs the majority’s pain.
RESPONSE: A utilitarian may respond by saying there is no such thing as
a utility monster. The more resources we have, the less impact it has.
This is called the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. A hundred
dollars stops generating utility for someone who becomes very rich.
COUNTER: However, it could be argued that there are those who are
less efficient at generating utility. Very disabled and old people require
a lot of resources to generate a small amount of happiness. Therefore
utilitarianism seems to suggest that resources should not be spent on
such people.
PARAGRAPH 2: BENTHAM
Bentham/AU = hedonistic = defines good as pleasure
We measure pleasure using the hedonic calculus (units hedons)
Certainty, extent, purity, fecundity, duration, intensity
Strength: scientific = based on calculation, no special preference for
race, gender, sexuality
Weakness: cant measure pleasure
Weakness: difficult to define pleasure i.e. one person’s pain is another
person’s pleasure
Weakness: impractical – no rest objection
Weakness: doesn’t distinguish between higher and lower-order
pleasure cf. Mill’s RU
PARAGRAPH 4: MILL
Rule utilitarianism = set of rules based on utilitarian principles
Universilisability
Greatest Happiness Principle
Strength = Distinction between higher and lower order pleasure
Weakness = Strong Rule (no exceptions) = becomes deontological,
unsatisfactory because we sometimes want to break rules
Weakness = Weak Rule (exceptions) = becomes like Act Utilitarianism =
no `point having rule if can be broken
 Utilitarianism Overview
Strengths Weakness
It is simple: only one principle to apply, to maximise pleasure and minimise suffering. Objection: There is potential to justify any act. There are many bad things that we can do in the
(Principle of Utility) name of maximizing general happiness e.g. deceit, torture, slavery. As long as the larger populace
benefits, these actions might be justified by the utilitarian.
Objection: No rest objection. According to utilitarianism, one should always do that act that promises
to promote the most utility. But there is usually an infinite set of possible acts to choose from, and
even if I can be excused from considering all of them, I can be fairly sure that there is often a
preferable act that I could be doing. E.g. when I am about to go to the cinema with a friend, I should
ask myself if helping the homeless in my community would promote more utility.
It is commonsensical, as we really think morality is about promoting benevolence and
alleviating suffering rather than formal rules as Kant envisaged e.g. ‘do whatever you can
universalise’.
It is scientific, making quantitative measurements and applying the principles impartially Objection: Problem of incommensurability: Formula greatest happiness for greatest number uses
gives no special treatment to ourselves or to anyone else because of race, gender, two superlatives, which variable do we rank first?
religion.
Objection. It is difficult to predict the consequences.
Utiliarianism seems to require a superhuman ability to look into the future and survey all the
possible consequences of an action. We normally don’t know the long-term consequences of an
action because life is too complex and the consequences go into the indefinitie future. E.g. Baby
Hitler.
Objection against AU: There is difficulty in defining pleasure
Objection against RU: If a strong rule follower, it becomes deontological and can lead to irrational
decisions, obeying rules even when disobeying might produce more happiness (e.g. lying to save
someone’s life). If a weak rule utilitarian, you can end up no different from an Act Utilitarian.
Preference Utilitarianism: democratic Objection against PU: Some people cannot make preferences known (e.g. those in permanent
vegetative state, foetus)
Bentham believes an action is good if it maximises pleasure because

Bentham believes an action is good if it maximises pleasure but

Bentham believes an action is good if it maximises pleasure so

Principle of Utility
AO1
• Principle of Utility = maximise pleasure and minimise pain
• Consequentialist Principle = an action is right or wrong depending on its consequences

AO2
• Strength: Simple = apply principle of utility cf. Kantian ethics which has many formula
• Strength: Commonsensical = we really do think of goodness in terms of alleviating suffering
• Strenght: example the girl running from Nazis, gangsters
• Weakness: by focussing on consequences potential to justify any action e.g. TORTURE to
save lives
• Weakness: difficult to predict consequences e.g. Baby Hitler, euthanasia
 Bentham
AO1
• Bentham/AU = hedonistic = defines good as pleasure
• We measure pleasure using the hedonic calculus (units hedons)
• Certainty, extent, purity, fecundity, duration, intensity

AO2
• Strength: scientific = based on calculation, no special preference for race, gender, sexuality
• Weakness: cant measure pleasure
• Weakness: difficult to define pleasure i.e. one person’s pain is another person’s pleasure
• Weakness: impractical – no rest objection
• Weakness: doesn’t distinguish between higher and lower-order pleasure cf. Mill’s RU
Utility Monster
• OBJECTION: Robert Nozick criticised utilitarianism with his thought experiment ‘The
Utility Monster’. He asks us to imagine that there is a monster that is able to convert
resources into utility at a more efficient rate than human beings. This would allow it
to consume a group of people because its happiness outweighs the majority’s pain.
• RESPONSE: A utilitarian may respond by saying there is no such thing as a utility
monster. The more resources we have, the less impact it has. This is called the
diminishing marginal utility of wealth. A hundred dollars stops generating utility for
someone who becomes very rich.
• COUNTER: However, it could be argued that there are those who are less efficient at
generating utility. Very disabled and old people require a lot of resources to generate
a small amount of happiness. Therefore utilitarianism seems to suggest that resources
should not be spent on such people.
Mill
• Ao1
• Rule utilitarianism = set of rules based on utilitarian principles
• Universilisability
• Greatest Happiness Principle

AO2
• Strength = Distinction between higher and lower order pleasure
• Weakness = Strong Rule (no exceptions) = becomes deontological, unsatisfactory
because we sometimes want to break rules
• Weakness = Weak Rule (exceptions) = becomes like Act Utilitarianism = no `point
having rule if can be broken
Review Questions
1. What are the two principles of utilitarianism?

