kantian ethics ocr a level essay

Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher from the Enlightenment period, is the father of Kantian ethics. These deontological principles, also referred to as duty ethics, emphasise the process (or duty) behind actions rather than their outcomes.

Central to Kantian ethics are three formulations of the Categorical Imperative, which is an absolute command that has no exceptions and does not depend on one’s desires.

First formulation (Universalizability): “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This entails that if your action’s maxim (the principle behind the action) can be logically applied universally, then it is considered morally correct.

Second formulation (Humanity as an end in themselves): “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” Kant argues that every human has an intrinsic worth and should not be exploited for one’s aim.

Third formulation (Autonomy and the Kingdom of Ends): “Every rational being must act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” This means that one should behave as if their actions set the laws in a perfect moral kingdom.

Kant differentiates between hypothetical imperatives, which provide instructions for achieving a specific outcome (if you want X, do Y), and categorical imperatives that denote moral obligations (you must do Y).

Kant’s theory is based on the principle of rationality. Kant believed that through a process of rational thought, individuals can discern moral laws and duties.

The concept of “good will” is also critical to understanding Kantian ethics. For Kant, a good will is the only thing that is good without qualification – it is good regardless of its outcomes.

Critics of Kantian ethics argue that his moral laws are too rigid, and situations may arise where a strict application of the Categorical Imperative would result in a morally reprehensible outcome. Critics also argue that Kant’s emphasis on rationality doesn’t account sufficiently for elements of human emotion and empathy.

Kantian ethics reject consequentialist theories, like Utilitarianism, which suggests that the moral worth of an act is determined by its outcome. In contrast, Kantian ethics argue that morality’s value lies within the act itself.

Kant also proposed the idea of a “moral agent,” someone capable of rational decision-making and hence responsible for their actions. He believed that all adult humans are moral agents capable of determining the right course of action based on pure reason.

Essay: Kantian ethics are helpful for moral decision-making

September 22, 2020.

‘Kantian ethics are helpful for moral decision-making in every kind of context.’ Discuss

  On one hand, I do not think that Kantian ethics is helpful with every decision. This is because all situations are different and are not the same so it cannot be universal. Kant’s theology was based on very ‘black and white terms’ this sort of phrase should be avoided as it’s not very clear what it means, he focused on the moral act of a situation and ignored the consequences that could be a result of that act. His theology also was based on the idea of Maxims. Maxims are moral rules that are determined by reason. He believed that everyone has reason and so if we all had reason then this makes us all the same, meaning that we all should be making the same moral decisions. An example of a maxim that Kant introduced was that ‘lying is wrong and we should focus on always telling the absolute truth.’ However, a flaw to this theory is when it is put into context, it contradicts itself. For example, the situation with the man and the axe. A murder with an axe in his hand has turned up to your house and he is asking you ‘where is your mother I am going to kill her?’ In this situation, Kant would say that you should tell the truth of where the mother is, regardless of the consequences (mother would die). I think that the maxims that Kant put in place aren’t specific enough to each situation because every situation is unique. Universal rules aren’t helpful in the real world because every situation is different. There are never two situations that are the same. Therefore, the theory should be relativist and not absolutist. Overall, I think that Kantian ethics should not be applied when making every moral decision because it doesn’t take into consideration the situation that the individual is in, therefore it isn’t universal because the rules are too set in stone.

Phew! We have a number of excellent points here but as a writing tactic it’s not a good idea ot have an opening paragraph that tries to say so much. Why not just say ‘there are three reasons why Kant’s ethics is unworkable. Then spell out the three reasons in a subsequent paragraph structure.

On the counter side, Kantian ethics is reliable in some circumstances. It relies on a system of rules which is very clear cut, meaning that everyone is aware of the obligations. Yes, but you need to show me how Kant produces the rule in the first place! By a priori reason.If you allowed everyone to break the rules, then the consequences of the legal system would be a mess. No one would know what they ought to do. For example, in order for everyone to do their duty, it must be able to be universalised. In other words, the individual has to think to themselves “can I apply this to all situations/ circumstances?” To put this in context, making a lying promise about loaning some money.  i.e. if you promise to take a loan of money out with the intention that you will not be able to pay the company back in the time that has been given, the promise contradicts the act of keeping a promise. Yes, technically he calls this a perfect duty because it is logically contradictory to break the rule of promising Kant would view this as it being morally wrong to make a lying promise and so would advise people not to take a loan out because one may not be able to guarantee that they can pay the company that leant the money back. This therefore supported Kant’s idea that lying contradicts itself. This is the obvious place for a paragraph break However, on the other hand others may argue that Kant’s theology is inflexible. It should be able to break an unhelpful rule if the individual circumstances mean that that is the right thing to do. For example, going back to talking about the example with making a lying promise. In some situations, a person may want to take out a loan and would be able to pay the money back and so they may not be able to because of universal moral laws that have been put in place which say that this is wrong. Therefore, I think that this is unrealistic because Kant asks us to follow maxims, but sometimes just because some people act in one way doesn’t mean that others will. Just like the person who will take out a loan even though they know that they will not be able to pay the money back. Overall, I think that Kantian ethics are helpful for moral decision-making in some contexts because it is so clear that a child could understand what they should and should not do . This means that no one can act in a selfish way and so would promote a happier environment.

This paragraph has some good analytical and evaluative points mixed in. however, the paragraph is still rather long.

Another strength in Kant’s theory that is helpful for moral decision-making is that his theory supports all equality and justice. In other words, Kant’s theory provides a basis for Human rights. In 1948, UN Declaration of Human rights was agreed by 48 countries and is the world’s most translated document, protecting humans around the globe. This means that the theory provides the foundations for modern conceptions of equality and justice and suggests that no one can be used for being a different race, culture or religion. It also suggests that everyone is of equal worth and that no one is of a higher value of another individual. This as a result would reduce the chances of social unsettlement and minimise the amount of prejudice that is happening in the modern day. However, this is not always the case. For example, in today’s world prejudice and discrimination is still happening in some countries even though there are moral laws in place which say that this is not acceptable. And so, even though there are laws in place, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is going to abide by the rules. This therefore means that an unrealistically high standard is set which some people are not adhering to which was always going to be the case otherwise there would be no need for moral laws to be put in place. To conclude this, I still think that Kantian ethics is helpful for some moral decision-making but not in every kind of context. My reason for this I because not everyone makes moral decisions and it cannot be universalised because the rules are not universal in all situations and so it is unrealistic.

Plenty of good material here showing signs of the potential to be a top grade candidate. This candidate will be hitting A* when he or she learns to structure an argument more coherently, by separating points into a slightly more  logical structure of thought rather than trying to say everything at once. The opening and closing paragraphs need to be worked on – indeed – the idea of a paragraph itself doesn’t seem to be grasped. Underlying this there is an acute mind, however, and I particularly like the way different points are grounded in practical examples.  An exciting prospect!

Grade A potential but…

Total 30/40 75% B, almost A

AO1 13 marks

A very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding in response to the question:

 focuses on the precise question throughout

 very good selection of relevant material which is used appropriately

 accurate, and detailed knowledge which demonstrates very good understanding through either the breadth or depth of material used

 accurate and appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.

 a very good range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding

AO2 17 marks

A very good demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question:

 clear argument which is mostly successful

 successful and clear analysis and evaluation

 views very well stated, coherently developed and justified

 answers the question set competently

 a very good range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority used to support analysis and evaluation

Assessment of Extended Response: There is a well–developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent, relevant and logically structured work on this a bit more

Study with us

Practise Questions 2020

Religious Studies Guides – 2020

Check out our great books in the Shop

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Introduction to Kantian Ethics & Duty

Kant's deontological theory on duty.

Immanuel Kant looked at moral statements and how we use them. His deontological theory looks at how an action brings about a duty as opposed to utilitarianism, which is consequence-focussed.

The importance of reason

• Kant felt reason played a big part in how humans make moral decisions. So he centred his theory on the idea of reasoning from goodwill and duty.

Moral vs everyday statements

• Moral statements are a priori synthetic as they can be understood without any experience, but followed up and evidenced with experience.
• Everyday statements are most typically known through a person's experience and then verified by the experience of that person using this evidence to support the statement.

Kant's theory on good will

• Kant focussed on the idea of goodwill and its relationship with duty.
• For example, an action would not be deemed good if it was done to make somebody feel or look good.

Kant's definition of duty

• Kant’s definition of duty is to act morally and follow the rules that have been set out for you.
• When you combine good will and duty, you get a moral action.
• Kant’s former statements on reason come into play here. Kant felt every decision should be made by reason; based on the good will and the duty you have.
• A decision should not be based on feelings or personal opinions. It should simply be based upon reasoning conforming to goodwill and duty.

1 Philosophy of Religion

1.1 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Plato

1.1.1 Plato's Understanding of Reality

1.1.2 Plato's Theory of Forms

1.1.3 Plato's Analogy of the Cave

1.1.4 The Purpose of Plato's Analogy of the Cave

1.1.5 Evaluation of Plato's Theories

1.2 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Aristotle

1.2.1 Aristotle's Understanding of Reality

1.2.2 Aristotle's Four Causes

1.2.3 Aristotle's Prime Mover

1.3 Ancient Philosophical Influences: Soul, Mind, Body

1.3.1 Plato & Aristotle's Views of the Soul

1.3.2 Metaphysics of Consciousness

1.3.3 Materialism - Ryle’s Philosophical Behaviourism

1.3.4 Materialism - Identity Theory

1.4 The Existence of God - Arguments from Observation

1.4.1 The Teleological Argument - Aquinas' Fifth Way

1.4.2 The Teleological Argument - Paley & Evolution

1.4.3 The Cosmological Argument

1.4.4 Hume's Criticisms: Teleological & Cosmological

1.5 The Existence of God - Arguments from Reason

1.5.1 The Ontological Argument

1.5.2 Criticisms of the Ontological Argument

1.6 Religious Experience

1.6.1 Introduction to Religious Experience

1.6.2 Mystical Experience

1.6.3 Conversion Experience

1.6.4 Understanding Religious Experience

1.6.5 Issues Relating to Religious Experience - Validity

1.6.6 Issues Relating to Religious Experiences - People

1.7 The Problem of Evil

1.7.1 Presentations of the Problems of Evil

1.7.2 Discussion Points -

1.8 The Nature & Attributes of God

1.8.1 Omnipotence

1.8.2 Omniscience

1.8.3 Boethius - Divine Knowledge, Free Will & Eternity

1.8.4 (Omni)benevolence

1.8.5 Eternity & Free Will

1.9 Religious Language: Negative, Analogical, Symbolic

1.9.1 Apophatic & Cataphatic Way

1.9.2 Symbol

1.9.3 Discussion Points: Religious Language

1.10 Religious Language: 20th Century Perspective

1.10.1 Logical Positivism & Verification Principle

1.10.2 Wittgenstein

1.10.3 Falsification Symposium: Flew & Hare

1.10.4 Falsification Symposium: Mitchell

1.10.5 Discussion Points: Verification & Falsification

1.10.6 Discussion Points: Aquinas vs Wittgenstein

2 Religion & Ethics

2.1 Natural Law

2.1.1 St Thomas Aquinas - Telos & Four Tiers of Law

2.1.2 St Thomas Aquinas - Precepts

2.1.3 St Thomas Aquinas - Real & Apparent Goods

2.1.4 Discussion Points - Natural Law & Doing Good

2.1.5 Discussion Points - Telos & Double Effect Doctrine

2.2 Situation Ethics

2.2.1 Fletcher's Situation Ethics

2.2.2 Fletcher's Concept of Conscience

2.2.3 Discussion Points: Moral Decision-Making

2.2.4 Discussion Points - Agape

2.3 Kantian Ethics

2.3.1 Introduction to Kantian Ethics & Duty

2.3.2 Hypothetical & Categorical Imperative

2.3.3 Summum Bonum & Three Postulates

2.3.4 Discussion Points: Kantian Ethics

2.4 Utilitarianism

2.4.1 The Utility Principle

2.4.2 Act & Rule Utilitarianism

2.4.3 Discussion Points: Utilitarianism

2.5 Euthanasia

2.5.1 Key Concepts for Euthanasia Debates

2.5.2 Discussion Points: Natural Law & Situation Ethics

2.5.3 Discussion Points: Sanctity of Life

2.5.4 Discussion Points: Autonomy & Medical Intervention

2.6 Business Ethics

2.6.1 Corporate Social Responsibility & Whistle-Blowing

2.6.2 Good Ethics & Globalisation

2.6.3 Discussion Points: Utilitarianism & Kantian Ethics

2.6.4 Discussion Points: CSR, Globalisation & Capitalism

3 Developments in Christian Thought

3.1 Saint Augustine's Teachings

3.1.1 Human Nature

3.1.2 Original Sin & God's Grace

3.2 Death & the Afterlife

3.2.1 Heaven, Hell, & Purgatory

3.2.2 Different Interpretations of the Afterlife

3.2.3 Election

3.2.4 The Final Judgement

3.2.5 Discussion Points: Heaven, Hell & Purgatory

3.3 Knowledge of God's Existence

3.3.1 Natural Knowledge

3.3.2 Revealed Knowledge in Faith, Grace, & Jesus Christ

3.3.3 Revealed Knowledge in the Bible & Church

3.3.4 Discussion Points: Reason & Belief in God

3.3.5 Discussion Points: The Fall & Trust in God

3.4 The Person of Jesus Christ

3.4.1 Jesus Christ’s Authority as the Son of God

3.4.2 Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Teacher of Wisdom

3.4.3 Jesus Christ’s Authority as a Liberator

3.5 Christian Moral Principles

3.5.1 The Bible & Love

3.5.2 Bible, Church & Reason

3.5.3 Discussion Points: Christian Ethics

3.5.4 Discussion Points: Love & the Bible

3.6 Christian Moral Action

3.6.1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer & the Confessing Church

3.6.2 Bonhoeffer & Civil Disobedience

3.6.3 Bonhoeffer's Teaching on Ethics as Action

3.6.4 Discussion Points: Civil Disobedience & Bonhoeffer

3.7 Development - Pluralism & Theology

3.7.1 Pluralism & Theology: Exclusivism & Inclusivism

3.7.2 Pluralism & Theology: Pluralism

3.7.3 Discussion Points: Salvation

3.7.4 Discussion Points: Pluralism Undermining Beliefs

3.8 Development - Pluralism & Society

3.8.1 Development of Multi-Faith Societies

3.8.2 Responses to Inter-Faith Dialogue

3.8.3 The Scriptural Reasoning Movement

3.8.4 Discussion Points: Social Cohesion & Scripture

3.8.5 Discussion Points: Conversion

3.9 Gender & Society

3.9.1 Waves of Feminism

3.9.2 Traditional Christian Views on Gender Roles

3.9.3 Christian Views on Gender Roles & Family

3.9.4 Discussion Points: Secular Views of Gender

3.9.5 Discussion Points: Motherhood & Family

3.10 Gender & Theology

3.10.1 Rosemary Radford Ruether

3.10.2 Mary Daly

3.10.3 Discussion Points: Ruether & Daly

3.10.4 Discussion Points: Male Saviour & Female God

3.11 Challenges

3.11.1 Secularism - Sigmund Freud

3.11.2 Secularism - Richard Dawkins

3.11.3 Christianity & Public Life

3.11.4 Discussion Points: Spiritual Values

3.11.5 Discussion Points: Social Values & Opportunities

3.11.6 Karl Marx

3.11.7 Liberation Theology

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Discussion Points - Agape

Hypothetical & Categorical Imperative

OCR Religious Studies – Religion and Ethics

The Religion and Ethics exam paper in OCR A Level Religious Studies (H573/02) contains essay questions on the following topics:

• Religious approaches to ethics (including natural law and situation ethics )
• Normative ethical theories (including deontological ethics and utilitarianism )
• Applied ethics (in particular the issues of euthanasia and business ethics )
• Sexual ethics (including premarital sex , extramarital sex , and homosexuality )
• Metaethics (including naturalism , intuitionism , and emotivism )
• Conscience (including the views of Aquinas and Freud )

Religious approaches to ethics

Ethics is about what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. And so, religious approaches to ethics say morality is grounded in religious teachings and God:

• Aquinas argues that what is good and right is for things to achieve their purpose as determined by (God’s) natural law.
• Fletcher argues that what is good and right is to act in the most loving way according to the specific details of the situation. 

Natural law (Aquinas)

St. Thomas Aquinas’ approach to ethics is heavily influenced by the ideas of Aristotle  covered in the philosophy of religion topic . Like Aristotle, Aquinas believes in a natural law that things have an inherent nature and an inherent purpose/telos/final end . According to this natural law, good means something achieves its telos, whereas bad means something doesn’t achieve its telos. For both Aristotle and Aquinas, the telos of humans is eudaimonia – although they have slightly different interpretations of what this means.

The word telos  roughly translates to purpose . And according to natural law, what is good is for something to act in accordance with its nature to achieve its telos. A good chair , for example, achieves its telos of providing a comfortable place to sit. A good tennis player  achieves the telos of winning tennis matches.

Both Aristotle and Aquinas saw the unique nature of human beings as rationality – the ability to use reason. It is this nature that makes humans different from all other things – animals, plants, chairs, etc. A good human being is one that acts in accordance with this nature and chooses their actions rationally. By doing so, they will achieve their telos.

For both Aristotle and Aquinas, the telos of human beings is eudaimonia. For Aristotle, eudaimonia means a good life achieved by acting virtuously (see the AQA philosophy notes for more detail on eudaimonia) , whereas Aquinas puts a Christian spin on this idea. For Aquinas, eudaimonia means glorifying God by acting virtuously and, ultimately, achieving union with God.