2. What is Act Utilitarianism?

3. Who is an Act Utilitarian?

4. What is the Hedonic Calculus? Can you name four categories?

5. What is Rule Utilitarianism?

6. What is the problem with strong and weak rule utilitarianism?

 Primary Secondary Doctrine of
Absolutism
Precepts Precepts Double Effect

Aristotle Aquinas Telos Synderesis

Ratio Conscience Eternal Law Divine Law

Apparent
Natural Law Real Good John Finnis 
Good
5 Minute Essay Plan
Para 1: Telos Para 2: Evaluation

Para 3: Synderesis, Four Tiers, Precepts Para 4: Objections

 NATURAL LAW THEORY
PARAGRAPH 1: ORIGINS IN ARTISTOTLE’S IDEA OF TELOS
AO1 = Natural Law Theory is based on an idea of telos which originates with Aristotle
Good = fulfilment of telos
Human telos = eudaimonia (flourishing) = life of reason with virtue
Cf. Aquinas part of scholasticism movement that tries to harmonises Aristotelian
thought and Christianity.
For Aquinas eudaimonia is achieved within community (polis) but can only be fully
achieved after death with God (beatific vision)
AO2 = strength = science ad common observation shows that everything has a purpose
e.g. eye
AO2 = strength = eudaimonia within the polis is a community-orientated ethic rather
than self-centered ethics cf. primary precept of cohesion in society
AO2 = weakness = telos imposes false idea of order and design within the universe cf.
AO2 = weakness = not everything has a purpose e.g. universe
A02 = Sartre = existence precedes essence = unlike objects we are not born with a
purpose
PARAGRAPH 3: JOHN FINNIS’ MODERN NLT
A legal philosopher and author of Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980). Finnis has
made a seminal contribution to the philosophy of law (jurisprudence) and has restated
natural law in a new, robust form that is faithful to Aquinas and resistant to many of the
classic criticisms of Natural Law.
Taking Aristotle/Aquinas’ definition of good as fulfilling purpose and Aquinas’ primary
moral precept of doing good and avoiding evil as a given, Finnis explores the basic
human goods in the light of modern insights, claiming that people recognise these
goods as goods intuitively – thus avoiding all taint of the is/ought fallacy.
For Finnis there are seven basic goods; life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience,
sociability of friendship, practical reasonableness and religion.
There is no hierarchy in these basic human goods and none can be seen as only a means
to attain another.
Practical Reasonableness is probably the most important of the basic goods as it
includes the requirement for people to consider the value in each moral action –
effectively to universalise their maxims and consider people as ends, not means.  This
rules out any form of proportionalism.
PARAGRAPH 2: AQUINAS TIERS OF LAW
AO1: Synderesis = do good and avoid evil
Primary Precepts = can never be wrong because their source is God = 1. preservation 2.
reproduction 3. education 4. worship 5. order
Secondary Precepts = derived from the primary precepts through reasoning – if our
reasoning is fault then the secondary precept will be faulty
AO2 Strength = gives us clear rules
AO2 strength = universal protection
AO2 = Strength = based on reasoning rather than emotion cf. Hume on sympathy, Paul
Bloom – empathy
AO2 weakness = no universal orientiation to do good cf. Freud = goodness is just what
our upbringing tells us cf. Nazi
AO2 G.E. Moore = Naturalistic Fallacy = cant derive an ought from an is = cant derive a
moral conclusion from a factual statement = we have sexual organs and so ability to
reproduce = it does not mean we ought to reproduce
A02: Response to DDE – John Finnis
PARAGRAPH 4: DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT
AO1 = Doctrine of Double Effect Conditions
An action that is wrong is always wrong. But an action that is positive or neutral but has
an evil consequence is sometimes permissible.
AO1 = 1) nature of act 2) proportional 3) right intention 4) means-end
AO1 = cancer treatment to save woman but unintended side effect is abortion
AO2 = strength = more flexible than strictly deontological ethic
AO2 = weakness = potentially may justify killing cf. sola scriptura approach to Christian
ethics
 Natural Law Theory Overview
Strengths
The basic principles of preserving human life, reproduction,
learning and living in society are common in all cultures
and so Natural Law is reasonable.
It allows for a clear-cut approach to morality and
establishes common rules.
Unlike Kant, there is a degree of flexibility. Natural Law
does not simply dictate what should be done in individual
cases from general moral principles.
Weakness
Objection: If Darwinian evolutionary theory is correct, there is no
design. Human beings are animals who evolved from “lower” forms
of life via the survival of the fittest. We are the product of chance in
this struggle for existence
Objection: Cultural Relativism. Kai Neilsen argues against Aquinas’
belief in a single human nature common to all societies. Differing
moral standards and cultural relativism challenge the idea of a
common natural law. Ill. Maybe people have changeable natures
(e.g. some are heterosexual and some are homosexual), and
Natural Law is more complex than Aquinas thought.
Objection The Naturalistic Fallacy. G.E. Moore argues that goodness
is unanalysable and unnatural, and so cannot be defined by any
reference to nature. Moore argues ‘You cannot derive an ought
(value) from an is (fact)’ –it may be a fact that I have within me the
natural inclination to care for others, but that does not mean that I
ought to care for them.
The strengths of natural law outweigh its
weaknesses.
Christian Ethics
• Situation ethics is
• Relativist – an action is right if it’s the most loving and that depends on the
situation
• However, it is also partially absolutist – it posits AGAPE love as an absolute good.

• Natural Law Theory is

• Deontological – rule-based absolutist ethical theory
• But is based on Aristotle’s teleological approach – it looks at the telos of things
• It is more flexible than Kantian ethics – through reasoning we determine what
secondary precepts to apply and Doctrine of Double Effect
Telos
• AO1 = Natural Law Theory is based on an idea of telos which originates with Aristotle
• Good = fulfilment of telos
• Human telos = eudaimonia (flourishing) = life of reason with virtue
• Cf. Aquinas part of scholasticism movement that tries to harmonises Aristotelian thought and
Christianity.
• For Aquinas eudaimonia is achieved within community (polis) but can only be fully achieved after
death with God (beatific vision)
• AO2 = strength = science ad common observation shows that everything has a purpose e.g. eye
• AO2 = strength = eudaimonia within the polis is a community-orientated ethic rather than self-
centered ethics cf. primary precept of cohesion in society
• AO2 = weakness = telos imposes false idea of order and design within the universe cf.
• AO2 = weakness = not everything has a purpose e.g. universe
• A02 = Sartre = existence precedes essence = unlike objects we are not born with a purpose
Precepts
• AO1: Synderesis = do good and avoid evil
• Primary Precepts = can never be wrong because their source is God = 1. preservation 2. reproduction 3.
education 4. worship 5. order
• Secondary Precepts = derived from the primary precepts through reasoning – if our reasoning is fault then
the secondary precept will be faulty
• AO2 Strength = gives us clear rules
• AO2 strength = universal protection
• AO2 = Strength = based on reasoning rather than emotion cf. Hume on sympathy, Paul Bloom – empathy
• AO2 weakness = no universal orientiation to do good cf. Freud = goodness is just what our upbringing tells us
cf. Nazi
• AO2 G.E. Moore = Naturalistic Fallacy = cant derive an ought from an is = cant derive a moral conclusion from
a factual statement = we have sexual organs and so ability to reproduce = it does not mean we ought to
reproduce
• A02: Response to DDE – John Finnis
John Finnis
• A legal philosopher and author of Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980). Finnis has made a seminal
contribution to the philosophy of law (jurisprudence) and has restated natural law in a new, robust
form that is faithful to Aquinas and resistant to many of the classic criticisms of Natural Law.
• Taking Aristotle/Aquinas’ definition of good as fulfilling purpose and Aquinas’ primary moral
precept of doing good and avoiding evil as a given, Finnis explores the basic human goods in the
light of modern insights, claiming that people recognise these goods as goods intuitively – thus
avoiding all taint of the is/ought fallacy.
• For Finnis there are seven basic goods; life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability of
friendship, practical reasonableness and religion.
• There is no hierarchy in these basic human goods and none can be seen as only a means to attain
another.
• Practical Reasonableness is probably the most important of the basic goods as it includes the
requirement for people to consider the value in each moral action – effectively to universalise their
maxims and consider people as ends, not means.  This rules out any form of proportionalism.
Doctrine of Double Effect
• AO1 = Doctrine of Double Effect Conditions
An action that is wrong is always wrong. But an action that is positive
or neutral but has an evil consequence is sometimes permissible.
• AO1 = 1) nature of act 2) proportional 3) right intention 4) means-end
• AO1 = cancer treatment to save woman but unintended side effect is
abortion
• AO2 = strength = more flexible than strictly deontological ethic
• AO2 = weakness = potentially may justify killing cf. sola scriptura
approach to Christian ethics
Review Questions
• What is Natural Law Theory?