So, in summary, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are a matter of natural law for Aquinas:

• God created an orderly world with natural laws where everything has a telos .
• According to this natural law, what’s good is for things to fulfil their telos. What’s bad is for things not to fulfil their telos.
• ( This is what conscience is for Aquinas )
• By using this capacity for reason, we can choose our actions in accordance with natural law and achieve our telos of eudaimonia (i.e. we’ll have a good life).
• If humans disobey natural law and God’s plan, they won’t achieve their telos of eudaimonia (i.e. they’ll have a bad life).

4 tiers of law

• Eternal law: God’s divine plan – i.e. God’s ultimate understanding of good and bad as decided by His omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
• Divine law: God’s laws as directly communicated to people – i.e. instances where God has explicitly revealed His laws to humanity. For example, in the Bible.
• Natural law: What is good and bad for human beings as can be worked out using reason regardless of whether a person has knowledge of the Bible/divine law.
• Human law: The laws of societies created by humans/governments. These laws should be derived from natural laws.

Each tier of law is determined by the tier above it. For example, the 10 Commandments revealed to Moses (an example of divine law) are a subset of God’s eternal law. Because of this hierarchy, Aquinas believes governments should derive the laws of society from natural laws. If a human law goes against a natural law, we shouldn’t follow the human law because the natural law is higher up in the hierarchy. In other words, it may be illegal to break such a natural law, but it would not be immoral  (i.e. morally wrong).

The precepts

A precept is like a moral rule. According to Aquinas, the main precept  is simply: To do good and avoid evil. 

“Hence this is the first precept of law, that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this.” – Aquinas, Summa Theologica , First Part of the Second Part Question 94

(this main precept is sometimes referred to as the synderesis rule)

• Preservation of life
• Ordering of society
• Worship of God
• Education of children
• Reproduction

And from these primary precepts, we can also derive secondary precepts, which are more specific rules for behaviour. For example:

• It follows from the primary precept of preservation of life that you shouldn’t kill someone if you find them irritating (a secondary precept).
• The Catholic prohibition of contraception (a secondary precept) is derived from the primary precept of reproduction.

Double effect

Aquinas also talks about double effect , where a single action causes multiple effects. In such cases, what matters is that the intended effect is in line with the precepts.

Example: Killing in self-defence. Killing someone obviously violates the primary precept of preservation of life. But if a person kills someone in self-defence of their own life, there are two effects: 1. Killing the would-be murder, and 2. Saving your own life. As long as the person’s intention is 2 – to save their own life – then killing in self-defence is morally acceptable.

Situation ethics (Fletcher)

Joseph Fletcher’s approach to ethics argues that what is morally good is to act in the most loving way. The religious basis for this is the constant theme of agape/love in Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament. Orthodox religious ethics often emphasises universal moral laws (e.g. the 10 commandments), but Fletcher’s situation ethics argues that what is most loving (and therefore what is good) differs depending on different situations.

The Greek word agape translates to (unconditional) love . This is the word Jesus uses in the context of the ‘greatest’ commandments, one of which is:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” – Mark, chapter 12 verse 31 (KJV)

For Fletcher, this verse captures the essence of ethics. Specific rules, such as “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), are secondary to this general principle of agape/love. You shouldn’t kill people because , in general , it is not a loving thing to do. However, in the rare situation where killing is the loving thing to do, then that is what is ethically right. For example, Fletcher describes a situation where a group of Irish immigrants to America were hiding from natives who wanted to kill them. A baby was about to start crying, which would reveal the immigrants’ location and result in them all being killed. In this situation, Fletcher argues, killing the baby was the most loving thing to do as doing so would save the others and the baby would die anyway if the natives found them.

Fletcher argues that situation ethics allows for a middle way between two extremes in ethical thinking: Legalism and antinomianism .

The 4 working principles

Fletcher identifies 4 working principles – i.e. 4 general principles he assumes that underpin his situation ethics:

• Pragmatism: Moral truth should not be understood in a theoretical and abstract way but instead moral truth should be grounded in what works in reality .
• Relativism: Fletcher avoids absolute rules, such as ‘ never steal’. The only thing that is absolute is love, and so what is morally right is relative to love and depends on the details of the situation.
• Positivism: The ultimate foundation for moral judgements is faith . We do not use reason or observation to deduce what is morally right, we instead choose to have faith in love and then work out what is morally right from there.
• Personalism: It is people who can love and be loved, and so moral value comes from people rather than rules.

The 6 propositions

Fletcher further identifies 6 propositions – i.e. 6 statements – that follow from agape and the 4 working principles above and summarise his situation ethics:

• In other words, love is the only thing that is good in itself . Work, for example, is extrinsically good to make money , and money is extrinsically good to buy things , but love is intrinsically good – it’s good in itself and not for some other reason.
• This is the idea described above and illustrated with the baby example that specific rules are secondary to the general principle of love/agape. In the Old Testament, there are lots of specific laws, but Fletcher says these are less important than the general principle of love. There is some scriptural support for this in the New Testament, such as “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Galatians 5:14).
• We might think that justice and love can conflict. For example, if someone steals something, justice says to punish the thief whereas love says to forgive them. However, Fletcher says it is not possible for justice and love to actually conflict because justice reduces to love – they are ultimately the same thing.
• Agape is not like the feeling of love we have for our family and friends. It is a decision to act for the good of others regardless of how we might personally feel about them. This attitude extends to all, even our enemies: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” (Matthew 6:44)
• This is illustrated by the example above : Even killing a baby (the means ) can be justified if it ultimately achieves a loving outcome (i.e. the end ).
• As described above , what’s morally right is not determined by rigidly following rules. Instead, we must instead decide our actions based on love according to the circumstances of the situation.

Conscience as a verb

The word conscience is typically used as a noun – it’s a thing that people have or don’t. It might be thought of as a part of the mind or soul that understands what is morally right and wrong. This is how Freud analyses conscience , for example – as a part of our mind.

However, Fletcher says we should understand conscience as a verb – it is a process of deciding what is right or wrong. Understood this way, it makes more sense to talk about conscienc ing rather than talking about conscience as a thing that constantly exists whether we’re using it or not (this is also more in line with how Aquinas analyses conscience ).

Normative ethical theories

Whereas religious approaches to ethics say what’s right and wrong is grounded in God, normative ethical theories appeal to general (secular) principles:

• Kant takes a deontological approach and argues we can derive universal moral rules about what is right and wrong using reason .
• Utilitarianism takes a teleological approach and argues that what is right or wrong depends on the consequences .

Deontological ethics (Kant)

For a more in-depth explanation, see the Kant’s deontological ethics notes for AQA philosophy.

Immanuel Kant’s approach to ethics is deontological: It says there are universal rules/laws about which actions are morally right or wrong, such as “never steal”. And these rules should be followed in all circumstances, regardless of the consequences. Kant says we can work out what these moral rules/laws are by using reason .

Duty and good will

Kant says we have a duty to follow the moral law – i.e. to do what is right.

And  good will , according to Kant, means to choose our actions for the sake of duty . This means to choose our actions because they are right thing to do  and not for any other reason.

We might have a duty to help an old lady across the road, say. And so someone who helps the old lady across the road does the right thing. But if they only do the right thing because they want others to think that they’re a good person , or because they think the old lady will give them a reward , they only act in accordance with duty and not out of duty. The person who acts with good will helps the lady across the road acts out of duty: They do the right thing because it is morally right.

The categorical imperative

For Kant, moral laws are categorical – they apply to everyone regardless of circumstances.

A hypothetical imperative is one that only applies to certain people in circumstances. For example, “you should leave now if you want to catch the 3pm train” only applies to people who want to catch the 3pm train. But the moral law, says Kant, is categorical – it applies to everyone at all times regardless of circumstances.

When we act, says Kant, we act according to a maxim (i.e. a rule for behaviour). Kant describes various tests to see whether our maxim passes the categorical imperative and thus whether our maxim is morally acceptable:

• Universal law formulation
• Don’t treat people as means formulation
• Kingdom of ends formulation

Test 1: The universal law formulation

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” – Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

If an act can’t be made into a universal law without resulting in a logical contradiction , Kant says that action is morally wrong.

Example: Stealing. If everybody followed the rule ‘to steal other people’s property’, then nobody would have any property to steal in the first place! And so, in a world where stealing is made into a universal law, it is not even possible to steal. Thus, stealing is always morally wrong – no exceptions.

Test 2: Don’t treat people as a means (humanity formula)

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity […] never simply as a means , but always at the same time as an end .” – Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

If an action means using another human being solely as a means to achieve your own goals, Kant says that action is morally wrong.

Example: Marrying someone for their money. If you pretend to love someone in order to marry them and get half their money, you are using that person solely as a means to make money for yourself. That person might have their own goals/ends (such as marrying a partner who genuinely loves them) but you are ignoring their goals/ends as a means to selfishly achieve your own goals/ends.

Another example: If you buy an apple from a shopkeeper, you are not using the shopkeeper solely as a means to get an apple because the shopkeeper is freely pursuing their own ends (e.g. to make money). There’s some sense in which both sides use each other as a means , but this is OK because both sides acknowledge the other’s ends (and so don’t use each other solely as a means).

Test 3: The kingdom of ends formulation

“Act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. ” – Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Finally, Kant asks us to imagine a ‘ Kingdom of Ends ‘ where everyone acts according to the two tests above. In this ideal world, everybody only acts according to rules that can be applied universally and nobody treats another human being as a means but always as an end. We must imagine ourselves as a lawmaker in this ideal world – not our actual world – and consider whether our action could work as a law in the Kingdom of Ends. If such a law wouldn’t work in the Kingdom of Ends, then we shouldn’t do that action.

The 3 postulates

Kant also talks about the summum bonum , or highest good . This is a world of perfect justice where people behave with perfect virtue and are rewarded for doing so with perfect happiness. Kant says we have a duty to strive towards the summum bonum .

However, a duty to strive towards the summum bonum only makes sense if such a state of affairs is actually possible  in practice. And so, Kant identifies 3 postulates we must assume that make the summum bonum possible:

• Free will: If we do not freely choose our actions, then we are not responsible for them, and ethics would be pointless. So, for Kant, ethics requires free will.
• Immortality: People who do good things are not always rewarded for them. For example, a person who lives a moral life may die young from cancer whereas a lifelong thief may live a long and happy life. This is unfair and unjust. For Kant, the summum bonum requires that good deeds are rewarded proportionally with happiness and this can only be achieved if people are immortal.
• God: God must exist in order to enforce this justice and achieve the summum bonum.

Utilitarianism

For a more in-depth explanation, see the utilitarianism notes for AQA philosophy.

Utilitarian approaches to ethics are consequentialist: They say it is the consequences of an action that make it morally good or bad. So, whereas Kant’s deontological ethics says stealing is wrong in itself , act utilitarianism would say stealing is morally acceptable in situations where doing so would increase pleasure or reduce pain.

“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals.”  – Jeremy Bentham

Utilitarianism is described on the syllabus as a teleological theory of ethics because it defines morality in terms of the end goal/purpose of happiness.

Utility and the hedonic calculus

Jeremy Bentham , the father of utilitarianism, understood utility (i.e. usefulness) as that which maximises happiness/pleasure and minimises unhappiness/pain.

He created the hedonic calculus (also called the felicific or utility calculus) as a way to calculate and quantify the utility of an action and thus to calculate and quantify how morally good or bad an action is. The hedonic calculus has 7 variables:

• Intensity: how strong the pleasure is
• Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
• Certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
• Propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
• Fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
• Purity: how likely the pleasure will lead to pain
• Extent: the number of people affected

So, let’s say we have two courses of action, A and B:

• A results in a 7/10 intensity pleasure that has a duration of 20 minutes.
• B results in a 6/10 intensity pleasure that has a duration of an hour.

The hedonic calculus would say the much longer duration of B – despite the slightly lower intensity – results in more utility and so is the morally superior course of action.

It gets complicated, though, when you have to predict and calculate all the other variables and compare them against each other ( see below for more on this ).

Act and rule utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism calculate utility at different levels:

• Act utilitarianism calculates utility at the level of specific actions .  For example, whether an act of stealing is right or wrong depends on whether, in that particular case , stealing increases or decreases utility/pleasure.
• In contrast, rule utilitarianism calculates utility at the level of general rules . For example, we may calculate that as a general rule stealing results in a reduction of utility/pleasure. And so, even though there may be specific cases where an act of stealing increases utility/pleasure, it is still wrong to steal in those instances because it violates a general rule that increases utility.

Ethical issues

The syllabus looks at 3 different ethical issues and applies the ethical theories above to them:

Business ethics

Sexual ethics.

Euthanasia means deliberately ending a person’s life to reduce their suffering. This may be achieved by active means (e.g. administering a lethal drug) or passive means (e.g. by withdrawing treatment or food) and may be a voluntary or non-voluntary decision . Such distinctions often determine whether someone considers an act of euthanasia morally acceptable or morally wrong (and also in many countries whether it is legal or illegal).

Of the ethical theories above, the syllabus specifically mentions how natural law and situation ethics may be applied to the issue of euthanasia .

Sanctity of life and quality of life

The principles of sanctity of life and quality of life may come into conflict on the issue of euthanasia.

Sanctity of life is the moral principle that all human lives are inherently valuable regardless of quality. This approach is generally associated with religious approaches to ethics for reasons such as:

• Murder is wrong: For example, Exodus 20:13 says “Thou shalt not kill”.
• Humans are made in God’s image: In the Bible, Genesis 1:27 says “So God created man in his own image”. This means all human lives possess some God-like divine component that is morally wrong to destroy.
• Humans do not have a right to decide: Job 1:21 says “the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” As it is God who gives life, God is the only one who has the right to take life.

Quality of life is the moral principle that there are degrees to which human lives are valuable based on certain conditions. As such, whether a life is valuable depends on factors such as pleasure, pain, or autonomy . The quality of life principle is generally associated with secular approaches to ethics for reasons such as:

• Utilitarianism:   Utilitarian principles imply that some lives are more valuable than others because of different values of pleasure and pain. For example, if a person is experiencing constant and incurable pain with little or no joy or pleasure, the hedonic calculus may suggest that it is morally acceptable to end that person’s life so as to reduce the amount of pain in the world.

Voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia

Autonomy is another factor to consider in the ethics of euthanasia.

Voluntary euthanasia is when a person acts with full autonomy and free will to consent to someone ending their life. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle says “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” and can be used to defend voluntary euthanasia as this principle says that humans have a right to do whatever they want with their own body and mind (as long as it does not cause harm to another person), which includes destroying it.

Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person cannot act with autonomy to consent to someone ending their life. For example, if a person is in a coma or persistent vegetative state, they are unable to express their desire to continue living or end their life. In such situations, it often falls to another person (e.g. a family member or doctor) to represent their interests and provide consent.

(although not specifically mentioned on the syllabus, there’s also involuntary euthanasia , which is when a person can give consent, does not give consent, but someone decides to end their life anyway. This is probably the least morally ambiguous category, given that it’s basically just murder)

Ethical theories applied to euthanasia

Natural law applied to euthanasia.

In general, natural law (and the Catholic Church) would argue against euthanasia:

• 4 tiers of law: The natural law is below divine law in this hierarchy. And, given the Bible says things such as “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), natural law would likely argue that euthanasia (at least active euthanasia) is wrong.
• The precepts: One of the five primary precepts is preservation of life . Euthanasia is the opposite of preserving life – it’s deliberately shortening a life – and so this is another reason why natural law could argue euthanasia is wrong.

However, there are some exceptions/unusual cases where euthanasia may be morally acceptable:

• Active euthanasia and double effect: If a doctor administers a high dose of painkiller to alleviate pain (effect 1) which accidentally causes the death of the patient (effect 2), then this is morally acceptable because the intended effect was not in violation of natural law.
• Passive euthanasia and ordinary vs. extraordinary means: The Catholic Church says life should be preserved by ordinary means. For example, it is not acceptable to withdraw food or water for someone who is ill and wants to die. However, if preserving life requires extraordinary means – e.g. a risky or burdensome surgery – then it is morally acceptable to withhold such treatments even if doing so results in death of the patient.

Situation ethics applied to euthanasia

In general, situation ethics would permit euthanasia if the facts of the situation are appropriate:

• Rejection of legalism : The guiding principle of situation ethics is agape /love for one’s neighbour and this takes precedence over legalistic adherence to rules . As such, there is no absolute rule that applies in all situations, such as “Thou shalt not kill”.
• Relativism and personalism: A related consideration is Fletcher’s working principle of relativism; the rejection of absolute rules such as “Thou shalt not kill”. Instead, Fletcher works from the principle of  personalism; that moral value comes from people rather than rules .
• Proposition 5: According to Fletcher, agape/love is the end goal of ethics and this can be achieved by any means, which would include euthanasia. In other words, if the situation is one where euthanasia is the most loving thing to do, then euthanasia is morally acceptable.

Business ethics is about moral issues for corporations, their customers, and the wider society. The ethical issues for businesses mentioned on the syllabus are corporate social responsibility , whistleblowing , and globalisation .

Of the ethical theories above, the syllabus specifically mentions how deontological ethics and utilitarianism may be applied to business ethics.

Corporate social responsibility

Businesses primarily exist to make money for shareholders. But corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the idea that businesses have ethical responsibilities to stakeholders in the wider community . For example:

• A responsibility to protect the environment
• A responsibility to protect their customers
• A responsibility to ensure the health and safety of employees

ESG (environmental, social, and governance) ratings are a way to quantify a company’s CSR efforts. For example, a company that uses sweatshops in poor countries would receive a lower ESG rating than a company that pays employees a living wage (all else being equal). Investors can invest in companies with good ESG ratings through indexes such as the FTSE4Good index, which is an index of UK (FTSE) companies that have high ESG scores.

Good ethics is good business

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest .” – Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith provides a pragmatic case for CSR, arguing that good ethics is good business . The good ethics is good business position is that, in the long term , acting in accordance with CSR is the most effective way to make money and thus that good business decisions are good ethical decisions. For example:

• Customers: It may benefit a company in the short term to overcharge customers or cut corners to make a cheap product, but in the long term it will destroy the company’s reputation and customers will buy from a competitor instead.
• Employees: It may benefit a company to overwork employees and pay them low wages in the short term , but eventually the employees will take their skills and go work for a competitor that pays them more and provides better working conditions.
• Environment: It may be cheaper in the short term for a company to dump toxic waste into the local river, but eventually people will find out and the company’s reputation will be destroyed and no one will buy from them.

Ethical theories applied to CSR

Deontological ethics applied to csr.

In general, the categorical imperative implies businesses (through the people running them) have several ethical responsibilities over and above profit, such as:

• To employees: Companies cannot treat employees solely as a means to make money as this would violate the second formulation . Instead, companies should treat employees as ends in themselves, which would mean paying them a fair wage and providing safe and humane working conditions.
• To customers: Kant gives an example of how shopkeepers have a duty to charge a fair price to customers. But Kant uses this example to make a point about good will : A shopkeeper who charges a fair price because it is good for his reputation and thus his business is not morally praiseworthy because he only acts in accordance with duty and not because of duty. Kant says we should always choose our actions – whether in business or life in general – because they are morally right and not for some other reason. This is in contrast to Smith’s point above that we should behave ethically because it is good business – Kant says we should behave ethically because of duty , regardless of whether it is good or bad for business.

Utilitarianism applied to CSR

The hedonic calculus says we should maximise pleasure and minimise pain. And, in most cases, it’s unlikely that a business maximising its profit without regard for CSR would also happen be the most efficient way to maximise pleasure:

• Rule utilitarian response: However, capitalists argue that businesses pursuing profit has resulted in economic growth that has benefited society more in the long run. For example, competition to produce food more efficiently and increase profits has led to technological innovations that have reduced global hunger. If food companies had been forced to distribute their profits to hungry people rather than re-investing in their own businesses, it’s possible these technological innovations wouldn’t have happened and overall hunger would be greater today. It’s a bit long-winded, but you could make a rule utilitarian argument along these lines that allowing businesses freedom to pursue profits without CSR results in greater happiness overall than not having this rule.

Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing is when an employee discloses information about serious ethical wrongdoing at their company. This may be done privately or publicly:

• Private: The employee reports wrongdoing to someone within the company (e.g. raising the issue with senior management).
• Public: The employee reports wrongdoing to someone outside of the company (e.g. going to the news/media).

The ethics of whistleblowing involves balancing loyalty to the company with concern for the wider public good.

Ethical theories applied to whistleblowing

Deontological ethics applied to whistleblowing.

• Duty: Kant would say employees have certain duties to towards their employer, such as to carry out orders.
• Categorical imperative : However, our duties as an employee cannot override our wider moral duties. For example, the first formulation implies that we must never lie because if telling lies was made a universal law then nobody would believe anyone. And so, if an employer orders an employee to lie to protect the company, Kant would say our duty to tell the truth takes priority.

Utilitarianism applied to whistleblowing

• Hedonic calculus : Whether an act of whistleblowing is right or wrong must be calculated according to the specific circumstances. If the pleasure that results from an act of whistleblowing (e.g. legal intervention results in improvements in employee working conditions) outweighs the pains (e.g. job losses and fines for the company), then whistleblowing is morally acceptable. If whistleblowing results in a lot of pain and unhappiness without much pleasure in return, then whistleblowing is morally wrong.

Globalisation

Globalisation can have both positive and negative effects:

Ethical theories applied to globalisation

Deontological ethics applied to globalisation.

• Categorical imperative : In principle, globalisation doesn’t seem to violate any of the tests of the categorical imperative. There’s no contradiction that results from manufacturing goods in another country, for example. However, in practice, the reality of globalisation is often at odds with deontological ethics. For example, companies outsource manufacturing to sweatshops and countries with weak labour laws. Such business practices could be accused of using employees solely as a means to increase profit, which violates the second formulation .

Utilitarianism applied to globalisation

• Hedonic calculus: The positive and negative effects of globalisation described above must be weighed against each other according to the hedonic calculus. For example, globalisation has lifted millions of people out of poverty (e.g. in China since 1970), but also concentrated wealth among a small group of companies and people leading to increased inequality. If the pleasures outweigh the pains, then utilitarianism would say globalisation is morally good.

Sexual ethics looks at ethical issues in sexual and romantic relationships. The particular issues mentioned on the syllabus are premarital sex, extramarital sex , and homosexuality .

The syllabus also mentions how all the ethical theories above may be applied to sexual ethics. As some of these ethical theories are religious in nature (i.e. natural law and situation ethics), a related issue to the extent to which religious ideas about ethics should inform laws and attitudes towards sex in an increasingly secular society. Another issue mentioned on the syllabus is whether sexual behaviours should be treated as entirely private or whether they should be subject to social norms and legislation.

Premarital and extramarital sex

Premarital sex

Premarital sex  is when you have sex with someone before you are married to them.

Attitudes to premarital sex have changed over time. Religious teachings generally forbid premarital sex and these teachings influenced historical social attitudes. For example, a few decades ago, it was common to describe cohabiting couples who weren’t married as ‘living in sin’. But nowadays, religious attitudes are less influential and it’s more common than not for couples to move in together before getting married.

Ethical issues surrounding premarital sex:

• Differences in degree: ‘Premarital sex’ covers everything from one night stands with random people right up to sex between a committed couple who’ve been together for years but just aren’t married. Are all instances of premarital sex the same, ethically?
• Pregnancy: Before the pill, sexual encounters carried a higher risk of pregnancy so women may have been more likely to demand the commitment of marriage before sex so as not to be left to raise the child alone.
• Sexually transmitted diseases: Having sex with a single partner reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections. However, condoms have reduced this risk of premarital sex to some degree.

Extramarital sex

Extramarital sex  is when you have sex with someone who isn’t your husband/wife when you are already married.

Although some religious cultures permit men to have multiple wives (e.g. David and Solomon had multiple wives in the Old Testament), religious teachings generally forbid extramarital sex. For example, one of the 10 commandments is “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Despite a general decline in religious belief, societal attitudes towards extramarital sex have remained generally negative. This consistent attitude may have a biological basis related to paternity and raising children.

Ethical issues surrounding extramarital sex:

• Cheating: Is extramarital sex ethically worse than cheating on a long-term partner who you are not married to?
• Open marriages: Is extramarital sex ethically permissible if both partners agree to an open marriage?

Ethical theories applied to premarital and extramarital sex

Natural law applied to premarital and extramarital sex.

In general, natural law argues against premarital and extramarital sex:

• 4 tiers of law:  The natural law is below divine law in this hierarchy. On the issue of extramarital sex, one of the 10 commandments in the Bible is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14), which suggests extramarital sex is wrong according to natural law. On the issue of premarital sex, although there are no Bible verses that condemn it specifically , there are many verses arguing against ‘sexual immorality’ and ‘fornication’ (e.g. Galatians 5:19) and so premarital sex is also wrong according to natural law.
• The precepts:  One of the five primary precepts is reproduction . A lot of natural law (and Catholic) thinking on sexual ethics is based on this – that sex should only be between a married couple and, as Pope Paul VI says, “retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” . The precepts of ordering of society and education of children may also inform sexual ethics regarding extramarital and premarital sex, as marriage provides stability and structure for children.

Situation ethics applied to premarital and extramarital sex

As always, what Fletcher’s situation ethics says depends on the situation . Fletcher rejects legalism and as such there are no absolute rules regarding premarital or extramarital sex:

• Agape applied to premarital sex : Situation ethics demands we do the most loving thing, which is not necessarily the same thing as the most pleasurable thing (i.e. utilitarianism). As such, Fletcher may draw a distinction between premarital sex between a committed couple who are in love and casual sex between two people who are just having sex for pleasure .
• Agape applied to extramarital sex : In general, extramarital sex would not be the most loving thing to do. However, Fletcher acknowledges various situations where it would be morally acceptable. For example, he describes the situation of a married woman in a prison camp during a war who deliberately gets pregnant by one of the guards in order to be released from the prison camp and return to her family.

Deontological ethics applied to premarital and extramarital sex

Kant would argue against extramarital sex:

• Second formulation of the categorical imperative : A marriage is a promise to remain faithful to your partner (among other things). Kant argues that to break a promise is to treat the person we made the promise to as a means rather than an end and as such violates the humanity formula of the categorical imperative. As such, extramarital sex is morally wrong according to Kant.
• First formulation of the categorical imperative : Further, Kant may argue that if extramarital sex were made a universal law, then the very concept of marriage (as an exclusive agreement between two people) would become meaningless. As such, extramarital sex violates the universal law formulation too.

Kant also argues against premarital sex too, on the grounds that it means using another person (and yourself) solely for their body and objectifies them, which ‘degrades humanity’. His reasoning for this is a bit convoluted:

• Kant’s response: Because in marriage the partners give each other their entire “person, body and soul” and not just the sexual aspect. This leads to “a union of human beings” that does not degrade their humanity and objectify them.

Utilitarianism applied to premarital and extramarital sex

In general, utilitarianism permits both premarital and extramarital sex:

• Hedonic calculus applied to premarital sex : Sex is pleasurable, and so utilitarianism would generally have no issue with premarital sex. There are obvious exceptions to this, however, such as rape, as well as consideration of longer-term consequences, such as the pleasures and pains of any offspring that results from sex.
• Hedonic calculus applied to extramarital sex : With utilitarianism, there are no rules or principles over and above pleasure, and so no rules against extramarital sex. In calculating whether an act of extramarital sex is right or wrong, a person must weigh their pleasure from extramarital sex against their spouse’s pain at being cheated on. An obvious way to reduce this pain is to lie to your partner and say you didn’t cheat on them.

Homosexuality

Both attitudes and the law with regards to homosexuality have changed over time. In the UK, homosexual sex was a criminal offence until 1967. In 2005, the law was changed to allow civil partnerships between same-sex couples and in 2014 this was extended to full marriage rights.

Religious teachings generally forbid homosexuality. For example, Leviticus 18:22 says: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Historically, social attitudes towards homosexuality have been similarly negative. However, modern secular culture generally makes no distinction between the ethics of heterosexual and homosexual sex. These changing social attitudes may have influenced religious attitudes, with modern religious teachings being generally more tolerant of homosexuality than in the past.

Ethical issues surrounding homosexuality:

• Tolerance of homophobia: To what extent should secular cultures tolerate religious views that say homosexuality is wrong?
• Marriage: If marriage is a religious institution, is it ethical (or even possible) for homosexual couples to marry?
• Children: Although homosexual couples can’t (naturally) produce children, is it ethical for them to adopt children?

Ethical theories applied to homosexuality

Natural law applied to homosexuality.

In general, natural law would argue against homosexuality:

• 4 tiers of law: The natural law is below divine law in this hierarchy. And, given the Bible says things such as “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22), this suggests homosexuality is wrong according to natural law.
• The precepts: One of the five primary precepts is reproduction . The fact that homosexual couples cannot (naturally) produce children is another reason why homosexual sex might be considered wrong according to natural law.

Situation ethics applied to homosexuality

In general, Fletcher’s situation ethics says homosexuality is morally acceptable:

• Agape : The guiding principle of situation ethics is agape/love for one’s neighbour and this takes precedence over legalistic adherence to rules (such as Leviticus 18:22). It is hard to envisage many situations where rejecting homosexuality is the most loving thing to do.
• Relativism and personalism : A related notion is Fletcher’s principle of relativism; the rejection of absolute rules such as “homosexuality is wrong”. Instead, Fletcher argues for personalism; the idea that moral value comes from people , rather than rules .
• Propositions 2 and 6 : Similarly, propositions 2 and 6 reject laws (e.g. “homosexuality is wrong”) in favour of the general principle of love applied to the specific details of the situation.

Deontological ethics applied to homosexuality

In general, Kant and deontological ethics are against homosexuality:

• Categorical imperative : We cannot will that everybody be homosexual as a universal law because then the human race would die out. A such, homosexuality fails the first formulation and is morally wrong.

Utilitarianism applied to homosexuality

In general, utilitarianism supports homosexuality:

• Hedonic calculus : With utilitarianism, there are no rules or principles over and above pleasure and so if someone is attracted to the same sex, and find having sex with them pleasurable, then there is no reason why homosexuality would be morally different to heterosexuality.

The ethical theories above – natural law , situation ethics , deontological ethics , and utilitarianism – all take it for granted that moral properties – i.e. ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – are things that exist. They take these moral properties to give rise to moral facts , such as “stealing is wrong”. However, metaethics  drills down into what moral properties actually are and whether they even exist.

Moral realist theories say mind-independent moral properties and facts do exist:

• Naturalism says mind-independent moral properties are natural properties that can be known a posteriori using observation. 
• Intuitionism also says mind-independent moral properties exist, but says they are non-natural properties that can only be known using a priori intuition.

In contrast, moral anti-realist theories say mind-independent moral properties and facts do not exist:

• Emotivism says there are no such things as mind-independent moral properties, and so no moral facts either. Instead, moral statements are non-cognitive expressions of emotion. 

For a more in-depth explanation, see the ethical naturalism notes for AQA philosophy.

Moral naturalism is a realist theory; it says that mind-independent moral properties (such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’) do exist. More specifically, naturalism says these moral properties are natural properties and so moral facts (such as “stealing is wrong”) can be known by making a posteriori observations of the world.

Examples of naturalist ethical theories we’ve looked at above are:

• Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is meta-ethically naturalist because it says good = pleasure and bad = pain. Pleasure and pain are natural and observable properties and so good and bad are also natural and observable properties.
• Natural law: Aquinas’ theory of natural law is meta-ethically naturalist because it says there are natural (God-given) facts about a thing’s purpose/telos and that what is good is for a thing to achieve this purpose/telos. By observing the world, we can understand our telos and thus what is good and bad.

All forms of moral naturalism are cognitivist ; they say there are true moral statements, such as “stealing is wrong”. What makes this moral statement true or false depends on whether the act of stealing has the natural property of wrongness.

Intuitionism

For a more in-depth explanation, see the ethical non-naturalism notes for AQA philosophy. Like naturalism above, intuitionism is also a realist theory; it agrees that mind-independent moral properties (such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’) do exist. However, where naturalism says these properties are natural properties that can be known through a posteriori observation, intuitionism says moral properties are not part of the natural/physical world and can only be known using a priori intuition.

G.E. Moore argues for intuitionism. He argues that ethical naturalism commits the naturalistic fallacy (see AQA notes here for more detail) of reducing moral properties (e.g. good) to natural properties (e.g. pleasure) when, in reality, moral properties are basic and cannot be reduced to anything simpler. Moore draws an analogy between moral properties and the colour yellow: You can’t explain what yellow is by breaking it down into something simpler – you just have to show someone something yellow. Likewise, you can’t explain what ‘wrongness’ is by breaking it down into simpler, natural, properties – you have to give an example (e.g. torturing an innocent person).

However, if moral properties are not part of the natural world, this raises the question of how we know about them since it’s not like we can observe them like we can ordinary natural properties. Moore’s answer is a priori intuition : The fact that “torturing innocent people is wrong” is just self-evidently true when we reflect and think about it.

Note that intuitionism is also cognitivist ; it says that moral statements are capable of being true (or false). The reason why the statement “torturing innocent people is wrong” is true is because the act of torturing innocent people has the non-natural property of ‘wrongness’.

For a more in-depth explanation, see the emotivism notes for AQA philosophy.

Whereas naturalism and intuitionism are moral realist theories, emotivism is anti-realist . This means emotivists believe that mind-independent moral properties (e.g. ‘good’, ‘wrong’) don’t actually exist.

Instead, according to emotivism, moral statements (e.g. “murder is wrong”), are not descriptions of properties of the world but are actually non-cognitive expressions of emotion . This means moral statements are neither true or false.

Emotivism is sometimes referred to as boo-hooray theory . When football fans cheer when their team scores, for example, it’s not like they are describing the world in a way that is true or false. Instead, they’re just expressing their happiness that their team scored. Similarly, for emotivists, saying “giving money to charity is good” is like cheering for giving money to charity. Saying “Stealing is wrong” is like saying “ Boooo! Stealing!” and expressing your disapproval.

Our conscience is the inner voice that tells us something is morally right or wrong. It makes us feel guilty when we do something bad and feel happy when we do something good. The syllabus looks at 2 different explanations of conscience:

• Aquinas says our conscience is because we are made in God’s image with the ability to use reason  to work out what’s right and wrong.
• Freud says our conscience has a purely psychological explanation that can be explained without God. 

Aquinas’ theological approach

As described above , right and wrong are a matter of natural law for Aquinas. And Aquinas explains our conscience as the result of ratio: Our ability to use reason to work out what this natural law is. He breaks conscience down into 2 components: Synderesis and conscientia .

According to Aquinas, we have this capacity to reason (i.e. ratio) about right and wrong because we are made in God’s image. So, this is a theological explanation of conscience.

Synderesis is our natural habit or capacity towards what is morally good. If you remember the main precept above – to do good and avoid evil – this in some sense built in to our nature, says Aquinas. Just as plants have a natural inclination to grow towards the sun in accordance with their telos , so too do human beings have a natural inclination to behave morally and act in accordance with natural law. Aquinas describes synderesis as “the law of our mind”.

Conscientia

But synderesis doesn’t mean we automatically have perfect knowledge of right and wrong. Synderesis means we generally tend towards good, but we may be conflicted or confused as to how this actually translates to practical situations like euthanasia or extramarital sex . This is where conscientia is needed.

Conscientia is the use of reason (ratio) to work out what is right and wrong in practical situations. In the case of euthanasia, we may use conscientia to reason that euthanasia violates the primary precept of preservation of life and is thus morally wrong.  So, for Aquinas, conscience is a process of reasoning ( similar to how Fletcher describes conscience as a verb above ) rather than some inner voice that automatically tells us what’s right.

We may sometimes make mistakes in our moral reasoning/conscientia. However, Aquinas says we must always follow our conscience regardless. To act against your conscience – even if the end result turns out to be the right thing – is a sin because it is to choose an action you believe to be wrong.