• What is the human purpose for Aristotle? (cf. builders)

• What is synderesis?

• Is NLT deontological or teleological?

• What is the difference between primary and secondary precepts? (Give examples of each)

• How does John Finnis modernise Natural Law?

• What are the four conditions of the doctrine of Double Effect?

 Four Working Greatest
Situation Agape
Principles Commandment

Legalistic Antinomian Six Propositions Relativist

Robinson ‘ethic ‘If you love me,

for man come of Mouw keep my Pragmatism
age’ commandments’

Positivist Personalism Macquarrie Matthew 25

 SITUATION ETHICS
PARAGRAPH 1: AGAPE + 6 PROPOSITIONS
AO1 – Fletcher basis his theory on the New Testament and Jesus’
teachings on agape love (cf. Greatest Commandment ‘love god and love
thy neighbour’)
AO1: 6 propositions help to define love – e.g. love is the only thing
intrinsically good; laws can guide us but love overrides all laws; love
and justice are the same thing
AO1: agape love = selfless love cf. Tilich = eros, libido
AO2: OBJECTION: not all situations can be decided by love… difficult to
define love (e.g. abortion- what is most loving thing?)
AO2: OBJECTION: ‘agape love’ is outdated and based on biblical
concept that cant be applied today.
AO2: RESPONSE: love of others is always good and still relevant to 21 st
century
PARAGRAPH 2: 4 WORKING PRINCIPLES
AO1 - There are 4 working principles – pragmatism (based on
experience); relativist (depends on situation); positivist (posits love as
good); personalism (people over rules)
AO2: OBJECTION – open to abuse – no clear definition of what is right
or wrong (cf. Kantian Ethics that gives us clear rules) e.g. TORTURE
could be acceptable if love best served
AO2 RESPONSE: 6 propositions and 4 working principles prevent SE
being individualistic and subjective
AO2: RESPONSE: SE is not antinominian – rules do help us but we break
rules only in extreme cases if love is best served.
E.g. Girl hiding from Nazis thought experiment