Vincible and invincible ignorance

Aquinas distinguishes between two types of mistake that lead to immoral behaviour:

• For example, a man may reason that it is morally acceptable to cheat on his wife because he confuses the apparent good of his pleasure with the real good of his marriage. This is his fault because it is within his power to use conscientia to work out what the correct moral rule is but doesn’t.
• For example, a man cheats on his wife because she has an identical twin sister who tricks him into thinking she’s his wife. This is not his fault because he has reasoned correctly about the moral rules concerning adultery and has acted according to his conscience, but has made a mistake due to something outside his control.

Freud’s psychological approach

Whereas Aquinas sees our conscience as something grounded in God, Freud rejects the existence of God as a man-made idea. Instead, Freud explains our conscience in purely psychological terms.

Freud’s psychological theory emphasises the role of the unconscious mind . Different parts of the mind have different goals and desires. Our conscience is one part of our personality ( the superego ) that develops during the phallic psychosexual stage of development. However, the superego/conscience often comes into conflict with other parts of our personality.

Structure of personality: Id, Ego, and Superego

Freud saw personality as consisting of 3 parts: The id , the ego , and the superego . These 3 parts of personality have competing demands that often come into conflict with each other.

Our id is only concerned with pleasure and so wants to indiscriminately have sex with attractive people and kill annoying people, for example. But this obviously isn’t a suitable way to behave. As children, our parents and society tell us that such behaviours are morally wrong , which teaches us an ideal standard of behaviour that becomes our superego or conscience.

The ego is the part of the mind we are most consciously aware of. It sits between the id and the superego, balancing their competing demands. When we give in to our id and behave badly, the superego punishes the ego by creating feelings of guilt .

And so, according to Freud, our conscience/superego is just a product of our upbringing – parents, society, etc. – rather than a reflection of moral reality or God.

Psychosexual development

According to Freud, psychological development in childhood involves progressing through 5 psychosexual stages : 1. Oral, 2. Anal, 3. Phallic, 4. Latency, and 5. Genital. It is during the phallic stage (between 3-5 years of age) where the superego /conscience develops.

This is where the theory gets wild. The specifics differ between girls ( Electra Complex ) and boys ( Oedipus Complex ), but the general pattern during the phallic stage is:

• Boys develop sexual desire for their mothers
• Girls develop 1. A desire to have a penis (penis envy) and 2. A desire for their father (as he has what she wants – a penis)
• The boy wants to kill his father so he can have his mother for himself
• The girl 1. Thinks the reason she doesn’t have a penis is because her mother took it, and 2. Sees her mother as competition for her father’s love
• For boys this is because they fear their father will find out about their sexual desire for the mother and castrate them
• For girls this is because they also love their mothers and fear losing her love
• The child resolves these feelings of anxiety by identifying with their same-sex parent
• Identifying with the same-sex parent means accepting and internalising their moral values
• This forms the superego/conscience

<< Paper 1: Philosophy of Religion

Paper 3: developments in religious thought >>>.

rsrevision.com/ethical theory

• Theory in detail
• Applied ethics

Find out more

Test yourself.

• Games and Quizzes

Exam practice

• You may get asked to explain Kant's theory, or an aspect of it.
• You may be required to evaluate the theory or compare it to another theory.
• You may be asked to apply Kant's theory to one of the issues studied.

Have a look at 'Evaluating the Theories' and TICKETs (pdfs), as well as each of the ethical theories on War (AS) and the Environment (A2) .

• Explain the main aims of Kant's ethical theory. [25]
• 'Kant's idea of universalisation does not work in practice.' Discuss. [10]
• Explain how the various formulations of the Categorical Imperative might be applied to an ethical issue. [25]
• 'The Categorical Imperative has no serious weaknesses.' Discuss. [10]
• Explain, with examples, the importance Kant placed upon doing one’s duty. [25]
• To what extent is doing one’s duty the most important part of ethics? [10]
• Explain the differences between the Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives. [25]
• How useful is Kant's theory when considering embryo research? [10]
• Explain Kant's argument for using the Categorical Imperative. [25]
• 'The universalisation of maxims by Kant cannot be defended.' Discuss. [10]

The following question was from June 2010 :

• Explain how a follower of Kantian ethics might approach issues surrounding the right to a child. [25]
• 'The right to a child is an absolute.' Discuss. [10]

This question was from June 2009 :

• Explain the strengths of Kant's theory of ethics. [25]
• 'Kant's theory of ethics is not a useful approach to abortion.' Discuss. [10]

This question was from the January 2009 AS Ethics paper :

Explain, with examples, Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative.

‘Kant’s theory has no serious weaknesses.’ Discuss.

This question was from the OCR Website :

Explain Kant’s theory of duty.

• To what extent is Kant’s ethical theory a good approach to human embryo research?

(a) Explain what Kant meant by ‘the Categorical Imperative’. [33] (b) Assess critically Kant’s claims about the Categorical Imperative. [17]

(taken from the OCR website )

(a) 'People should always do their duty.' Explain how Kant understood this concept. [33] (b) 'The use of the Categorical Imperative makes no room for compassionate treatment of women who want abortions.' Discuss. [17]

Evaluate the argument that Kant’s moral theory could not support the idea of voluntary euthanasia.

We now have an interactive diagram showing how to answer an ethics exam question, The 'structure' of the paragraph will be different for 'ethical theory' questions, but the basic principles are the same. Try filling it in yourself and print out the completed diagram.

lauren's A level religious studies revision

all of my A level revision for the religious studies 2016 OCR spec x

example essays master post

*long post alert*

hi! i finished this course over a year ago now but someone commented asking me to post some example essays, so i thought that might be helpful seeing as this blog seems to get only more busy!

now i want to clarify a few things. first, i accidentally deleted a lot of my files about a month before the exam and subsequently i don’t have a lot of my essays (luckily, making this website was all the revision i needed, so no harm to my grade!), thus, apologies for the sparse topics covered. second, a lot of my essays are on paper/printed and then graded, and i don’t have the physical copies with me at uni, so the grades are a mystery, apologies again! i might in future find them and extend this post.

tl,dr; these essays don’t cover many topics and i don’t know my marks(yet!)!

also, obviously, DO NOT PLAGIARISE or TAKE THESE AS YOUR OWN WORK!

kant / christian moral principles / conscience / natural law / kantian ethics and globalisation (business ethics) / sexual ethics: gender roles / developments in christian thought: heaven and hell / sexual ethics: extra marital sex / dietrich bonhoeffer / meta-ethics

i hope this helps !

“Kant’s Categorical Imperative is good in theory but does not work in practice” Discuss.

      For Kant, morality should work through a deontological system which expresses moral rules through non-hypothetical imperatives or commands of reason. He focuses on duty, and to calculate what a duty might be, he developed a system called the Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative ensures that each individual partakes in the moral decision making, being autonomous and free and having the ability to use reason. Kant believed every human had this ability to reason only by being a human, and that this was what gave us our dignity and value. This means his moral system is a non-discriminate one which does not consider how rich or poor you are, or what job out have but instead allows you to use a lucid, unambiguous method to test a possible moral action. This is a good basis for a moral theory, yet there are many issues with this even as a basic platform for a theory. The theory asks us to go against human nature. It ignores that emotions are a prevalent human quality, and asks us to ignore our natural thoughts about the consequences of any action we perform. This is the opposite to how human brains intrinsically function. Although duty is a strong reason to perform moral actions, we perform duty out of sympathy and love for our fellow man. Jürgen Habermas argued that in our modern society, reasoning is almost always in a hypothetical context. He stated, “..we all think about how to achieve certain ends, while the ends in themselves are not subject to rational assessment.” Kant asks us to abandon this natural conduct and adopt a more clinical, non-emotional approach to morality. We do not judge by what is wrong or right, but by what can be logically applied categorically. If we can apply it universally, it’s moral; if not, it is not moral. An example of where this falls down is that if you ignore the sick and suffering since this does not violate logic or reason, nor would it if it was universalised. This follows Kant’s categorical imperative, but we as humans know this is not moral and is fundamentally wrong. To obey the categorical imperative we must ignore our presuppositions about what is moral. So as a theory, the categorical imperative has a good basis, but when applied practically in can become thoroughly inhuman.

      Georg Hegel focused on Kant’s Law of Nature, the idea that the maxim you are abiding by should be morally acceptable even if it was universalised. Hegel argued this formula “is reduced to empty formalism, and moral science is converted into mere rhetoric about duty for duty’s sake.” He means to say that it does not offer any obvious guideline for moral conduct, not any specific duties to follow, so Kant tells us the right kind of action but not what to do specifically. Hegel felt that the categorical imperative is a ‘moral litmus test’ based on whether there is a contradiction. Kant’s theory is rational and logical, but when it comes down to practicality it is somewhat lacking. Hegel also argued that Kant paced too little value on the role of community. It is an organic culture not just crowd of individuals, and ignoring this makes this strength of universalisability into a weakness as he ignores the value of our interpersonal relationships which we involve heavily in our moral decisions. In defence of Kant, it is important not to forget the difference between how an abstract statement appears and how it is applied to reality. An abstract statement such as “do not harm others” brings issues of what harm is defined as, and how serious that harm has to be to be classified as morally wrong. For other actions which Kant doesn’t specifically address, they can be seen as involving external contradictions. Murder may be wrong not because it is wrong, but because it goes against our rational duty to respect human life. 

      Arthur Schopenhauer argued that you can reduce the categorical imperative to the principle that “I should not do to others what I do not want done to myself.”, and that this is at its core an egoistic principle. He believes that human behaviours are motivated either by sympathy or by egoism. If it is genuine then it is sympathetic, he argues, and Kant denied the involvement of this emotion in your conduct since he believed it was too unreliable. This means according to Schopenhauer that use of the categorical imperative is driven by egoism in terms of universalisation — it will benefit self. In other terms, he is saying that morality is based on an egotistic want for well-being, which is universalised into a principle for everyone else’s well-being. This, he says, is sufficient for establishing laws or regulation of public behaviour, but not for moral obligations beyond these laws. To help people in need more than we already do requires sympathy, egoism is not enough. That being said, Kant only rejects the concept of direct personal sympathy, a sympathy that may infer a bias or discrimination, not the humanitarian definition of sympathy. Although reason does not directly mean I sympathise, it instructs a generalised sympathy for the whole human race. The categorical imperative also treats humans as ends and Kant focuses strongly on their dignity and value by enforcing anti-exploitation in his formulations. To combat Schopenhauer then we must accept sympathy as a more general concept and Kant’s theory remains intact, however, it is very hard to ignore other versions of sympathy which are natural human instincts.

      Kant’s categorical imperative has a good notion of human value and is rational and logical, which creates a positive basis for any moral theory. It provides tools to make unambiguous decisions independent of external authority, and produces positive moral decisions overall — but there are footfalls and loopholes. The theory works against natural human responses and this theory as many other theories can be twisted to permit or excuse evil acts. In a practical application sense, it can be complicated to apply in concrete situations, besides, it can also be complicated to find maxims which pass through the categorical imperative in the first place.

christian moral principles

“The Bible is the only authority for Christian ethics.” Discuss. 

To use an entirely theonomous approach to Christian ethics is ignorant of the true nature of Christianity, and can lead to immoral action or judgement through human error or misinterpretation of an ancient text. Although the Bible is an authority for Christian ethics, it should never be used alone or judged by just one person with little true understanding.

Saint Paul and Saint Augustine both argued strongly that as a result of the fall and consequent human nature, human beings are not alone able to judge how to best live our lives alone. For Christians, the way to live a good and proper life must be revealed from God. To some Christians the most direct source of God’s word is found in the Bible, and they follow this biblicist approach because the Bible is said to be infallible. In the Bible in the book of Timothy it states that “all scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching”, showing that because God is the author the Bible is the only true source of advice. This also leads to idea that the problem of misinterpretation is with us an humans, not the text. The problem with this is that it leads to wrongful actions supported by humans flouting badly read Bible verses as defence. An example of this is the Bible focussed Liberation theology in the 1960s, when priests interpreted Jesus’ message as one of political freedom fighting, instead of peace and inner freedom from sin, and joined Guerrilla armies in his name. This is not Christian ethical behaviour, as Jesus is seen many times being openly pacifist, and their heavy reliance on Biblical interpretation has lead to war. Another issue with biblicism is literalism, when ethical advice is taken at afce value. An example of this is Jesus’ advice, “If your right eye causes you to sin tear it out and throw it away!” in the New Testament. Taken literally this is a dangerous message, instead of the reminder of seeing things the right way and calling for repentance. Karl Barth convincingly said that this approach to the Bible falsely gives it a divine status. He reminded Christians that the Bible is a witness to the wORd, not the Word itself. A limited understanding of Bible interpretation, as the anger Christian has, is a dangerous approach to Christian ethics. As Friedrich Schleiemacher wrote, “The vocabulary and the history of the era of an author relate as the whole from which his writings must be understood”. If the Bible alone is used as an authority for Christian ethics, often context is forgotten and actions are undertaken that end in ill consequences. Other opinions are needed, as seen in a heteronomous approach. 

One of the most convincing reasons to acknowledge the Bible, but refer to other sources to be certain about Christian ethics, is the problem of contradiction. The shift in tone between the Old and New Testaments in the over-reaching problem with Biblicism, and it is not easily reconciled. The most controversial topic within this contrast is that or violence and war. The Old Testament allows retributive justice, known as the Lex Talionis or “eye for an eye”. This is seen even from God, who lays out justice as permission of capital punishment for those who commit sins such as adultery, blasphemy, or dishonour to parents. Israelites are even permitted by God to kill foreign women and children. However in the New Testament, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount breaks this teaching and replaces it with a message of reconciliation. Augustine and Luther claim there is a necessity for war in this imperfect world, and Jesus’ teachings are in reference to the Kingdom of God, but other leaders such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi argued for Jesus’ vision of pacifism is for our world and is most important. Jesus’ revision of this old law is a problem because his vision is pacifism is central to his teachings, but contrasts so strongly. Which version of God’s authoritative voice are they supposed to listen to in an ethical problem on war? To fully overcome this issue and reconcile these differences, and even to follow Christian ethics, Christians need more than just the Bible, but discussion, debate and even a following of the moral God-given conscience.

I would argue a more balanced and sensible approach to Christian ethics comes through a heteronomous approach, using more than one source of Christian authority. The continuance of Christian tradition has come through it’s leaders, church officials and the ongoing debates about the place of Biblical advice in our modern society, especially on new issues such as IVF, or same sex marriage. Issues such as these did not exist in Biblical times, so using the Bible alone is useless. In Catholicism, there is a reliance on Church authority and the tradition of Aquinas’ Natural Law. The authority Catholics mostly turn to is the Magisterium, a group of bishops who interpret the Bible for modern understanding, a better way than relying on your own limited ability to do this. The importance of Natural Law comes from the St Paul quote that even normal people can act according to their conscience and have the law “written on their hearts”. The Thomas approach says humans have an innate ability to act morally according to God’s eternal law, and our own Natural law, through synderesis we have an innate sense of morality. I would argue that this is much more reliable than biblicism, as Christian teaching reminds us we are made in the image of God and therefore have some kind of God-given instincts. In Protestantism, Stanley Hauerwas supports these same ideas, arguing that we are ‘resident aliens’ and must be a Christian community that questions and adapts old laws. He argues that the Sermon on the Mount is also part of the Jewish tradition of growing with new laws and values. 

I would argue that Christians should understand that ethics will change based on the issues arising within our continually changing society. Using the Bible alone as an authority can be dangerous and confusing, and reliance on other sources of authority such as the Magisterium for Catholics or the Church community and conscience, is the best approach for a moral and good life. 

“Conscience is just the super-ego.” Discuss.

Conscience is something which is complicated and indefinite, only having a vague definition of being a ‘sense of wrong and right’ or a ‘moral guide to one’s behaviour in terms of both emotion and reason’. I would argue that minimising or specifying this definition any further is damaging to the concept of it that we each have, because conscience is a personally subjective part of our identity, and therefore saying that conscience is solely the super-ego as proposed by Freud is a severe misunderstanding of it’s complexity.

Sigmund Freud developed his ideas on conscience in a way that differs from theologian/philosophical ideas and in summary argues that the conscience is socially and psychologically created to prevent us from carrying out basic desires based on societal norms. He rejected the idea that conscience is religious in terms of being god-given or soul-driven. He argues instead we notice the conscience through guilt. He organises it into three distinct parts: the id, which deals with physical needs and other desires; the super-ego, which begins as a blank state at birth and takes on influences which create a moral code; the ego, which is a middle ground between the two and aims to placate the id in a more socially acceptable manner. Freud also rejects the idea that the conscience uses reason, which I would argue is a weakness of his argument because surely we should follow our reason for our behaviour, so there must be a better source of reason to follow. He does, however, strongly argue that the conscience is individually subjective which compensates for the weaknesses of other scholars arguments, such as Thomas Aquinas and Joseph Butler. Freud’s description of the conscience strongly argues that the conscience is not just the super ego but a tri-fold system that has different roles. 

Other scholars built on his work and developed their own versions of how they believed the conscience functioned. One of these is Jean Piaget whose opinion on conscience lined up with Freud’s in terms of religion and character, but he splits it into two types of conscience, immature and mature. The immature conscience is the childhood guilt for being told off because we seek approval, and is consequentialist. After age 11, we develop our mature conscience which is outward-looking and functions in a more autonomous manner. This is a logical argument but I would argue it makes a distinction that is not necessarily true, because of course our conscience develops, but not everyone’s will suddenly change at 11, it is a blurred line between the two and easier just to call it ‘the developmental conscience,’ or similar. Another is Erich Fromm who argued that we have an authoritarian conscience which is ruled by disobeying, punishment and resulting guilt. He uses the example of Nazi Germany, in which consciences were manipulated to make German citizens feel guilty if they helped the Jews. I would argue that this makes sense to us as humans, because we are less likely to do something if we know we will be feel guilty, and we learn what is right and wrong via our feelings of guilt. This would support the idea that the conscience is just the super ego, because it works with the societal input only, and the feelings as a result. 

Thomas Aquinas’s version of the conscience is far removed from this, and is at odds with the idea of a super-ego existing at all. He called the conscience “the faculty of reason making moral decisions”, and described it int he common christian manner that it is the natural, god-given ability to see right form wrong. He naively said that everyone aims to be good and to avoid evil, which is a harsh weakness to this argument for two reasons: we cannot easily define what ‘good’ is, and is it true that all people aim to be good? He argues that it too has three main parts: ratio which is practical use of reason, synderesis which is infallible tendency towards acting on the good and consciencia which distinguishes the good from bad to make a moral decision. He acknowledges that the consciencia has a tendency to err, which he argues is due to incorrect use of synderesis. This is a weakness of his argument because if synderesis is infallible, how can it make a mistake? Despite this, Aquinas still maintains that “it is always right to follow your conscience.” because it is god-given and the best tool we have to be guided by. I would argue that this is a heavily religious interpretation and relies on a faith to make sense, but beyond this it is an unfamiliar version of what we experience in a situation. Conscience as only the super-ego, I would argue, makes more sense to us.

A weaker argument along the same lines comes from Joseph Butler, who refers to conscience as “our natural guide” and a “principle of reflection.” He says it is our final moral decision maker and is god-given, and should always be followed. A stronger point that he makes is this the conscience is automatic and unconscious , saying it “magisterially exerts itself without being consulted” which is something I would argue does make sense, because conscience is not something that can be controlled or ‘turned off’. The rest of his argument is, however, variations of unconvincing. He says it is a perfect balance between benevolence and self-love, which is the same problem as Aquinas, but further to this he argues that it is completely infallible. He believes it is directly from God and therefore cannot make mistakes. There are a multitude of issues with this, the most obvious being that human beings evidently do make mistakes. Butler’s version of conscience says that people only make mistakes by actively ignoring their conscience which, he argues, is worse than. This means if a paedophile abused a child, Butler would argue that the paedophile disobeying his conscience is a worse crime than him/her abusing the child. From a 21st century perspective this is extremely questionable and almost forgives horrific acts. Similarly, John Henry Newman argues that our conscience is a “messenger from God” and literally God’s word, influenced by the work of Augustine who said that our conscience is God whispering to us. I would argue that this is illogical because it requires the metaphysical to actively participate in the physical, which is entirely unfeasible.  

It is not entirely unfair to say that the conscience is just the super-ego, but it does limit somewhat what the conscience is capable of. There are more aspects to the conscience that only that of the super-ego, and I am more inclined to agree with Freud’s definitions than those of other scholars because I would argue that it is the most convincing and accessible to us, without requiring a faith basis.

natural law

‘The strengths of natural law outweigh its weaknesses’. Discuss.

In ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, Aristotle stated that ‘everything is created with a particular purpose in mind’. During the 13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas developed Aristotle’s idea of human life leading towards the final end of eudaimonia, or ’flourishing’, and he assimilated them along with Christian values. More simply, it is the law who’s content is set by nature and is therefore universal. Aquinas focused heavily on Aristotle’s idea of purpose, or Telos, and intended Natural law to be a straightforward guide to reaching each individual’s telos. 

The most convincing strength of Natural law is that it is practical and rational, and based on morals which make sense to any majority of people. James W. Rachels, an American philosopher who specialised in ethics, argues that “natural law suggests morality is autonomous”, meaning that morality in humans works on its own, without people needing to be reminded to act morally on a daily basis. Natural law’s use of reason means it is easily applicable in fields of sexual ethics, such as the purpose of sex, in more governmental areas such as what to base laws on, and in almost all judicial matters, where the five primary precepts claim a basis to all laws. However, Aquinas seemed to ignore the issue of individuality and dictates that human nature is inherently the same, or more accurately that it agrees with his own nature. In their book, the Puzzle of Ethics, Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch argue that Aquinas’s view of human nature is too simplistic, which hinders the basic application of his theory. They highlighted natural law’s incapacity to be applied in individual moral problems. For example, in accordance with natural law, we should persecute homosexuality as it goes against the primary precept of reproduction, but with rising numbers of non-heterosexuality, and the presence of homosexuality in animals, is this truly an unnatural phenomenon? 

Where natural law also apparently excels in it’s rigid nature. The rules it dictates are still valid irrespective of our current emotions or thought. If everyone considered, using reason, the nature of what is right and what is wrong, we would all come to similar conclusions. This is proved by way of the similar law codes created by countries that were not able to communicate, and the primary precepts are all present in each country. Nevertheless, immoral outcomes come into play 

when the rules are followed too strictly. The most powerful example is when contraception was banned according to natural law, since the purpose of sex is reproduction, leading to the spread of AIDS in an overpopulated Africa. This outcome opposes eudaimonia, leading instead to suffering. The rigid truth of natural law does not allow for flexibility or balance. This is prevalent in the case of abortion, the precept of defending the innocent is put to use, but the Doctrine of Double Effect must be used to bend the rules in order to save the life of a mother, instead of allowing for a loving solution as situation ethics might ask for. 

There is a view that is it a strength of nature law that it focuses of human virtues and excellence. It promote the cardinal value of justice, prudence and temperance. It shines a good light on human nature, and it’s potential to do good, rather than determining the nature on the rightness of an action. This can definitely give an appeal to natural law, since we prefer to focus on the positive side of human nature. But this is a weak argument, since human nature is so far from the way we truly are, given humans’ propensity for war, exploitation, misuse of sex, antisocial indulgence and a preference to waste time than to be productive. Aquinas’ view of human nature is too optimistic. Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th century CE) believed in original sin, which is to that that is it within our nature to do wrong, since the Fall of Man. Aquinas’ synderesis rule, that humans have a “tendency to do good and avoid evil”, comes off as idealistic and general. It also conflicts with Freud’s theory that natural selfishness comes from upbringing and socialisation. This is a severe weakness of natural law since it is based on empirical evidence of human nature, which is revealed to be almost completely wrong.

An important feature of natural law is that allows the individual to use reason to work out for themselves what is right and what is not, without needing to rely on some kind of religious scripture of tradition. Aquinas’ view of reason being a tool for moral understanding and his interpretation of common nature for all people gives a universality to natural law that goes beyond a religion or cultural basis. But again, his view of human nature was skewed, and so it fall short when it comes to  how we are and how we act it not necessarily being how we ought to be or how we should be. Although it is clear that sex produces children, it does not mean sex should only be engaged in for that purpose alone. Facts and value should be kept separate. G.E Moore said that good cannot be defined through nature, it is a naturalistic fallacy. Good is an not an analysable concept, and the naturalistic fallacy comes when we change the “is to an “ought”. 

It is clear to me that the strengths of natural law are based around the fact that is it an absolute deontological view of morality, with rules based in simple observation of humans. The weaknesses heavily outweigh the strengths, since Aquinas has not revolutionised anything, but summarised us as humans and placed in it a moral code in order to remind us of how he saw our nature in an outdated context. 

kantian ethics and globalisation (business ethics)

To what extent are Kantian Ethics useful when deciding whether globalisation is a force for good in the world?

Globalisation is defined as the process of developing a business to an international influential position and its effect on ethical issues regarding culture, politics and social areas. The effect this has on ethical decisions in term of businesses has been particularly important. In Kantian ethics, the principle of universalisibility is the most poignant one in terms of showing the immorality of business related decisions. If implicated correctly in a business’ policy it would prohibit lying, cheating and exploitation, since they could not be justified as universally allowed. Large companies such as Nike, Gap and Primark have been discovered using cheap labour in less developed foreign countries to increase profit margins. An astonishing 250 million children worldwide work in underpaid jobs; no Kantian principle can be used here to excuse this as part of a ‘force for good’. The deepest problem for Kant here would be one of duty, that an employer has a duty to their employees to respect their human value. If an employer is involved in this exploitation, they are falling short of this duty. If globalisation were to be part of a force for good, this kind of situation would have to change in several ways: the workers should have fair pay, willingly choose to work and be treated the same as a worker in any other country. The last condition would be the most important to fit in the kingdom of ends that Kant desires, that each worker should be treated as a human and without any other bias.

Milton Friedman once said that “the business of business is business”, a quote which became notorious in terms of ethical issues since it seems to excuse moral excursions for the purpose of increasing profits, while running just within the law. From a Kantian perspective, business cannot be run purely for business sake, scraping the edges of the law book so as to avoid legal trouble, since business is for and run by humans who possess a special dignity and should be treated in this way. Although this is a positive view of humans, it is also unrealistic due to the fact that businesses core purpose is money. As Joanna Rozpedowski concluded, globalisation was an economical enterprise, not an ethical one. To demand a business to disregard profits would be incredulous. However, there is also the issue of greed, which Kant inferred would lead to immoral business decisions in the name of maximising profits, including using people along the way as a means to an end. This is a useful point to reflect on in terms of globalisation, because it has been an enterprise which almost entirely uses people as a means to an end unjustly. An example of this is neo-colonialism, when a business provides a service to a smaller or less developed country as a way to generate profits. There is also the problem of process of globalisation there are other problems such as “deterritorialisation” as identified by Crane and Matten in their book “Business Ethics” (2003), where the tie between culture and a place is significantly weakened, leaving a country and its people with a lessened identity. In terms of treating humans with respect, Kantian ethics is important to realise that people are more than mere means, and in fact ends in themselves, something which globalisation has failed to do.

Despite this, Kantian ethics falls short in many other aspects in terms of globalisation. In particular the anthropocentric nature of Kant’s morality can be ignorant of other underlying problems. An example of this is the effect of globalisation in the agriculture industry on the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. The constant destruction left behind by companies going abroad to expand their companies, irrespective of the detriment to the environment is having devastating long-term effects that are completely missed by Kantian ethics as a problem. The fatal flaw, however, is how unrealistic Kantian ethics is in itself. Kant was a parochial man who developed a system that fit the moral problems he faced. It fails to acknowledge nuance in wider world situations such as business. In Kantian terms, a business has failed in its duty because it is a structure that works, as Milton Friedman said, simply for money. If we asked business to focus on their ethical duty at every turn, it would fail to be a business, and subsequently economics would fail. Furthermore, Kant’s theory is remiss to the fact that universal rules cannot determine outcomes to real world situations. A situation with one business is different from that of another, and relativist morality would be more accurate.

For Kantian ethics to prove useful in globalisation, or business in general, they would have had to have been used from the very start. This would create a world of honesty and integrity that Kant wanted for his ideal kingdom of ends. But his theory fails to recognise the complexity of real business, in which there is a central focus on money that can lead to any number of ethical issues along the way. 

sexual ethics: gender roles

“Secular views of gender equality undermine Christian gender roles.” Discuss. 

          There is no set definition for either secular or Christian gender roles. The complex modern society we live in is full of change, and every person has their own opinion on how things should be done; gender roles is an important issue within these considerations. Traditional religious roles are challenged when people, especially women, begin to think, question the patriarchy and fight for their rights and freedoms. 

         In modern days the way our social structure works is beginning to shift, and this is not an easy shift to make. Women demanding their freedom to choose for themselves has always been around, but only became a subject of serious thought around 200 years ago when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication for the Rights of Woman’ in 1792, suggesting that the patriarchy existed due to men being educated more than women. A conservative Christian may respond to this arguing that if women are educated, they will lack the desire to be mothers and our society will fall apart, but I would argue that this, evidently, is not true. What followed was several waves of feminism as women began to perceive society differently, the first focusing on rights. In 1851, Harriet Taylor laid out the arguments for this equality in ‘Enfranchisement of Women’, and since then there have been reforms in childcare, maternity leave and working hours. The second wave of the 1960s focused on the ideas that patriarchal mindset had to change before anything else could, and a key figure Betty Friedan wrote ‘The Feminine Mystique’ on her research which showed how housewives were deeply unfulfilled, and women began to realise that they all disliked their obligation to be a housewife which led to a revolution of women becoming independent and successful. Simone de Beauvoir identified the problem with women’s mindset too, which she called ‘false-consciousness’, which perpetuates the gender-typical roles of men and women. Her book, ‘The Second Sex’ make a strong argument that women have submitted and allowed themselves to live these unfulfilling lives. Her aim, to expose this problem and tell women to drop the idea of what she called ‘the eternal feminine’ traits or characteristics, has been largely followed as women are now in positions of power, in the army and in male dominated fields such as science, although the glass ceiling still stops women from proceeding further. Feminism dictates the obvious idea that the two genders should be equal, and that gender is a result of socialisation, meaning we have the ability to change how we set these gender roles. 

         All Christian roles are based on biblical teachings, mostly based in the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2, when the men and women first interacted in ‘perfect’ harmony. The view of gender roles in conservative Christianity is far removed from the fluidity and freedom of the feminists. Kathy Rudy’s investigation of these views show the influence of the Right on their opinions. It falsely believes that feminism causes family breakdown and unrealistic expectations for women. This show how these newer secular ideals of gender undermine them, because they believe they cause deep problems. They say that men and women are equal but different, having different but equally worthy roles, which isn’t necessarily true because women must still occupy a submissive position. This is that men should be the breadwinner while the woman creates a domestic haven as a mother and wife. A source of authority on gender roles for Catholic Christians is the letter titled ‘Mulieris Dignitatem’ by Pope John Paul 2 in response to the feminist backlash. It laid out the role of women and why it was significant and special, particularly in terms of Mary as the example of salvation and womanhood for birthing Christ. It responds directly to these new secular views saying that men and women are made in the image of god, so gender is not solely socialisation. Simone de Beauvoir strongly argued that motherhood is also not easy, and women have to give up their lives to raise children. Even the idea that not all women want to be mothers undermines Catholic views, as they say women intrinsically want to. This is something that Ann Oakley poignantly wrote about, that maternal instincts are not biological and cannot be expected of women, although this is a grey area. Catholics are very focused on the idea of intact families, with strictly heterosexual, nuclear family models as acceptable. Modern family structures certainly undermine this principle, as modern families come in many shapes or forms or sizes and are promoted as fully acceptable and normal.

         Liberal Christians are much more open to change and accepting of different views. They see the bible as a guide more than definitive instruction, meaning they can be readier to accept secular views. They would highlight the idea that the covenant with God is not based on gender, so each person can make their own role in society without set expectations from God discouraging them. This is based on a bible passage in Galatians about this covenant which states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” Galatians 3:28. Although motherhood is still considered and sacred, it is not an imperative. There is also no pressure to make a family because they recognise that not all people make good parents. In this way, secular feminists and liberal Christians line up, more likely to share Beauvoir’s ideas. They are also comforted by the findings found by sociologists such as Jessie Bernard who say that where children are content and secure, the family model does not matter. This is a modern view which is not undermined with secular views because they line up. In fact, liberal Christians can be as critical of restricted conservative views as secular society can be. They themselves have ideas on gender roles which undermine those of the conservative Christians.         

Without a set definition it is hard to say that any role is undermined, but I would argue that conservative Christian roles as a whole are based in deep tradition, and the rise of secular views undermines them as they are holding on to outdated views. Liberal Christian views are much more likely to be open to the realistic models of family that we find in modern society, and therefore cannot be undermined

developments in christian thought: heaven and hell

“Without the reward of heaven, Christians would have no need to behave well.” Discuss.

         Without the reward for heaven, many christian teachings become less meaningful and less useful. Much of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament is centred around the Kingdom of God, namely the Lord’s Prayer which claims, “’Your kingdom come, Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10) This refers to the coming of heaven at the end of time or the end of mortal human life. If this teaching becomes irrelevant, it leaves the question of what else must too be disregarded? Many Christians live moral lives in the face of judgment, the belief that at the end of days God will open a book and judge all the actions you have made in your life. Two things may happen if there is no heaven, either this judgement no longer takes place, or judgement takes place on whether you go to hell or not. If it does not take place, there is no spiritual fear in death, so there is no worthy reason to behave well. If it does take place but only for hell, this is a potently feared prospect. Dante effectively described hell in lengthy detail in his poem ‘Divine Comedy’ in the section ‘Inferno’, saying that it is a”realm … of those who have rejected spiritual values”. His descriptions detail how each circle of hell is for a certain type of sinner and what their punishment is, which ranges from “unceasing winds” to being “aflame” or “frozen in ice”. These brutal punishments would be worth living a moral life to avoid. In another way, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a play titled “Huis Clos”(No Exit) in which three people discover hell is simply living endlessly with all the guilt and sin of their lives. This would be equal torture as the fire and brimstone expected of hell, and for Christians it would be a life alienated form the presence of God. For a Christian without heaven, it is worth loving God and behaving well in order to avoid these possible punishments. 

         On a more human level, a Christian may argue that we should still behave well because we are all sacred and made in the image of God. Dostoyevsky rationally argued that “If God does not exist, everything would be permitted”, and similarly if heaven did not exist, there would be nothing stopping any man from exercising free will truly and wholly, and behaving how he wishes. This is, however, a terrible concept. In reference to the golden rule, ‘do as you would be done by’ (Matt. 7:12), we should be good people because we would want other to be good people to us. Christians have a moral duty on earth, with or without the reward of heaven, and they do not do it for God but for themselves and others. Even those who believe in limited election, the idea that the reward of heaven is one for those selected by god, say that those who are not elected still have moral duties to God and to others. As Kant said, one should “do his duty and only his duty”, and only for duty’s sake. Asking for a reward for good behaviour is something children and dogs do, and a Christian should be able to live a more meaningful life than just seeking Heaven via good actions. Christians should do their duty because of love of God and his creation, because life is sacred and precious because it is God-given. We would not expect someone paying a fee for a service to tip us with several hundred pounds more, and in the same way Christians should not expect heaven because it generously gifted by God. Paul Tillich convincingly argued that “heaven and hell must be taken seriously as metaphors for the polar ultimates in the experience of the divine”. That in fact, we should treat heaven as the state of loving and being loved by God in our lives, not waiting for this in the next life. 