PARAGRAPH 3: ORIGINS IN GOLDEN RULE

AO1: It’s based on Jesus’ teachings love god and love they nighbour
Objection: To focus on one commandment goes against Christ’s other
commandment to follow the Law: ‘If you love me, keep my
commandments’ (Mouw)
OBJECTION: Prioritising one biblical principle (agape) over other biblical
principles (e.g. preservation of life – NLT, not stealing) is wrong
OBJECTION: Fletcher himself turned to atheism
RESPONSE: based on agape which is central to Jesus teachings ‘Greatest
Commandment’ ‘love our neighbour’ – Parable of the Sheep and Goats
emphasises that we will be judged on that commandment
Agape love is at the centre of situation ethics
and is a useful principle
• AO1 – Fletcher basis his theory on the New Testament and Jesus’ teachings on
agape love (cf. Greatest Commandment ‘love god and love thy neighbour’)
• AO1: 6 propositions help to define love – e.g. love is the only thing intrinsically
good; laws can guide us but love overrides all laws; love and justice are the same
thing
• AO1: agape love = selfless love
• AO2: OBJECTION: not all situations can be decided by love… difficult to define
love (e.g. abortion- what is most loving thing?)
• AO2: OBJECTION: ‘agape love’ is outdated and based on biblical concept that
cant be applied today.
• AO2: RESPONSE: love of others is always good and still relevant to 21 st century
Situation ethics is a relativist theory which
makes it useful
• AO1 - There are 4 working principles – pragmatism (based on experience);
relativist (depends on situation); positivist (posits love as good); personalism
(people over rules)
• AO2: OBJECTION – open to abuse – no clear definition of what is right or
wrong (cf. Kantian Ethics that gives us clear rules) e.g. TORTURE could be
acceptable if love best served
• AO2 RESPONSE: 6 propositions and 4 working principles prevent SE being
individualistic and subjective
• AO2: RESPONSE: SE is not antinominian – rules do help us but we break rules
only in extreme cases if love is best served.
• E.g. Girl hiding from Nazis thought experiment
Situation Ethics is useful because it is based
on Christ’s Golden Rule
• AO1: It’s based on Jesus’ teachings love god and love they neighbour
• Objection: To focus on one commandment goes against Christ’s other
commandment to follow the Law: ‘If you love me, keep my
commandments’ (Mouw)
• OBJECTION: Prioritising one biblical principle (agape) over other biblical
principles (e.g. preservation of life – NLT, not stealing) is wrong
• OBJECTION: Fletcher himself turned to atheism
• RESPONSE: based on agape which is central to Jesus teachings ‘Greatest
Commandment’ ‘love our neighbour’ – Parable of the Sheep and Goats
emphasises that we will be judged on that commandment
Applied Ethics – Key Points
• In general you’re just critically comparing the strengths and weaknesses of a
couple of approaches
• Utilitiarianism - Principle of Utility - Strength: Considers Consequences,
Weaknesses: Hard to predict future, minority can suffer
• Situation Ethics – Agape, Relativism - Strength: Considers Consequences,
Weaknesses: Hard to predict future, minority can suffer
• Kantian Ethics - Universitiability, Duty, Strength: Protects human life, we cannot
use each other Weaknesses: Disregards consequences
• Natural Law Theory – Protects human life, common principles found
everywhere Weaknesses: No single human nature (cf. Sartre), Naturalistic
Fallacy (Moore)
 Critically assess the view that Natural Law is the best approach to issues surrounding sexual ethics
PARAGRAPH 1: NATURAL LAW
• Unlike Augustine, Aquinas accepts the role of pleasure in marital sex but
believes an excess of passion impedes REASON and corrupts VIRTUE.
• Aquinas shared Aristotle’s view that humans though share the genus with
animal, were separated from other animals by the ability to reason.
• This reason gives humans the ability to understand the TELOS proper to
them which is inscribed in “Natural Law” flowing from the design of the
creator God.
• “Marriage has as its principle end the procreation and education of offspring...
and so offspring are said to be a good of marriage.” (PRIMARY PRECEPT)
• Any sexual action that cannot result in procreation is seen as an ‘unnatural
vice’ such as masturbation, bestiality and homosexuality.
PARAGRAPH 3: UTILITARANISM
• Act utilitarianism treats sexual events on a case by case basis. Predict
PLEASURE an act is expected to produce and subtract the pain. Rape,
paedophilia, incest would generate more pain to the victim such acts would be
treated as immoral. In consensual homosexuality, pleasure would outweigh
pain and so permissible.
• Mill: HARM PRINCIPLE –Mill maintains we should be free to strive to
satisfy our individual tastes “so long as what we do does not harm... our
fellow creatures”. He remarks on polygamy, that though he finds it
disagreeable, what matters is CONSENT. He also defends gambling houses
and brothels but suggests a zoning policy
• Mill: “THE OFFENCE PRINCIPLE”. He considers that some people are
disgusted morally or physically by the behaviour of others e.g. some people
feel nausea at public displays of sexual behaviour. He thinks this doesn't
matter as too much PERSONAL FREEDOM is at stake. Prohibition is
counterproductive, humans can acquire tolerance, and what is regarded as
repulsive in one period can be applauded in another.
• Rule utilitarianism in general less permissive but depends on social
PARAGRAPH 2: Objections
OBJECTION 1. According to Aquinas, unnatural vices most serious vices. This
makes masturbation and homosexuality a far worse sexual crime than rape as
cannot lead to procreation. Why is unnatural vice so bad?
Masturbation/Homosexuality does not hurt other people, but rape does. Is an
‘unnatural act’ always wrong, even if it is consummated with mutual and
informed voluntary consent?
OBJECTION 2. Kai Neilsen argues against Aquinas’ belief in a single human
nature common to all societies. Differing moral standards and cultural relativism
challenge the idea of a common natural law. Maybe people have changeable
natures (e.g. some are heterosexual and some are homosexual), and Natural Law
is more complex than Aquinas thought.
Jean Paul Sartre also argues that there is no telos,. Existence precedes essences.
We are born then decide our purpose.
PARAGRAPH 4: Objections
OBJECTION 1: Consequences can be hard to predict e.g. unwanted pregnancy
and abortion – damage only years afterwards
Objection 2: Leads to a hedonistic society. Seeking sexual experiences ad libitum
with no limits at all can lead us to ignore more important aspects of our lives (e.g.
spiritual). A society founded on principle of maximising hedonistic pleasure likely
to collapse from self-indulgence.
Objection 3: By focussing on the consequences and ignoring the nature of the
action, utilitarianism seems to make permissible actions that many would find
wrong such as bestiality.
 Sexual Ethics Overview
Theory Principles Strengths Weakness
Natural Law Telos •Clear-cut approach to morality •Objection: Inflexible
Primary Precepts (Reproduction) •God-given •Objection: Philosophers have pointed out, Aquinas claims ‘unnatural
vices’ i.e. wont lead to reproduction e.g. homosexuality are worst vices
than ‘natural vices’ i.e. can lead to reproduction e.g. incest, rape, even
though latter causes harm and former doesn’t.
Kantian Ethics Formula of the Universal Law •Universal •Objection: Regarding Formula of the Universal Law, it is unlikely
Formula of Ends •Encourages us not to use people everyone would become homosexual so why should it be immoral?
•Objection: Regarding Formula of Ends, view that sex is treating human
as a means to an end and bound up with “objectification and
degradation is simplistic”.

Utilitarianism Principle of utility •Recognises sex is not just about reproduction, it is about a •Objection: A society founded on principle of maximising hedonistic
Offence Principle “couple expressing their love for one another” (Raja pleasure “likely to collapse from self-indulgence.” (Alan Soble, 2006)
Harm Principle Halwani, 2010)
 Sexual Ethics Overview

Principles Homosexuality Adultery Pre-Marital Sex

Natural Law Telos/End
Kantian Ethics Universalisabllity
Means and not ends
Utilitarianism Principle of utility
‘Natural Law is the most reliable approach when making judgements
about sex and relationships.’ Discuss.

• You could start by explaining the main teachings of Natural Law (e.g. purpose, potentiality and actuality,
primary and secondary precepts), the deontological and absolute nature of Natural Law and its origins in
Aristotle, and how it is a basis for Roman Catholic teaching.

• You could discuss the nature of sexual morality (e.g. sex as procreative, sex within marriage, homosexuality,
‘abuses’ of sex), and apply Natural Law to sexual ethics. Using examples, you could show how some may see
Natural Law as the best approach because, for example, it is universal and God-given, but for others
Natural Law may appear out of date and inflexible.

• To really get to grips with this question you need to ask what is meant by ‘reliable’ and from whose
perspective this theory may seem reliable. You may then discuss whether there can be any absolutes in
terms of personal relationships or whether some other theories such as Kant, Utilitarianism or Natural Law
might be considered more reliable.
To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering issues
surrounding homosexuality?

A01: shows understanding; select and deploy relevant information, accurate use of
technical terms.
A02: uses a range of evidence to sustain an argument, showing critical analysis of
different viewpoints.

In the last century, views towards homosexuality have improved. However, is there something intrinsically immoral regarding
homosexuality?
From a Natural Law perspective, there is something immoral about homosexuality. Aristotle argued that there is a teleological
framework to the Universe. There is a purpose, function and end to everything and with the end (telos) reached, there is eudaimonis
(contentment). Seeing as how homosexuality can never fulfil the purpose of sex – which is childbirth - the telos can never be reached.
This homosexuality is immoral for Aristotle. Morever, Thomas Aquinas believed his Primary Precepts allowed the individual to achieve
heaven if they were to be followed. One of his precepts is procreation. As homosexuality can never lead to childbirth, it is immoral.
However, are these views helpful in regards to homosexuality? They do recognise a teleological framework to nature which clearly
exists. Yet, is it truly wrong to go against the framework of nature? Just because homosexuality cannot produce children surely does
not make it immoral. Jeremy Bentham rejects the existence of this teleological framework in nature to lead to morality. This means
homosexuality is moral. Perhaps Aristotle and Aquinas’ views are too outdated for contemporary understandings of homosexuality.
To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering issues
surrounding homosexuality?

Kantian Ethics takes a similar view to that of Natural Law but takes a different argument. In Kant’s
Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals he argues that acting in accordance with the
Categorical Imperative allows an individual to achieve the summum bonum (the highest good).
One of these principles was the Universal Law Principle. That meant any action is moral only if it
would make a viable Universal Law. Thus homosexuality is immoral because if everyone were to
become homosexual then the human race would not be able to continue. Moreover, he believed
duty allows an individual to be autonomous. You have a duty to others to uphold and protect
humanity. You cannot fulfil this duty if you are homosexual because you cannot reproduce.
Kant does seem harsh against homosexuals. He said that it “degrades you below the level of
animals”. The problem with the Universal Law principle is that it is unlikely everyone will become
homosexual. So why should it be immoral? Moreover, Kant himself was a celibate which
contradicts his own beliefs on duty. Kant’s rational approach to homosexuality seems rather far
fetched. He does not explain what is intrinsically wrong, just the fact that it will lead to the end of
the human race. Therefore, one does not regard Kant’s views as helpful when considering
homosexuality.
To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering issues
surrounding homosexuality?

A01: shows understanding; select and deploy relevant information, accurate use
of technical terms.
A02: uses a range of evidence to sustain an argument, showing critical analysis of
different viewpoints.

Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham rejects Kant’s deontological (duty based) approach to homosexuality in favour of his consequentialist
(focuses on the end result) approach. He argues that for “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Francis Hutcheson). Seeing
as how homosexuality produces more pleasure than pain then it is for the ‘greatest good’ and he does not see anything wrong
with it. He does so on the basis that it should be confined to private. It would be an ‘offence to the public’ if a couple were to
commit homosexual acts in public.
Bentham’s views seem logical, if homosexuality does not harm anyone, and produces more pleasure than pain, then what is wrong
with it? His progressive ethical system compensates for changing ideologies whereas Aquinas’ and Kant’s, to a lesser extent, does
not. Virtue Ethicist, Rosalind Hurthouse however disagrees with Bentham’s approach to homosexuality. She takes a teleological
perspective and argues that the moral agent is not being virtuous as the telos cannot be achieved. Yet Hursthouse misses the point
of homosexuality. Sex is not just about reproduction, it is about a couple expressing their love for one another. A homosexual
couple produces pleasure and that is what Bentham regards as moral.
Christian background
• Old Testament
• does not seem to have one particular view on sex and relationships.
• It includes moving love stories, such as the story of Ruth and Boaz; detailed accounts of incest,
such as that concerning the two daughters of Lot in Genesis 19; and there are numerous tales of
seduction and sexual revenge. Many of these are recounted in a factual way, without judgement.
• In Genesis 1 and 2 there is an understanding that sex is created by God and meant for procreation.
However, sex is not seen as wrong but good; yet the contradictions also appear, as sex should not
be practised in sinful ways.
• New Testament
• Jesus says very little on sex
• Paul is credited with exerting great influence on the development of Christian thought, but
emphasised the value of celibacy and the inferior role of women.
• Platonic dualism and the views of the Greek philosophers an important influence, as they stressed
the spiritual above the physical.
Augustine
• Augustine’ teaching controlled the Latin Church’s approach to
sexuality and marriage until the thirteenth century.
• Sex a necessary evil, it is needed for procreation but it is also used by
the devil who uses women to lead men away from reason, and
pleasure in sex leads men away from reason.
• For Augustine, Adam and Eve experienced no pleasure in sex and
sexual desire is a reminder of the Original Sin.
Aquinas
• Aquinas adopted Augustine’ three goods of marriage and turned them into three
ends of marriage. Unlike Augustine accepts role of pleasure in marital sex but
affirms primacy of reason before sexual intercourse and believes excess of
passion impedes reason and corrupts virtue.

• Aquinas shared Aristotle’s view that humans though share the genus with animal,
were separated from other animals by the ability to reason.

• This reason gives humans the ability to understand the ends/telos proper to them
which is inscribed in “Natural Law” flowing from the design of the creator God.
Aquinas on telos of marriage
1. “Marriage has as its principle end the procreation and education of
offspring... and so offspring are said to be a good of marriage.”

2. “a secondary end in man alone, the sharing of tasks which are necessary in
life, and from this point of view husband and wife owe each other faithfulness
which is one of the goods of marriage”

3. “the meaning of Christ and Church, and so a good of marriage is called

sacrament”

What would be the attitude towards homosexuality and extra-marital sex?

Unnatural vice
• ‘The sin of self-abuse’ (masturbation),
• ‘Intercourse with a thing of another species’ (bestiality),
• acts with a person of the same sex (homosexuality),
• acts in which ‘the natural style of intercourse is not observed, as regards proper
organ or according to other rather beastly and monstrous techniques’ (foreplay).