         One reason that is a strong factor in many Christians’ faith is the idea of some kind of afterlife which provides them with hope. When a loved one dies, we want to believe that we will see them again in Heaven. When we hear about or experience the evil that exists in the world, we have hope in the prospect of a perfect future existence without any kind of evil. Some people will therefore behave well in their lives and love god so that this promise of the reward of heaven is given to them. Without the hope that they have in this promise, it becomes a pointless exercise to them. If there is no heaven we must accept that this is all there is for us, which can cause some people to be both fearful or angry, both of which often lead to bad behaviour. A Christian may argue that it is in God’s plan for us that we should live and die, and that because he creates life, he can justly take life. This is a challenging point of view if we consider events like plagues and wars, when millions of people die at once. Or when we consider babies that die very young due to natural causes. Why would a loving God take life so young, what was the purpose of that life in the first place, and how do you provide solace to those who suffer the loss? If there is no heaven, there is a lack of hope for us after death, and so the actions of Christians hold less significance to them, so they could behave however without such severe consequence. A Christian may respond to this again that our life is precious and should be enough. A Christian himself, Karl Barth argued strongly that belief in an afterlife “pursuing pagan dreams of good times after death”, and although this seems anti-Christian, in the context of heaven not being real, it makes the claim that pursuing this idea is a waste of time. That we should be grateful for the life we have and not waste our time. This means behaviour is just a part of being human as we live the precious life we have been given, and because God loves us, we do not need to worry about mistakes or bad behaviour. 

         Without the promise of heaven after they die, Christians would find faith tested harder and their belief more challenging. The main promise of Christianity, however, is salvation and love of God. This is at the heart of Christianity, and for those who believe is would be enough for them to follow God’s rules and behave according to them for their wholes lives, no matter what came next. Without the reward of heaven, many Christians would stay strong in their faith, because that is what faith is.

sexual ethics: extra marital sex

To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering issues surrounding extra-marital sex? 

          In modern society we count faithfulness as a virtue within our moral codes, especially within a marriage where there is a vow to be faithful. However, infidelity still occurs, leading to further issues for all parties involved. Normative ethical theories try to offer a way to face all the issues faced by an individual in their life, a basis on which to make decisions or advise others, and I would argue that to some extent they fulfil this aim. On the subject of extra-marital sex, they tend to be helpful when seeking solace of advice, but still all have their various flaws and drawbacks. 

         Two more strict theories offer mostly clear-cut advice on how to approach this situation; Kantian ethics and Natural Law. Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory has two mostly simple pieces of advice. Firstly, that you cannot easily universalise adultery in accordance with the first formulation of his categorical imperative. This is helpful because the meaning of marriage is traditionally a union between two partners, and allowing adultery undermines this. It seems worthless to marry if you do not stay loyal. The problem is that Kant’s theory also offers an equally acceptable alternative, albeit one that Kant himself may have disagreed with. An open marriage would be acceptable because arguably sex is not the priority for a marriage and it gives dignity to both partners. The other piece of advice is based in the second formulation of the categorical imperative, which ensures that people are not used as a means to an end. If one partner commits adultery it breaks trust and Kant believe that it led to the possibility of women in the situation being abused and treated as possessions instead of partners. To a person who is tempted, this is clear advice to avoid adultery and protects the victim of the situation. However, it is very generalised and unspecific. Natural Law, as set out in ‘Summa Theologica’ by Thomas Aquinas, is even more firm on the difference between right and wrong, and is not at all situational or relative, which Pope Pius XII agrees with, saying that “a… subjective appeal to the concrete circumstances of actions to justify decisions in opposition to the natural law or God’s revealed will” should be condemned. It vehemently supports the marriage vows which are made in the eyes of God and states that adultery is not supportive of a flourishing human society. It is important to remember that for Christians the purpose of sex is children, which also only applies within a marriage, making sex outside marriage a highly unethical act. Aquinas would also argue that while extra-marital sex may feel good, it is only an apparent good which ignores the purpose of sex and betrays God. Nevertheless, I would argue that for a secular person this holds no true meaning, because the belief behind the act is not the same, rendering Natural Law somewhat less helpful. 

          In response to the last point, Situation Ethics is a theory which can be consulted by anyone, religious or otherwise, because of its basis rooted in agape. Agape is actionable, selfless love that simply tells individuals to do what they believe is the most loving things in any given situation. An example given in ‘Situation Ethics: The New Morality’ by Joseph Fletcher, is of a woman called Mrs Bergemeir, who, after being captured by the Russians at the end of World War 2, persuades a guard to sleep with her so that she falls pregnant and is sent home. By any normal standards what she did was cheat on her husband and birth a stranger’s baby, but when the lens of agape is put over the situation, she is just a woman making a desperate attempt to return home to her husband and children, and her irreputable act is for love of her family. I would argue the situational aspect of situation ethics is pragmatic and helpful, because it is in human nature to get into situations which are complex or contradictory and it may not be what it seems. However, when considering extra-marital sex it may also excuse a person’s actions, such as if a woman’s husband has Alzheimer’s and she finds comfort in an affair while she cares for her husband. Some would say that this goes against morality, such as Peter Vardy who says that “humans tend to look at situations from their own points of view and there is a real danger of selfishness creeping in under the banner of ‘love’.” An example of this would be if a husband chose not to tell his wife about an affair to avoid breaking her heart. There are further problems however, because it is too subjective for each person’s interpretation and offers no concrete advice for a person to feel as though they are doing the right or wrong thing, and the example given by Fletcher is too extreme for an average citizen to relate to. However, it would be rational to say that the most loving thing to do when considering issues of extra-marital sex is that one should love their spouse and that love should be unconditional, not thrown away for adultery.

         Utilitarianism offers several points of view all at once, which could either make it more or less helpful because it would be either too confusing or offer just the right piece of advice to someone. Jeremy Bentham’s act-based utilitarianism promotes the principle of greatest happiness, that we should do the action that leads to the greatest amount of pleasure over pain. In a situation of an extra-marital affair, it would promote it because it maximises pleasure. This is helpful, but only if this is the answer that you are looking for. he first problem here though, is that it is very hard to measure pleasure accurately because it is so personal, especially sexual pleasure, as well as the fact that we cannot accurately predict the outcome of any circumstance, so this is significantly less helpful. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism is based on the rules that we should all abide by, and not committing adultery is already considered a rule. Mill’s harm principle comes in to play as well, as he says, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercise is…to prevent harm to others”. If adultery fits into someone’s definition of harm, then it is a strong point. Mill also emphasised that there is a quality to the pleasure that we experience, he would say that love is a higher pleasure and sexual pleasure is a lower pleasure, meaning that the love between a husband and wife is not worth sacrificing for a lower pleasure. I would argue that this is a strong point because it helps a person see a reasonable, although subjective, point of view. 

         Although each normative theory offers some points to guide a person in this situation, they often contradict themselves or there is some way to excuse or support the opposing view. I would argue that they are all helpful in some ways, and a person seeking advice for an extra-marital relationship would find a wealth of opinions, but they may be faced with yet another difficult choice and be more confused.

To what extent is Bonhoeffer’s theology relevant today? Discuss.

         I would argue that Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology holds good values and principles that still remain relevant, such as his message of solidarity and sacrifice, and these are aspects that should be remembered. However, his theology has some very prevalent issues, such as exclusivism and clashes with modern politics and society. 

         For the Christian church, the argument would be that Bonhoeffer’s theology is still as prevalent and important as it was when he was alive. His christology is one that is particularly important within the church, as he goes back to the heart of Jesus’ message and reminds the church of what he was truly standing for: discipleship. Bonhoeffer sought to strip away all the frills of religion that have come into force since Jesus lived, and what he called “religionless Christianity”. He wanted to go back to the pure heart of religion and Jesus’ example, something that is a positive message for those with faith. This is relevant because it would help to resolve corruption issues within the church such as spending more money on the church instead of giving to charity, and even with problems in modern America, such as the use of the Bible to justify gun laws. In Bonhoeffer’s religionless Christianity, Christians once again become generous, selfless disciples to God and not to themselves and their own desires. His entire theology may not be relevant, but these ideas would bring about some good in modern society. He was also vocal about the idea that “the Church is her true self when she exists for humanity”. The same way that Jesus was selfless and lived for others, so should the church. In our “world come of age”, as he called the West, this is an important principle, that the church should move with and work for the benefit of humans. These are relevant ideas, because with a more liberal and autonomous society the church can become steeped in tradition in a negative way, not staying up to date and solely trusting religious texts from so long ago their message is out of touch. If the church exists for humanity as it does in Bonhoeffer’s theology, then the church can be an active force for good and make a real difference. Bonhoeffer’s idea here is definitely still relevant for our time as well as his own.

         Bonhoeffer also had important ideas about how we should be as people. His most valuable christian teaching was about cheap and costly grace. He taught that there is cheap grace, which he defined as “baptism without Church discipline, Communion without confession”, meaning an empty unmotivated kind of faith where a person merely goes through the rituals and shows up to church, claiming to be a follower of Jesus. This was not right to Bonhoeffer, who believed based off of Martin Luther and John Calvin, that the church had three aspects: ‘only Christ, only scripture and only faith’. He believed that Christian ethics should come through action, and this action will have a cost, and is what he calls costly grace. In his book ‘The Cost of Discipleship, he writes that costly grace is “costly because it costs man his life…it cost God the life of his Son.” This kind of motivated Christian action is a valuable and relevant prospect today, as Christians should be active and make a difference. There is however a chance that costly grace can be taken too far, and fervent Christians can go searching for a cause to act on costly grace, and take this idea literally to the point of purposefully seeking martyrdom. Just being a follower by name is not enough. His other important teaching is based on the idea of solidarity, following the example of Jesus’ solidarity with man. Especially through times of conflict, as Bonhoeffer’s own life shows, the best way to make a difference in any situation is to be a part of it. He had a chance to escape war by remaining in America, but he felt he needed to be true to his teachings and resisting Hitler and the Nazi regimen, and so returned to Germany discarding his pacifist ideals and putting his own costly grace in to action. This solidarity is something that is especially relevant in a time where we fight to be less divided. In response to this, however, I would argue that this part of his theology only applied in extremes. He created his theology amidst one of the worst conflicts Europe had seen, so it only seems to fit in with that kind of environment.

         This being said, I would argue that at the fundamental heart of Bonhoeffer’s theology is an exclusivism which cuts off it’s relevance to anyone of another religion outside Christianity, or in any secular environment such as our own western society. A distance between church and state is necessary to have a clear and more human justice and truth. If not every citizen believes in God or Jesus, how can they live by his example or even be expected to care? Bonhoeffer’s belief that all Jews should convert to Christianity, although later disputed by himself somewhat, is a dangerous basis for any theology because its cuts off it’s relevance in a serious way, rendering it baseless in a secular world. In this sense his theology is almost parochial because it fits in his situation, similar to Kant’s small town mindset that limit’s his ethical theory, and doesn’t quite reach past it in a practical enough way. Another reason Bonhoeffer’s theology holds less relevance is that in history, religion has caused more harm than good, being at the root of many major conflicts and issues in society. If the church was as involved with state as Bonhoeffer would have it be, is there not a possibility of further damage? Setting aside the law to follow Jesus’ example is damaging to our justice system, and doesn’t quite fit in any plural moral society, where we seek to find a balance and the best democratic option. I would argue that this significant hinders his theology from being relevant today.

         Although Bonhoeffer’s theology may have some ideas that remain insightful and useful, his theology is too exclusivist and specific, falling short in a secular society. It fails to remain as helpful in a time that has moved past some of the issues he faced as he preached what he did. 

meta-ethics

How fair is the claim that ethical language is meaningless? 

         I would argue that the claim that ethical language is meaningless is, albeit a strong one, a fair claim because of the issues discussed within meta-ethics. The first simple problem within meta-ethics is if mind-independent moral properties exist or not, which is hard to determine because I would argue that outside religion there is no reason to believe we did not prescribe them ourselves. Intuitionism, for example, proves itself by being unprovable; not a very convincing argument. The further issue is whether ethical language is cognitive or non-cognitive and if the language is subjective or objective, or if it is meaningless. I would argue that we all have our own version of good, as even within the arguments proposed by scholars there are differences of opinion on what good is, and good cannot exist as an overriding concept if we all disagree.

         In terms of ethical language being cognitive and objectively meaningful, the main supporters of this view are those that have put forward normative ethical theories. They propose that ‘good’ is one fixed attribute of human nature; Kant argues it is duty, Fletcher argues it is agape, Mill argues it is utility. Although this is a simple way of answering the question of meaning in ethical language, I would argue these theories have their own fatal flaws; Kant is too unemotional, Fletcher is too broad and subjective, Mill has too many factors to consider before acting. Another objective theory is G E Moore’s intuitionism which, put simply in Moore’s won words: “Good is good, and that is the end of the matter.” He developed this by arguing the naturalistic fallacy of those who try to define good, saying that just because something makes us feel happy, we can’t therefore define it as ‘good’. This could be seen as a further criticism of utilitarianism, which argues that something is good if more people experience pleasure from it. Intuitionism is a cognitive non-naturalistic theory which says that although we know what good is, we cannot define it. Moore used the analogy of the colour yellow, saying that although we know what yellow is, we cannot define it. This seems strong, but Nietzsche rightly argued that, when replacing ‘yellow’ with ‘good’, one person may see something as good and another as bad, which brings forward the major criticism of intuitionism which is that two people’s intuition may have different ideas of good, which is unhelpful in terms of understanding what good is. Even Moore himself did not think we could prove intuition, and that intuition may be wrong, rendering his theory weak.

          H.A Pritchard developed Moore’s ideas and reconciled it with reason; we use our reason to gather facts and our intuition to decide how to act. His theory was more deontological, because we use our intuition to deice what our duty is, differing from Moore’s teleological theory. The biggest flaw here is that the two disagree, so whose version is correct? Pritchard also asserted that when two people disagree on morality, one person’s moral thinking is not developed fully. This draws almost instant criticisms, such as the problem of how we are supposed to develop our moral thinking, and what we do if there is a conflict of moral duties. W. D. Ross was another scholar who developed on Moore, and who accepted Pritchard’s mistake saying that our moral duties can conflict, but put forward ‘prima facie duties’ instead, which is a list of the seven most important duties including benevolence, keeping promises, and fairness. This is a stronger argument but falls in the same traps as Kant’s deontological theory. I would also argue aside from that that intuition is fallible because of how our intuition develops, because it would be fair to argue that our intuition develops because of culture and upbringing, leaving no fair or overriding idea of what ‘good’ means, giving a fair argument that it could be meaningless.

         If good is not objective, the next logical step is that it may be non-cognitive and personally subjective, which I would argue is more convincing because of the errors that Moore and Pritchard are weakened by. One of the less convincing versions of this is R.M. Hare’s prescriptivism, in which he argued that when we use ethical language we are prescribing a course of action, making ‘good’ a universally actionable statement. When someone says, ‘being kind to people is good’, they are stating in a universal manner that everyone should be kind to people. This is straightforward, realistic and applicable and gives ethical language some meaning, but it disregards the logic and reasoning behind moral statements in favour of recommendation. It also falls prey to the problems of Kant’s categorical imperative of universalisability, in that any ridiculous theory could be moral. For example, doing a handstand on every third Thursday could become moral if someone branded it as good. It belittles the gravity of morality and means that there is no reason to follow any moral law because they become the product of the preference of other people. 

         Instead of this, A.J. Ayer proposes emotivism, which argues that moral language is nothing but an expression of personal feeling. For Ayer, the claim ‘murder is wrong’ is not based on any objective moral principle, instead we are saying ‘I don’t like murder’. Ayer favours logical positivism and argues that ‘murder is wrong’ cannot be reduced to analytic or synthetic, therefore it is not possible to justify the statements and they have no meaning. However, Peter Vardy criticises Ayers emotivism as he says it is an ethical ‘non-theory’ as it only deals with emotions, failing to address whether something is ethical or not. Further to this, James Rachels adds that it removes reason from moral judgement, making it a pointless view on moral language. C.L. Stevenson developed emotivism, looking at how emotive language affects other people; we use emotive language descriptively but express it with an intention of influence. Stevenson held the belief that ethical statements are subjective but influential on other’s views either positively or negatively. His approach gives a better understanding of why people differ on matters of morality, as ideas are based on social, political and religious beliefs. It gives more meaning to moral disagreements; they are not descriptive statements of emotions, as Ayer saw them, like conflicts of feelings, but instead that they were aiming to persuade and influence. I would argue that this is a stronger version of Ayer’s theories but that both Ayer and Stevenson dangerously allow morality to be flexible and changeable to the point of extreme relativism, because our morality is based on our human emotions which are far from infallible. This is supported by G.J Warnock who points out that to claim ‘murder is wrong’ is to make a factual statement which can be discussed and debated, not constantly changeable and only personally meaningful.

         I would argue that although it is a more controversial and less widely accepted stance, anti-realism can logical become nihilistic because if ‘good’ has no objective meaning, then it is meaningless and should not be used in ethical terms. The major flaw in all the proposed argument by scholars is that we do not end up with an explicit and unflawed definition of ethical language. It is more logical to say that ethical language is meaningless, and that the concepts of good and bad do not exist other than in a purely personal sense.

Share this:

Published by lauren ferro

View all posts by lauren ferro

One thought on “ example essays master post ”

Love the blog, very helpful nice layout

what grade did these essays achieve and what mark out of 40?

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) presented a Deontological argument so in his theory the ACTION is what establishes the morality/duty - you establish your duty and then do it

Kant said that moral statements are not like normal statements.

• Normal statements are either a priori analytic (they are knowable without experience and verifiable through reason) or they are a posteriori synthetic (knowable through experience and verifiable through experience).
• For Kant, moral statements are a priori synthetic – you can know something is moral without experience, and it can be checked with experience.

Good Will and Duty

Kant believed that there was nothing that could be said to be good except a good will:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785)

Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so goodness is based on doing the correct thing.

The Categorical Imperative

Kant specified that moral actions are absolute actions that must be done in all circumstances - there are to be no conditions attached.

Moral actions cannot be hypothetical (based on something else - e.g. if I want X I must do Y) because they become too subjective.

If an action is to be entirely objective, it must be universal and if it is to be made properly, the human must be in total control ( autonomous ) and assume all others are autonomous.

Therefore Kant has three key formulations of his Categorical Imperative

• Always perform actions that may be made rules for everyone ( universalisability ) ( Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. [ Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals , 1785])
• Always treat people as ends in themselves , not as means to an end. ( Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means. [ Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals , 1785])
• Pretend you live as a member of (and as a leader of) the Kingdom of Ends where all people live as if these rules are totally valid ( [E] very rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. [ Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals , 1785])

The Summum Bonum

Kant noted that if we are to do our duty then we must be able to be rewarded for our actions.

He talked about the s ummum bonum - the place where our happiness and our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together.

This is obviously not something that can be found on earth - we see bad people living happy lives and good people living unhappy lives - therefore the summum bonum must be able to be achieved in the afterlife.

Three Postulates of Pure Practical Reason

Following on from this approach, Kant postulated three things that were necessary for his theory to work, but which rationally must exist.

• We must be free to be able to make decisions.
• There must be an afterlife (or immortality) for us to be able to achieve the summum bonum .
• God must exist in order to be a fair judge to bring us to the afterlife or not.

This is why Kant is referred to in discussions about the Moral Argument for the Existence of God.

Strengths of Kantian Ethics

• It is universal so everyone is treated equally and given equal value.
• Human life is given particular value.
• You have particular rules to follow - you know where you are with the theory.
• It promotes good will, which is beneficial for society
• There are no references to the future or to consequences, which cannot be known.

Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics

• It does not seem to account for the complexities of life – universalisability cannot work as no two situations are the same.
• For example, would you tell a known murderer where his victim was? (Kant says we have to.)
• It does not account for any particular duty we may have for certain people (e.g. family).
• It does not account for times when two absolutes clash.
• Some would say that sometimes human life has to be sacrificed to stop others or more people being killed or suffering.

• Contributors
• Valuing Black Lives
• Black Issues in Philosophy
• Blog Announcements
• Climate Matters
• Genealogies of Philosophy
• Graduate Student Council (GSC)
• Graduate Student Reflection
• Into Philosophy
• Member Interviews
• On Congeniality
• Philosophy as a Way of Life
• Philosophy in the Contemporary World
• Precarity and Philosophy
• Recently Published Book Spotlight
• Starting Out in Philosophy
• Syllabus Showcase
• Teaching and Learning Video Series
• Undergraduate Philosophy Club
• Women in Philosophy
• Diversity and Inclusiveness
• Issues in Philosophy
• Public Philosophy
• Work/Life Balance
• Submissions
• Journal Surveys
• APA Connect

Teaching Moral Reasoning with Terminator and Jesus

Semester after semester, I embarked on helping students to appreciate that morally relevant decisions are not a matter of personal preference, and I struggled to enable them to consider that moral judgments cannot simply be borrowed from an alleged moral authority – be it God, some political leader, or a famous media pundit. Then, one day, I accidentally found an old video by Mad TV, titled “Terminator vs. Jesus: The Greatest Action Story Ever Told.”

Since I have been teaching philosophy at the undergraduate level for over two decades, I have often found myself in the difficult position of commenting on students’ assertive statements unsupported by arguments, particularly when it comes to issues in ethics. Some students have a hard time understanding that when they state, for instance, that “plagiarism is morally wrong,” they need to demonstrate why it is morally wrong. And some of them have a hard time understanding that a claim such as “plagiarism is wrong because it is immoral” is a tautology, while asserting that “plagiarism is unacceptable because it is incompatible with Kant’s ethics” is not a convincing argument, if it is not accompanied by the application of the categorical imperative to this issue.

For many years, I spent an incredible amount of time and energy trying to elucidate the difference between an argument and a mere assertion.

Upon watching this video, I told myself: “This is great! I might use it in class.” And I decided to show this video in the opening sessions of my Ethics and Introduction to Philosophy courses, although the first time I showed it to students, a couple of years ago, I was quite worried. I was afraid that this short, humorous fake movie trailer would offend some of my students’ religious convictions. Anyway, I clicked on its YouTube link and I announced to the class: “Now I am going to show you a video with Terminator arguing with Jesus.” But a young lady, with a perplexed facial expression, raised her hand and asked me: “Who is Terminator?” And one of her classmates promptly asked the whole class: “And who is Jesus?” (This is what I call “genius.”)

I did not, and I still do not, show the whole video to my students. I only show them a portion of this fake trailer—from minute 1:48 to 3:07—consisting of two scenes. In the first of these two scenes, Terminator saves Jesus from three Roman soldiers who intend to capture him while he is preaching to a crowd. Upon shooting the three Romans dead, Terminator offers his hand to Jesus and tells him: “Come with me if you want to live!” But it is the next scene that is truly helpful to my purpose. In this scene, Terminator explains to Jesus, while walking with him in the countryside: “My mission is to protect you.” Jesus reacts by revealing to Terminator that “there is a plan, a master plan.” But in the middle of Jesus’ one-to-one lecture about his own mission, Terminator spots three Romans enjoying the shade of a tree. He points his shotgun at the three legionaries, but Jesus deflects it away, thus preventing him from shooting at those men, and angrily tells him: “You cannot go around killing people!” Terminator keeps his cool and, with his typical expressionless face, asks Jesus: “Why?”

At this point, I pause the video and tell my students: “This is the right approach! Whenever you write in an essay, or somebody else maintains, that something cannot be done, you have to ask: ‘why?’”

Then, I restart the video to make them listen to Jesus’ (unconvincing) reply: “Because it’s one of God’s commandments: thou shall not kill.” I pause the video again and explain that ethics is not a matter of obeying an alleged moral authority—particularly if such an authority is not universally accepted, as is the case with God (and with your president, your prime minister, some influencer, and your mom as well). And even if you believe in God and you think that someone—such as a priest, a rabbi, an imam—has the power to interpret God’s will correctly, you should still ask the question that Terminator poses to Jesus again in this video: “Why?” To which Jesus answers: “Because it’s a sin!” Here, I explain to students that it is true that killing is a sin, but one still needs to satisfy Terminator’s curiosity by clarifying why killing is a sin, given that in the video, once again, he asks his excellent question: “Why?” And this time, an increasingly frustrated Jesus replies: “Because it’s not nice!” But Terminator (correctly) insists with his question: “Why?” At this point, an exasperated Jesus has no more answers and, turning his eyes to the sky, exclaims: “Forgive him, Father. He is a robot from the future.”

After showing this scene, I stop the video and tell students: “When attending our classes, and when writing your essays for this course, do NOT follow Jesus’ example! In other words, do not give me mere statements unsupported by arguments. Follow Terminator’s example and always ask: ‘why?’ And when answering this question, provide an argument by using, say, Kant’s deontological ethics or Mill’s utilitarianism (which we will study in the next few weeks).” And I give them a Kantian argument against murder, drawing on the first formula of the categorical imperative. Then, I also offer a utilitarian argument, grounded in Mill’s concept of general happiness, against “going around killing people.” I give them these two examples to spell out the difference between Jesus’ assertive statements and the way in which, conversely, philosophers and particularly ethicists substantiate their viewpoints with arguments based on specific normative theories.

Of course, there are still students who come up with tautological or assertive statements, or merely refer to some alleged moral authority, when attempting to draw a conclusion concerning a certain ethical issue, a given problem or dilemma, or a hypothetical situation. However, nowadays the number of students who make such mistakes is much lower than in the past. And more and more students endeavor to follow Terminator’s example, thereby asking the question “why” and seeking the answer by means of argument.

The  Teaching and Learning Video Series  is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst at parkhurw@gvsu.edu

Diego Lucci

Diego Lucci is a Professor of Philosophy and History at the American University in Bulgaria and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Naples “Federico II” and has also taught at Boston University and the University of Missouri St. Louis. He has held research fellowships at various institutions, including, among others, the University of Hamburg, Gladstone’s Library, and the Institute of Historical Research in London. His research focuses on the philosophy and intellectual history of the Age of Enlightenment, mainly on English deism and John Locke. He is the author of three books and over fifty journal articles and book chapters. He is also the editor or co-editor of six volumes. His most recent monograph is “John Locke’s Christianity” (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

• argumentation
• Editor: Nathan Eckstrand
• Editor: William A. B. Parkhurst
• Introduction to Ethics
• philosophy of religion
• Sabrina D. MisirHiralall

RELATED ARTICLES

Introducing the question-focused pedagogy (qfp) series, moral psychology, jada wiggleton-little, university of arizona philosophy club, two principles of academic ethics, philosophical mastery and conceptual competence, dusty slay and zhuangzi’s three in the morning, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Advanced search

Posts You May Enjoy

“if you become a monster, the fight is not worth it”:..., what do we owe our neighbors, friedlaender fever, diversifying the canon: interview with andrew janiak, syllabus showcase: foundations of educational research, michael skyer, introducing the new teachphilosophy101.

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Sexual Ethics

This page: full notes      a* summary notes       c/b summary notes, introduction.

This topic requires you to be able to evaluate:

• Christian views verses secular views on sexual ethics.
• The debate between private (liberalism) and public (conservative authoritarianism).
• The application of any of the four normative ethical theories to sexual ethics.
• The issues of homosexuality, pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex.

The three main Christian approaches to sexual ethics:

• Conservative Christianity: Biblical teachings & traditional theologians.
• Natural moral law: typically a conservative catholic view.
• Liberal Christianity: the bible is not the literal word of God so we need to update Christian ethics for modern. times. Fletcher’s situation ethics is an example of this.

The two main secular approaches to sexual ethics:

• Conservative secularists: the traditions regarding sexual ethics are useful for our society and so we should maintain them. Kantian ethics can be interpreted as an example of this.
• Liberal secularists: the traditions regarding sexual ethics might have been useful in the past but are increasingly outdated and harmful. Utilitarianism is an example of this.

Christian views on sexual ethics

St augustine on sexual desire and original sin.

Augustine references Genesis, where after disobeying God Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and covered up out of shame. Augustine claims it is ‘just’ that we feel shame about our naked bodies, since it is just that we feel shame over having lust because it being beyond our control is the result of our fallen state. Augustine argues this is universal – people of all cultures cover up their genitals, and sex is done in private, which Augustine suggests is due to the shame associated with it. This all shows the connection between sex, sex organs and the shame of original sin which caused Adam and Eve to feel shame and wear clothes. Augustine concludes that humanity is the ‘ massa damnata’ – the mass of the damned.

Biblical teachings on sexual ethics

Traditional conservative approaches to Christian ethics would regard the Bible as the perfect word of God. All sex outside of heterosexual marriage is condemned in the Bible and is therefore wrong on this view.

Homosexuality

In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, St Paul condemns “sodomites” as unrighteous and sinners.

In Romans, Paul is describing godless and wicked people who became idolators when he says this:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.   In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27.

“If a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, both have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them”. Leviticus 20:13.

When discussing marriage, Jesus claims it is between a man and a woman. When combined with the claim that sex should be confined to marriage, that suggests homosexual sex is wrong: “Haven’t you read,”  he replied,  “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’   and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19:4-6.

Pre/extra-marital sex

The message of the Bible seems to be that humans have temptation to have sex. We are born with original sin and this causes us to desire all sorts of sinful action, including sinful sexual action.

“Each of you must learn to control his own body, as something holy and held in honour, not yielding to the promptings of passion, as the heathen do in their ignorance of God.” 1 Thessalonians 4.

Galatians 5 calls sexual immorality “the works of the flesh”, indicating that it is the sinful state of our human bodily existence that causes our sinful desires.

The Bible is very clear that God has commanded that sex should be confined to within a marriage:

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” (10 commandments) Exodus 20:14.

1 Corinthians 7 claims that because we have a ‘temptation to sexual immorality’ people should pair off into husband and wife and satisfy each other ‘so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control’.

In the sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes as far as claiming that even having sexually impure thoughts/desires is wrong:

“everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” – Matthew 5:28

The liberal approach to the Bible. Liberal Christians can reject conservative views of sexual ethics by arguing that the Bible is not the perfect word of God but is instead just a product of the human mind. During the enlightenment period, scientific, historical and literary methods of analysis were greatly improved and applied to the Bible itself. This led to evidence of scientific inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, and literary evidence such as that the writers of the Bible had different styles which seemed to depend on their nationality, culture and age. They narrated the same events differently, appeared to have made efforts to gather information, and made grammatical mistakes. None of this looks like the words of an omniscient being. It became difficult to ignore the human influence in the scriptures. This suggests that the scriptures were written by witnesses of God’s divine events in history like the incarnation, or times when God communicated or revealed himself. What came to be written down as a result however was merely what those people took away from such events, or from hearing about such events from the testimony of those who witnessed them. The words of the Bible are therefore just human interpretations of what the authors felt and understood of God’s revelation. The Bible thus reflects the cultural and historical context of its human authors and requires continual re-interpretation to ensure its relevance.

Passages which seem to reflect the discriminatory, violent or barbaric culture of the time can therefore be ignored. Liberal Christians tend to be accepting of homosexuality, even gay marriage, and place less emphasis on the need for sex to be confined within marriage.

Liberal inspiration leads to a crisis of authority. The problem with liberal views of inspiration is that it’s difficult to see how it could grant authority to the Bible if it derives from human minds. Furthermore, it opens up the Bible to interpretation and every person will have their own interpretation. This cannot provide the kind of stable consistent theology that a religion needs for it to persist. This is why traditional Christians criticise liberal Christianity for allowing people too much freedom to believe whatever feels right to them and their opinion, which results in the disunified chaos of everyone believing in their own God and the interpretation of the Bible which suits them.

Secular views on sexual ethics

Freud himself was quite conservative regarding sex in many ways, but nonetheless he was very influential on secular liberal views on sex. He thought that traditional Christian attitudes towards sex resulted in a feeling of shame about sexual desire which led to unhealthy repression and mental illness.

The liberal secular attitude towards sex is influenced by Freud. It claims that sex is a natural biological desire which shouldn’t be a source of shame but of well-being. Augustine’s insistence that there is something shameful about lust is absurd and pointless once you understand it is the result of evolution, not original sin. Conservative religious attitudes towards sex are therefore unnecessarily repressive and puritanical. They become an unhealthy and pointless obsession with self-control borne from insecurity over a mythical fall from grace.

Arguably Christianity’s repression of sexual desire made more sense in ancient times when humans were more animalistic, less socialised, less domesticated. Strict laws and harsh penalties might have been needed then, because humans were less self-controlled and thus needed greater external pressures to keep them behaving adequately. However today, arguably humans have developed to the point where they can be trusted with more freedom. This suggests that our nature is not cursed with original sin such that we need draconian sexual norms and legislation. Traditionalists always fought against the sexual liberalisation of society, concerned it would harm social order, and yet society seems fine if not better.

Secular society is oversexualised. Catholics/natural law would argue that God designed human life to be lived a certain way, and if you upset that balance you cause social problems. 21 st century youth culture is sexualised to a degree many Christians find concerning. Hook-up culture influences young people to regard sex as an opportunity for higher social status. Devaluing a personal intimate act into a superficial sign of social status harms people psychologically. Sex is commodified and people feel pressured into it. They obsess unhealthily about their physical appearance. This is harmful, and makes creating meaningful relationships difficult.

Bishop Barron develops this point, arguing that secular culture’s attitude towards sex is that there is an ‘almost complete lack’ of reference to the moral and ethical setting for sex, the purpose and meaning of sex or religious context for sexuality. This encourages a self-interested ego disconnected from external objective good which thereby turns inward and cares only about itself in a self-absorbed and finally destructive way. Barron argues this is the reason for the ‘deep sadness’ that comes out of the hook-up culture.

Stephen Fry , a gay writer and broadcaster, argues that the paedophile priest scandal can be explained by the Church’s repressive attitude towards sex, pointing to “the twisted, neurotic and hysterical way that [the Church] leaders are chosen; the celibacy, the nuns, the monks the priesthood. This is not natural and normal.”

Fry is suggesting that the unhealthy sexual repressiveness of Church teachings causes its priests to become sexually perverted. Fry is applying the theory of Freud and Nietzsche – that repression of desires can be unhealthy as they can erupt out in negative ways.

Fry then responds to the Church’s claim that they are not repressed but that modern secular society is simply oversexualised:

“They will say we with our permissive society and rude jokes are obsessed [with sex]. No, we have a healthy attitude. We like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly. Because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult. It’s a bit like food in that respect only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the catholic Church in a nutshell.”

Fry is claiming that secular attitudes towards sex are not perfect but are still healthier than religious attitudes.

It might be tempting to try and argue that we could have a healthy balance, but where in history has that healthy balance been achieved? Maybe human nature really is black and white like traditional Christians suggest – we either control ourselves or we slip into selfishness with sin. Human nature is sinful and needs restriction and control – and if we lift those controls a little bit we will keep sliding down the slope towards oversexualisataion.

Situation ethics on sexual ethics

Situation ethics holds that an action is good if it leads to the most loving outcome possible. This will depend on the situation. So, if acts involving homosexuality or pre/extra marital sex involve consent and those involved are happy, it seems that the outcome is loving and therefore those acts would be morally good. However, if manipulation was involved in persuading people into such acts, then the outcome would not be loving, and it would be wrong.

Fletcher points to the example of adultery, often thought absolutely wrong. He explains the case of a mother trapped in a prison work camp during a war. The only conditions of release are either disease or pregnancy, so she asked a guard to impregnate her, thus committing adultery. She was released, her family ‘thoroughly approved’ of her action and loved the resulting child as their own. The implication is that wrongness is not absolute, it depends on the situation.