Sexual acts can be morally wrong even if natural; in these cases, ‘conflict with right
reason may arise from the nature of the act with respect to the other party’; for
example, incest, rape or adultery
Objections
1. According to Aquinas, unnatural vices most serious vices. This makes
masturbation a far worse sexual crime than rape. Why is unnatural vice
so bad? Masturbation does not hurt other people, but rape does.
• Is an ‘unnatural act’ always wrong, even if it is consummated with
mutual and informed voluntary consent?
2. Kai Neilsen argues against Aquinas’ belief in a single human nature
common to all societies. Differing moral standards and cultural
relativism challenge the idea of a common natural law. Maybe people
have changeable natures (e.g. some are heterosexual and some are
homosexual), and Natural Law is more complex than Aquinas thought.
Bentham against universalizability objection
to homosexuality
“If then merely out of regard of the population it
were right that pederasts should be burnt alive,
monks ought to be roasted alive by slow fire”
Act Utilitarianism
• Act utilitarianism treats sexual events on a case by case basis
• Predict pleasure an act is expected to produce and subtract the pain
• Rape, paedophilia, incest would generate more pain to the victim such acts would
be treated as immoral
• In consensual homosexuality, pleasure would outweigh pain and so permissible
• If universalise homosexuality, general utilitarian would argue human population
would cease. But Bentham compares it to monk and holy practice of abstinence.
• “If then merely out of regard of the population it were right that pederasts should
be burnt alive, monks ought to be roasted alive by slow fire”
• However, mutual consent and absence of pain could theoretically jutify some
bestiality and necrophilia.
John Stuart Mill on prostitution
“On the side of toleration it may be said that the fact of following anything as an occupation, and living or
profiting by the practice of it, cannot make that criminal which would otherwise be permisable ... Society
has no business, as society, to decide anything wrong which concerns only the individual; that it cannot
go beyond dissuasion, and that one person should be as free to persuade, as another to dissuade.”

“In opposition to this... they [brothels and gambling houses] may be compelled to conduct their
operations with a certain degree of secrecy and mystery, so that nobody knows anything about them but
those who seek them, and more than this, society does not to aim at.”
Rule Utilitarianism
• Mill maintains we should be free to strive to satisfy our individual tastes “so long as what we do does
not harm... our fellow creatures”
• He remarks on polygamy, that though he finds it disagreeable, what matters is consent.
• He also defends gambling houses and brothels but suggests a zoning policy
• He also considers that some people are disgusted morally or physically by the behaviour of others
e.g. some people feel nausea at public displays of sexual behaviour. He thinks this doesnt matter as
too much personal freedom is at stake.
• “The offence principle”. There would be no end to the objects which humans have aversions.
Prohibition is counterproductive, humans can acquire tolerance, and what is regarded as repulsive in
one period can be applauded in another
• Rule utilitarianism in general less permissive but depends on social circumstances and empiricial
facts. E.g in early twentieth century might have rule to prohibit premarital sex to prevent unwanted
pregnancies, illigetimate births, STDs, dangerous abortions. Today, advances on contraception and
antibiotics minimise dangers of premarital sex
Rule Utilitarianism
• Rule utilitarianism in general less permissive but depends on social circumstances
and empiricial facts. E.g in early twentieth century might have rule to prohibit
premarital sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies, illigetimate births, STDs,
dangerous abortions. Today, advances on contraception and antibiotics minimise
dangers of premarital sex
Objections
• Objection 1: Leads to a hedonistic society
• Seeking sexual experiences ad libitum with no limits at all can lead us to ignore
more important aspects of our lives (e.g. spiritual).
• A society founded on principle of maximising hedonistic pleasure likely to
collapse from self-indulgence.
• Utilitarianism seems to make permissible actions that many would find wrong
such as bestiality
 Euthanasia
PARAGRAPH 1: SANCTITY OF LIFE
• Voluntary (consent) and active (intentional) euthanasia always
wrong
• Religious origins – man is made in image of God and life has sacred
value
• Natural Law Theory – active euthanasia is wrong because one of
the primary precepts is ‘preservation of life’
• However, it may allow passive euthanasia in some circumstances
due to the Doctrine of Double Effect – e.g. pain relief may be used
and an unintended side effect could be hastening of death.
• Tiers of law –
• Euthanasia prevents human from achieving his telos (eudaimonia)
• Supporting this: Kantian Ethics – universalizability, value of humans
as ends and not means
PARAGRAPH 3: QUALITY OF LIFE
• Life has no intrinsic value in itself, it depends on what kind of life
it is
• Situation Ethics = action is right if most loving thing – ending
suffering might be most loving action
• Six propositions – agape love replaces all laws, love decides in each
situation (relativist)
• Utilitarianism – principle of utility
PARAGRAPH 2: Objections
• Disregards consequences and autonomy of individual – patient in
terminal pain may request right to die
• Naturalistic Fallacy – it is a fallacy to derive an ought from an is.
• Case study -
PARAGRAPH 4: Objections
• Slippery slope – by breaking one moral rule, can leading to others
being broken and there will be no moral absolutes
• Possibility of it being abused – elderly could be under pressure to
be euthanised to increase resources and utility for the rest of the
population
• Euthanasia for children or those with mental health issues e.g.
Belgium legalised infant euthanasia in 2005
• Difficulty of predicting the consequences – person could request
euthanasia for terminal illness but later a cure may emerge
• Possibility of being abused – elderly people may be under pressure
to end their lives so that resources can be distributed to those
 Corporate
Whistle
Globalisation Social Shareholder
blowing
Responsibility

Globalisation Stakeholder Consumerism Capitalism

Company Fiduciary
Ford Pinto Enron
Ethos Duties

Edward Principle of Integrity Ford Pinto

Freeman utility Objection Case
 Ford Pinto Case

Ford calculated that it was cheaper to let some customers die than to
make the Pinto safe – by $87,500,000.

In your opinion, what was the biggest
mistake made with Enron?
Choices:
1) Enron making bad/risky investments
2) Enron lying on its balance
sheets/financial statements
3) Stock Analysts believing Enron without
further investigation
4) The SEC not investigating Enron
5) Banks giving Enron too many loans
6) The FDIC for allowing banks to give
Enron risky loans
7) Enron shareholders for investing in
Enron and driving the stock price up
Enron: American energy, commodities, and services company based in
Houston, Texas. Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, Enron
employed approximately 22,000 staff and was one of the world's leading
electricity, natural gas, communications, and pulp and paper companies,
with claimed revenues of nearly $101 billion in 2000.
When you buy a stock low, and sell high, it makes sense. And during the
1990s, all stocks went up. It was crazy. Everyone started buying stocks –
more demand = what? Higher price.
How do you get your stock price to go up? Increase demand. And how do
you make people demand your stock? You need to present your company as
being profitable.
So, can you lie?
Who is supposed to catch you lying?
1) Your own accountants
2) Stock analysts – people who work for investing banks and will tell
investors which stocks are profitable and which are not
3) Rating agencies – Standard and Poors, Moody’s, Fitch
4) The Securities and Exchange Commission - government agency that
watches over publicly traded companies and the stock markets
 Business Ethics = Corporate Social Responsibility
PARAGRAPH 1: KANTIAN APPROACH
• An action is only good if it comes from a good will and not
from anything else. Business should act responsibly
because it is their duty
• Disregard for consequences means profit is not the main
issue.
• May support corporate social responsibility – e.g.
companies sponsor charities, support community, care
about pollution or worker safety but only if done for
duty’s sake and not to promote or protect their own
reputation.
• Shareholders and stakeholders must be treated as ends
and not means to an end.
PARAGRAPH 3: UTILITARIANISM
• Principle of utility – measure pleasure and pain
• Consider utility of an action
• May support corporate social responsibility as in most
cases it would be more likely to produce pleasure for the
maximum about of people (customers and wider society)
PARAGRAPH 2:OBJECTIONS
• Conflicting duties – to stakeholders and shareholders
• Milton Friedman – Disregarding consequences is
problematic for business, whose only responsibility is to
shareholders to make a profit
• Concern for customers should only be to extent it
contributes to profit-making
• Globalisation vehicle for expansion of consumerism and
justified for sake of profits (using them as a means to
an end)
PARAGRAPH 4: OBJECTIONS
• Difficult to define utility i.e. one person’s pain is another
person’s pleasure
• Considers consequences with disregard with means they
are achieved – if acting irresponsibly would provide more
pleasure than pain, utilitarian would justify acting
irresponsibly.
Metaethics (A2) – Key Points
• One theory will be mentioned in question, compare with other two

• Naturalism = there are objective moral facts which are part of the natural world, which can be grasped through reasoning or
observation (Aquinas)

• Foot = we can recognise morality by observation e.g. Mr X is an 'excellent' teacher because I can observe his enthusiasm, deep
subject knowledge etc. In same way, in virtuous person I can observe virtues of courage, generosity etc.

• PROBLEM = G.E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy

• Intuitionism: good is a 'simple notion' - yellow analogy - Ross: duties known through intution

• PROBLEM: people have different moral intuitions e.g. abortion - impossible to distinguish

• Emotivism = A.J.Ayer's Boo-Hoorah Theory ... Development - Stevenson 

• PROBLEM: moral statements do appeal to reason (e.g. murder is wrong because it's causing harm/pain... goes against principle that
life is sacred etc.)
 Naturalism Intuitionism Vienna Circle Emotivism

Naturalistic Yellow
Prescriptivism Is-ought gap
Fallacy Analogy

Cognitivism G.E. Moore Boo-Hurrah Philippa Foot

C.L.
W.D. Ross H.A. Pritchard A.J. Ayer
Stevenson
 METAETHICS
PARAGRAPH 1: NATURALISM (cognitivist)
• Bradley in ETHICAL NATURALISM argues that good is an absolute,
observable fact of the world
• Strength: This implies that good has a resolute meaning as it influences how
we should behave, given our place in the world.
• Normative ethical theories that are naturalistic include utilitarianism, which
identify the good as pleasure and natural law theory, which would identify the
good with the fulfilment of an observable telos.
• Foot: uses example from Memoirs of a Revolutionary to illustrate how good
is something fixed and meaningful – a person who promises not to
photograph a tribe is following a ‘fixed’ moral duty, not relative to the people
concerned.
PARAGRAPH 3: INTUITIONISM (cognitivist)
• Good is unanalysable and cannot be defined: “Good is good, and that is the
end of the matter”.
• Yellow analogy “We know what ‘yellow’ is and can recognise it whenever it
is seen, but we cannot actually define yellow. In the same way, we know what
good is but we cannot actually define it.”
• We’ll recognise an action if it’s right simply by intuition. Associated with
deontological ethics.
• W.D. Ross (deontologist) – claimed prima facie (first sight) duties were right.
PARAGRAPH 5: EMOTIVISM (non-cognitivist)
• A.J. Ayer: Three kinds of judgements: logical (analytical), factual (synthetic)
and moral judgements.
• Meaningful statement = one that can be verified i.e. analytical and synthetic
• Moral statements = emotional utterances and unverifiable therefore
meaningless
PARAGRAPH 2: EVALUATION
• G.E. Moore is an intuitionist who criticises Naturalism with the Naturalistic
Fallacy.
• This is based on Hume’s ‘Is-Ought Gap’.
• You cannot derive an ought (a value statement) from an is (fact). For example,
it may be true that giving to charity produces pleasure, but it does not mean I
ought to give to charity.
• RESPONSE: This is not a fallacy but a missing premise argument. It remains
possible for an advocate of naturalism to supply the missing premise and
explain the movement from a value statement to a factual statement.
• THESIS: Therefore, goodness is meaningful.
PARAGRAPH 4: EVALUATION
• STRENGTH: Appeals to human nature – we do use intuition to decide right
from wrong
• STRENGTH: Avoids complex debate as to what good is – because we cannot
define it.
• WEAKNESS: Peoples’ intuitions differ. Nietzsche, using Moore's 'yellow'
analogy, argued that one person may see good as one thing whereas one may
see good as another: "ethical colourblindness". E.g. different intuitions on
abortion
• WEAKNESS/THESIS: normative ethics would argue that 'good' can be
defined e.g. either pleasure or fulfilling telos.
PARAGRAPH 6: OBJECTIONS
MacIntyre 1: challenges ‘emotive meaning’ – things that make moral utterances a
guide is not dependent on whether they are factual or descriptive but their
importance rests on the people around them cf. virtues – ‘BRAVERY IS GOOD’
IS MEANINGFUL BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE IN
THE SOCIETY
MacIntyre 2: Stevenson fails to explain how moral views are formed in the first
place
MacIntyre 3: it does not give any help in explaining how we can distinguish the
feelings and attitudes that are moral from other feelings and attitudes which we
Critically assess the view that the word
‘good’ has no real meaning. [35]
• Some candidates demonstrated an understanding of cognitivist and non-cognitivist approaches to the word ‘good’. Such
responses often benefitted by beginning with an outline of the problems of defining ‘good’ in the first place, with some
using normative theories such as Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics to explain the different approaches to the word ‘good’.
Some candidates were also able to evaluate how the phrase in the question, ‘real meaning’, might be interpreted.
• Most candidates were able to assess the meaning, or lack of meaning, in the word ‘good’ using the approaches of
Intuitionism and Emotivism. It was notable that more candidates seemed familiar with the approach of Naturalism and
there were a number of successful references to F.H. Bradley as one of its exponents. Increasingly, candidates are assessing
the work of Stevenson, Prichard and Ross to extend their responses. Some candidates also made reference to Rachels and
Mackie in developing their arguments.
• As in previous years, some candidates seemed less sure of what Prescriptivism entailed beyond its being a more
developed form of Emotivism. Some candidates did limit themselves to a ‘list approach’ in their answers, but it was
notable that a number showed ‘engagement with the material’ and were thus able to present a holistic assessment as
required.
• Some candidates were able to make creditable use of their knowledge and understanding of the religious language section
of the Philosophy of Religion course. Such cross-referencing included useful discussion of the approaches that might be
taken by Logical Positivism and Wittgenstein, and fulfilled the synoptic assessment well.
 Vincible Invincible Ego Conscientia

Superego Id Synderesis Ratio

Voice of
Aquinas Freud Augustine
God

Primacy of Albert the

Prudence Newman
Conscience Great
Conscience (A2) – Key Points
• Augustine = conscience is the voice of God = problem= how can you explain
differences between people and how an individual's conscience can change over time

• Aquinas = strength over Augustine = conscience depends on reasoning (ratio) = if

dictate of conscience is faulty then conscience will be faulty too = strength -
conscience helps us understand objective moral truths (synderesis = do good and
avoid evil) HOWEVER Aquinas says we must always follow our conscience = problem -
why should we follow an erring conscience? = RESPONSE - faulty conscience can be
corrected with prudence
• Freud = conscience is judging function of superego = superego derives its content
from UPBRINGING = objection - it cannot be an objective guide to morality, discounts
relationship between God and conscience
 Conscience Overview
Thinker Conscience as ... Fallibility Strengths Weaknesses
Augustine Voice of God Infallible •Positive view of conscience: objective •Objection: Descriptive but not prescriptive. Tells us what conscience is
+ guide to morality (i.e. voice of God) but not what we should do.
Newman
Aquinas Judging a case in light of Conscience = fallible, •If conscience is the ethical judgement •Objection: If conscience fallible why should we should follow it?
synderesis but one must still follow explains why it can be mistaken if >Counter: We must develop prudence to correct an erring conscience
it principles are wrong. •Objection: If synderesis infallible , then all human beings would have
Synderesis = infallible same moral awareness. But different individual’s consciences vary. What
one individual finds permissible, another finds forbidden.
>Counter: The principles of synderesis are very general that do not
endorse any particular ethical theory e.g. one must live according to
reason
•Objection: Some Christians might argue Aquinas’ rationalistic approach
does not consider revelation that comes directly from God
Freud Judging function of the Fallible •If conscience’s content derived from •Objection: Negative view of conscience. Conscience reduced to a
superego person explains why conscience of function of personality and its moral content derived from person and
different individuals vary e.g. abortion society. No suggestion conscience can reveal objective moral reality.
debate both sides think they’re right
 CONSCIENCE
• PARAGRAPH 1: Aquinas
• Chief expositor of the Catholic tradition in its understanding of conscience
He argues that nature has endowed human beings with an infallible grasp of what is right
and wrong which is called synderesis
If the terms of first principles are properly grasped, the principles are understood and error
about them is not possible.  Counter Argument:
According to Aquinas, examples of such principles of synderesis are these
• Evil is to be avoided
• Good is to be done
Synderesis is the “natural habit” of reason containing these first practical principles, which
mean by nature each human being has fundamental awareness of these principles and that
they ca be used promptly when needed.  conscience I am able to revise it.
Aquinas connects synderesis to natural law, identifying the first practical principles, of which
synderesis is the habit, with the general principles of natural law. In the Summa Theologiae,
he occassionally replaces the word synderesis by the term understanding, intellectus, the
intellectual virtue of grasping the first principles of reason.
PARAGRAPH 3: Freud - Conscience as Judging Function of the Superego
• Like Butler, Freud views conscience as a judging entity. And like Aquinas, the relationship
between the conscience and superego (repository of person’s belief’s that guide behaviour)
is similar to the relationship between conscience and synderesis (repository of universal
moral rules one should obey).
• His claims based on extensive case studies of human beings.
According to Freud, three parts of psychic apparatus id, ego, superego.  E.g. abortion debate, both sides think the other (false) side should follow the content of their
• The id is present as birth and contains the instincts.
• The ego develops from the id, spurred by the physiological stimuli on the brain.
• Once the ego is formed, the superego develops and internalizes ‘parental influence’. But
Freud’s notion of parental influence broader than the term implies. It includes family, racial,
national traditions handed down to them, teachers and models in public life, it is a
repository of authority.
Conscience is the judging function of the superego and has both a conscious and
unconscious function.
• On a conscious level, we are aware of conscience when we weigh actions in light of
articulated belief e.g. When a person who believes in the sanctity of life contemplates
registering for the military, their conscience might bother them for going against a conscious
belief.
• On a preconscious or unconscious level, our conscience bothers us when our behaviour or
potential behaviour is at odds with the content of the superego and we feel anxiety, fear or
dread. E.g. So a strictly raised young adult might unconsciously avoid situations in which he
is tempted to violate inculcated beliefs.
PARAGRAPH 2: EVALUATION
Objection: Problem of claim that we must always follow our conscience
But if we must always follow our conscience but following it might likewise be sinful then it is
unavoidable that I commit sin.
Aquinas says we must revise our erring conscience. Other than in situation of madness, all
cases of ignorance of the moral law ignorantia iuris are due to voluntary ignorance. So being
unaware that my conscience is erring and failing to notice the conflict between my conscience
and the moral law results from negligence. But at any time it is possible to stop being negligent
and to raise doubts about my conscience. Once my erring conscience has become a doubtful
 
More importantly than conscience formation is moral education in practice of virtues,
especially prudence, for the prudent not only make the correct moral judgements more easily
but act according to the dictates of right reason.
PARAGRAPH 4: OBJECTIONS
3.3. Strengths
When we distinguish the content of the conscience from the influence of the conscience, it is
easy to see in what sense conscience merely has personal authority (i.e. a person’s conscience
controls their behaviour but not the behaviour of other) and in what sense it has authority
over others (i.e. my conscience cannot control the behaviour of others, but we think it should).
(true) side’s consciences.
3.4. Weaknesses
Objection 1: Freud reduces conscience to a function in personality, and whatever content it has
is derived from the person himself, and ultimately his parents and society. Freud makes no
suggestion conscience might reveal an objective moral reality and make a positive contribution
to a person’s life.
No surprise that in the 20th century conscience has lost much of its importance in philosophy
and psychology.
Today was good.
Today was fun.
Tomorrow is another one.