Another of Fletcher’s illustration is from Nash’s play ‘ The Rainmaker’ – the rainmaker has (pre-marital) sex with a spinster (unmarried woman) to save her from becoming spinsterised (a bit of an outdated sexist term!). Her brother is morally outraged and wants to shoot the rainmaker, but her father stops him, saying to his outraged son “you are so full of what’s right that you can’t see what’s good”.

The private/public debate: Situationism & Legalism

Fletcher was critical of legalism – the view that ethics must be based on rules which do not take the situation into account. It is up to the individual person to decide in a moral situation what would have the loving outcome. This suggests that sexual behaviour should not be subject to public norms and legislation – it should only be subject to the principle of Agape.

Love is subjective

Situation ethics claims that love is the basis for ethical judgement. However, it is subjective, meaning a matter of opinion. Someone might find it loving to try and prevent their homosexual child from expressing or acting on their homosexuality, or even to disown them. They might also think it loving to disown their child if they engaged in pre-marital sex. Someone might find it loving to manipulate/pressure someone into or out of pre/extra marital sex.

Defence of Fletcher: love is subjective, but agape is not. Agape is much more specific than love, it means selfless love of your neighbour. Pressuring others into sex or disowning them for sexual behaviour is not selfless love of your neighbour.

Counter defence: However, actually Agape is subjective. The way you love your neighbour when loving them as yourself depends on the way you love yourself, which is subjective. A parent who disowns their child for sexual behaviour might indeed think that if they had behaved similarly as a child then they should have been disowned too.

Situation ethics ignores most of the commands in the Bible

The Bible is clearly against homosexuality and pre/extra-marital sex, so Fletcher’s theory is not being true to Christian ethics.

Defence of Fletcher: Fletcher doesn’t think the Bible is the perfect word of God that we can follow literally. The most we can get from it is general themes and Fletcher thinks that Agape is an important theme in the Bible.

Barclay: situation ethics grants people a dangerous amount of freedom

People are not perfectly loving so if given the power to judge what is good or bad, people will do selfish or even cruel things. People’s loving nature can be corrupted by power.

Defence of Fletcher: Fletcher & Robinson argue that mankind has ‘come of age’, meaning become more civilised and educated.

Natural law on sexual ethics

Natural law theory is based on the idea that God created all things, including us, with the potential to flourish if we live according to the natural law. The telos of human life is achieving ultimate happiness through glorifying God by following the natural moral law. Going against God’s natural law is not just wrong because it is a sin, it is also bad for our own happiness and well-being. This type of argument has led to critiques of sex outside marriage as detrimental to happiness.

Natural law on homosexuality

The focus of Natural law is not merely on following God’s commands in the Bible (the divine law) but also on comprehending and maintaining the purpose (telos) of our natural desires as part of the natural law. Aquinas regarded homosexuality as unnatural because it required a divergence from what he thought was the natural mode of sex. This means the homosexual orientation, though feeling natural to homosexuals, cannot be so. Aquinas thought that not all inclinations were natural in the sense that they were part of God’s natural law.

The catechism of the catholic church claims that homosexuality is against the natural law as it divorces sex from the gift of life and is thus against God’s design.

Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) argued that “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Stephen Fry (secular) responded to Ratzinger that religion is repressive of homosexual feelings: “It’s hard for me to be told that I’m evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love … with 6% of all teenage suicides being gay teenage suicides, we certainly don’t need the stigmatization, the victimization that leads to the playground bullying when people say you’re a disordered morally evil individual.”

Augustine said ‘Love the sinner hate the sin’. Many Christians claim only to be against homosexual acts, since that is all the bible mentions, not the homosexual orientation. So Christians respond that they don’t claim Fry is evil only that his homosexual actions are evil.

Bishop Barron argued that if the first and only message gay people hear is that they are ‘intrinsically disordered’ then the Church has a serious problem. The first message is that gay people are a ‘beloved child of God … invited to a full share in the divine life’

Christopher Hitchens (secular) rejects the kind of arguments Augustine and Barron make as ‘revolting casuistry’ and claimed that this supposed separation of sinner from sin was absurd in the case of homosexuality since their homosexual actions come from their nature. He claimed that homosexuals are not condemned by the Church for what they do but for what they are and that the Church have no moral standing to criticise the sexual behaviour of others because of its complicity in the paedophile priest scandal. Hitchens denounces the homophobia of the Catholic Church:

“ For condemning my friend Stephen Fry, for his nature. For saying you couldn’t be a member of our church, you’re born in sin. There’s a revolting piece of casuistry that’s sometimes offered on this point; we hate the sin only, we love the sinner … He’s not being condemned for what he does he’s being condemned for what he is … This is disgraceful. It’s inhuman. It’s obscene, and it comes from a clutch of hysterical, sinister virgins who’ve already betrayed their charge in the children of their own Church. For Shame!”

Bishop Barron would respond that all humans have desires which God’s law prohibits. Homosexuals are not unusually singled out in that regard for being told to control their desires.

However, when the entire object of someone’s natural sexual orientation is defined as sinful it seems homosexuals are especially condemned.

Natural law on pre/extra-marital sex

The focus of Natural law is not merely on following God’s commands in the Bible (the divine law) but also on comprehending and maintaining the purpose (telos) of our natural desires. Aquinas thinks we have a natural desire to reproduce, educate, protect and preserve human life and live in an orderly society. All of these primary precepts are threatened by sexual immorality. The only way for children to be provided for such that they can receive education is if they are born to married parents. So, Aquinas thinks that to follow the primary precepts requires confining all sexual behaviour to marriage – so pre/extra marital sex is wrong.

The issue that natural law is outdated

Strength: Natural law ethics is available to everyone because all humans are born with the ability to know and apply the primary precepts. It is possible to follow the natural law even if you are not Christian or have no access to the divine law (Bible).

Weakness: Aquinas’ Natural law ethics is increasingly seen as outdated. In ancient and medieval history, society was more chaotic. It made sense to create strict absolutist ethical principles, to prevent society from falling apart. This would explain the primary precepts. They served a useful function in medieval society.

In Aquinas’ time, sex usually led to children which without married parents usually led to being underprovided for and probably death since society was in a more economically deprived state. It was useful to restrict sexual behaviour to marriage, because of how economically fatal single motherhood used to be. It was useful to require having lots of children, because most children died.

The issue clearly is that all of these socio-economic conditions have changed. Today, we have contraception which disconnects sex from pregnancy and our society has more resources for helping single parents. So, the primary precepts are no longer useful. They were designed for a different time and are now increasingly outdated. Society can now afford to gradually relax the inflexibility of its rules and think about how they might be reinterpreted to better fit modern society.

Evaluation: Aquinas could be defended that this doesn’t actually make his theory wrong. The fact that mainstream culture has moved on from natural law ethics doesn’t mean it was right to. If Hitler had won WW2 and enslaved humanity, then democracy might have been viewed as ‘outdated’, but that wouldn’t make it wrong. Calling an ethical theory outdated is not an argument against its actual truth.

Counter-evaluation: A better version of the ‘outdated’ critique is to argue that Aquinas’ theory was actually a reaction to his socio-economic context and since that has changed, Natural law is no longer relevant.

Aquinas thought that he discovered the primary precepts through human reason, as God designed. However, arguably it’s a simpler explanation that Aquinas was simply intuiting what was good for people in his socio-economic condition. The idea that the resulting principles actually came from God was only in his imagination.

The great strength of religion as a form of social organisation is also its greatest weakness. By telling people that its ethical precepts (such as the primary precepts or sanctity of life) come from God it creates a strong motivation to follow them. Yet, because those precepts are imagined to come from an eternal being, they become inflexible and painstakingly difficult to progress. This makes them increasingly outdated.

Fletcher’s critique of Aquinas

Fletcher’s critique that there is no natural law, or our minds are unable to know it, as shown by cross-cultural moral disagreement. There are clear cases of different moral views on sexual ethics between different societies. This suggests it’s not true that we are born with the ability to discover the primary precepts.

However, there are cross-cultural similarities, such as the idea of marriage and the importance of confining sex to marriage.

However, again, those could be explained by the universality of practical requirements for the raising of children, especially since for most of history people have been economically deprived.

Natural “LAW” applied to the private/public debate

Aquinas was clear that human law should be based on the natural and divine law, which include prohibitions on sex outside marriage, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is an argument for religious authoritarianism since it involves the claim that what people do in their private lives must conform to the natural and divine law.

Utilitarianism on sexual ethics

Act Utilitarianism would judge an action based on whether it produced the most amount of pleasure compared to other actions. If a sexual act, whether it is homosexual or pre/extra marital sex, maximised pleasure compared to the other option of not doing or allowing them, then it would be good to do/allow them.

           Standard criticisms of Utilitarianism applies, including:

            Issues with calculation and measuring pleasure

            Issues with liberty/rights & justifying bad actions

Utilitarianism on private vs public

J.S. Mill , a secular liberal, argues that trying to make things illegal because they go against religious morality must be rejected because it has been the foundation of all religious persecution. He discusses what for most Christians is considered immoral extra-marital sex – polygamy, which is allowed in the Mormon faith, but his views on it could be applied to all issues in sexual ethics.

Mill argues that even if some genuinely suffer due to their sexual practices, as long as there is consent amongst all those involved, so long as those who suffer due to the practices do not seek aid from other communities and are allowed ‘perfect departure’ from their community, then:

‘I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant who have no part or concern in it.”

Mill advocates the harm principle: that people should be free to do as they like as long as they do not harm others. This includes consensual sexual behaviours which are private. However people are also free in public to attempt to persuade others of which sexual norms to follow, though that persuasion can only take the form of argument, never force nor legislation. Mill’s conception of society is of individuals each pursuing what seems good to them, their only universal bond being the wrongness or illegality of harming others.

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”.

Devlin: invisible bonds of common thought. Devlin argued that society has the right to protect itself; the purpose of the law is to guard against threats to the existence of the society. A society cannot survive without some moral standards of the sort which are imposed on all. He claims ‘history shows’ that loosening moral bonds is ‘often the first stage of disintegration’. A society is not held together ‘physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought’. Since a society has a right to continue existing it must therefore have a right to impose some moral standards by law. If the feelings of an ordinary average person towards homosexuality are of ‘intolerance, indignation and disgust’ then that is an indication of potential danger to the social fabric should those feelings not be backed by law. Devlin claimed that society has the ‘right to eradicate’ vices so ‘abominable’ that their ‘mere presence is an offense’.

Mill thought his harm principle was required to prevent the dissolution of society, so arguably Mill and Devlin only disagree about which common morality is required for society to exist, not whether one is required.

Mill is not impressed with the appeal to the disgust of the masses. He claims that humans have a tendency to increasingly encroach on the freedom of the individual and will appeal to the disgust of the majority to justify that. Mill points out that such a principle would justify (in his time) forbidding non-Muslims to eat pork in Islamic countries, since it genuinely disgusts the majority of those populations, or the example of the Spanish Catholicism persecuting Protestantism, since Spaniards found the protestant practices in Europe of allowing clergy to marry disgusting. Mill’s point is that the only the harm principle can adequately draw the line between an individual’s private life and public norms/legislation in a way which prevents persecution and enables individual flourishing.

“unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves.”

Lord Devlin: private affects the public. Devlin argues that the private and public spheres influence each other too greatly for Mill’s liberalism to work. A majority has a right to defend it social environment from change it opposes. If homosexuality or pre/extra marital sex were not subject to public norms or legislation, the social environment, especially the nature of the family, would change in ways difficult to foresee. The environment in which people live and raise their children is affected by the behaviours and models of relationships that other people engage with in their private life. The private therefore affects the public, which gives grounds for subjecting private life to public norms or legislation if the private practice sufficiently threatens a public good for which it is worth the cost to human freedom to protect. The implication is that the traditional family may be such a public good.

Homosexuality has not harmed society. Legalising and normatively accepting homosexuality arguably has not caused the damage to the family that secular thinkers like Devlin and some religious leaders like Archbishop J Welby worried that it would. There is no evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are worse off, for example.

Furthermore, communities can change and indeed should progress. Devlin’s argument seems to make that difficult in any area, not only homosexuality. While community is dependent on shared bonds, Mill’s view that they can be freely chosen or not by different individuals is arguably sufficient for cohesion and clearly allows for change.

Mill accepts that a person’s actions in their private life could still harm society. However, Mill claims that this harm is “one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom.” Although the private sphere does affect the public sphere, it is still for the greater good to allow people freedom in their private life so long as they are not harming others. People do have the right to defend their culture from change they oppose, but only through rational argument and persuasion – not the coercion of public morality or law.

Kant on sexual ethics

Homosexuality doesn’t seem universalisible, since if everyone were homosexual then the species could not continue and then no one would exist to follow the duty to be homosexual.

However, if the maxim is simply ‘follow your own orientation’, then that does seem universalisible.

Pre/extra-marital sex seems universalisible because no contradiction arises in the conception of everyone engaging in pre/extra-marital sex.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is important regarding sex for Kant. He thinks that sex which is not within a marriage for the purpose of procreation pretty much involves each person using the other as a mere means to their own gratification. This is a kind of objectification – treating someone as an object, which involves treating them as a mere means.

However, Kant thinks that marriage is a contractual agreement involving the granting of “lifelong possession of each other’s sexual attributes,”. The idea seems to be that if each person agrees to being used by the other, then both are respecting each other’s end and thus only treating them as a means, not a mere means .

Not treating people as a mere means in sexual ethics is arguably a good principle – but Kant seems wrong to think that it only allows for sex that is within marriage for the purpose of having children. Kant thinks sex outside marriage necessarily always involves objectification and mere using of another person, but that seems a bit cynical and pessimistic. Kant doesn’t seem to appreciate romantic connection. He never married, after all.

Hume’s meta-ethics was greatly disliked by Kant and motivated Kant to create his own ethical theory. Kant thinks ethics can be based on reason and that we can and should remove emotion as a motivation for moral decision making. However, Hume claims that moral judgements being motivating means they must involve desire, which is an emotion or sentiment. It’s not enough merely to reason that we should do something because why would we care that we should do what we should do unless we had a desire to do what we should do? Hume claims that we just are the sort of being which cannot help but require desire in order to be motivated to do actions, which means Kant’s ideal of the good will is an impossible ideal.

P1 – moral judgements are intrinsically motivating. P2 – Reason is not intrinsically motivating. C1 – Therefore, moral judgements cannot be derived from reason alone.

Rational agents can put their emotion aside. The idea that reason and emotion are in conflict goes back to Plato, who saw human reason as aimed higher than the world at intellectual abstract ideas, in conflict with the body which anchored reason in the mere physical world with animalistic feelings. Kant too clearly thinks something like this and suggests that, as rational agents, we can and should try to separate our reason from emotional influence.

However, Hume claimed that “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”. There are everyday examples which illustrate this. When someone criticises your deeply held personal belief, your mind instantly starts thinking of defences. If it cannot think of anything, it starts getting angry and projecting negative psychological motivations into the critic. This looks like your mind has pre-conceived feelings and the role of reason and rationality is merely to provide ad hoc rationalisations to serve our prejudices. Our mind is more like a lawyer than a scientist.

It is our culture which determines our emotional feelings. Kant’s views on sexual ethics are an excellent example of how his supposedly reasoned moral views were really just reflections of and rationalisations for his culture’s views:

Homosexuality is an “unmentionable vice” so wrong that “there are no limitations whatsoever that can save [it] from being repudiated completely”.

Kant even suggests children born outside marriage could be killed or left to die:

“A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law (for the law is marriage) and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it rightly should not have come to exist in this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation”

Regarding Kant, there is a difference between the logic of his theory which arguably can lead to fairly liberal views, and his own personal views which were rigidly traditional and conservative. Some argue that this actually demonstrates a serious critique of Kant’s ethics. Kant imagined that ethics could be based on reason, yet when it came to the practical implementation of his ethics to sexual issues, he was just as much a product of his culture as the most unthinking and unreasonable person in it. His reason was a slave of his culturally conditioned passions.

Possible exam questions for Sexual ethics

Easy Are secular views on sexual ethics superior to traditional religious views? ‘Secular sexual ethics are an improvement on traditional religious views’ – How far do you agree? Assess religious views on sexual ethics How useful is natural law in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is situation ethics in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is Kantian ethics in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is utilitarianism in dealing with issues in sexual ethics?

Medium Do religious views on sexual ethics have a continuing role today? Are normative theories useful for issues within sexual ethics? Should sexual behaviour be entirely private or a matter of public norms and legislation? Assess Aquinas’ on sexual ethics Should sexual ethics be judged based on the loving thing to do in each situation? How successful is the categorical imperative applied to sexual ethics? ‘Issues in sexual ethics should be judged based on the principle of utility’ – Discuss. Can premarital sex ever be ethical? Can extramarital sex ever be ethical? Can homosexuality ever be ethical?

Hard To what extent are traditional religious views on sexual ethics relevant today? ‘Developments in religious views on sexual ethics have had a significant impact’ – Discuss. Have religious view on sexual ethics changed for the better?

Quick links

Year 12 ethics topics: Natural Law. Situation ethics. Kantian ethics. Utilitarianism. Euthanasia. Business ethics. 

Year 13 ethics topics: Meta-ethics. Conscience. Sexual ethics. 

OCR Philosophy OCR Christianity OCR essay structure OCR list of possible exam questions

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Kantian Ethics Revision Map A Level (OCR)

Subject: Philosophy and ethics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

20 March 2021

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This is an A Level Kantian Ethics Revision Map that has all the information need for this section of the ethics paper. It is a SUMMARY of the Kantian Ethics topic in the A Level OCR specification (it is an overview, in depth analysis is detailed on my essay plans). It has been condensed into a colourful, animated poster that is easy to read, and revise from. This has all the information specifically stated that ‘learners should know’ on the OCR specification.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: