Unit A2 7: Global Ethics – Moral Theory (Applied)
Welcome to your study notes for Moral Theory within CCEA A Level Religious Studies (Unit A2 7: Global Ethics). In this chapter, we explore how major ethical frameworks guide our decisions on global issues, how Virtue Ethics applies to real-world dilemmas, and how the debate over Free Will vs. Determinism shapes our understanding of moral responsibility and legal justice.
Don't worry if these philosophical debates feel abstract at first. We will break down each theory into clear, manageable steps with practical applications and evaluative points designed specifically for your AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding) and AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation) exam requirements.
---1. Ethical Frameworks Underpinning Global Ethics
To evaluate global issues like human rights, war, and punishment, you must be able to apply the core moral frameworks that justify ethical behavior.
A. Deontology: Kantian Ethics
Core Concept: An absolute, duty-based moral theory established by Immanuel Kant. Actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.
Key Principles:
• Duty: Doing the right thing purely because it is your moral obligation, guided by reason rather than emotion.
• The Categorical Imperative: An unconditional moral command tested by universalizability (acting only on maxims that can become universal law) and treating humanity always as an end in itself, never merely as a means to an end.
Application to Global Issues: Under Kantian ethics, human rights are absolute and non-negotiable. For example, torturing a prisoner of war or using capital punishment purely as a deterrent is strictly forbidden because it uses an individual as a tool for someone else's benefit.
B. Teleology: Utilitarianism
Core Concept: A consequentialist, relativistic moral theory established by Jeremy Bentham and developed by John Stuart Mill. Morality is determined by the outcome of an action.
Key Principles:
• Principle of Utility: The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
• Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism applies the hedonic calculus to each individual situation. Rule Utilitarianism establishes general rules based on utility that normally maximize overall well-being.
Application to Global Issues: A utilitarian might justify going to war (Just War) if the long-term peace and happiness produced outweigh the immediate suffering. Similarly, legal punishment is justified primarily through deterrence and protection, as they safeguard societal happiness.
C. Natural Law
Core Concept: An absolute, deontological religious framework formalized by St. Thomas Aquinas. God created a purposeful universe, and human reason can discern the moral law built into human nature.
Key Principles:
• Telos: The ultimate purpose of human life (to be in fellowship with God and achieve human flourishing).
• Primary Precepts: Universal goals such as preservation of life, reproduction, education of offspring, living in an ordered society, and worshipping God.
Application to Global Issues: Provides a strong foundation for universal human rights. Any global action that violates a primary precept (such as indiscriminate killing in war or violating bodily integrity) is inherently immoral.
Key Takeaway for Frameworks: In your CCEA exam, never treat global issues as purely political debates. Always root your analysis in whether an action violates duty (Kant), disrupts natural purpose (Aquinas), or fails to maximize collective welfare (Utilitarianism).
---2. Applied Virtue Ethics
Unlike Kantianism or Utilitarianism—which ask "What should I do?"—Aristotelian Virtue Ethics asks "What kind of person should I become?" It is an agent-centered approach focusing on character development.
Core Aristotelian Concepts
• Eudaimonia: The ultimate human goal, often translated as human flourishing, living well, or supreme happiness.
• The Doctrine of the Mean (The Golden Mean): Moral virtue lies in the balanced middle ground between two extremes: a vice of deficiency (too little) and a vice of excess (too much). For example, Courage is the golden mean between Cowardice (deficiency) and Rashness (excess).
• Habituation and Phronesis: Virtues are not inborn; they are formed through repeated practice (habituation) guided by practical wisdom (phronesis).
Applying Virtue Ethics to Global Dilemmas
1. War and Conflict: Virtue ethics does not use rigid rule-checklists. Instead, it evaluates the virtues of political and military leaders. A virtuous leader demonstrates justice, courage, and temperance, seeking peaceful resolution and showing mercy to defeated enemies rather than vindictive aggression.
2. Global Rights and Equality: Promoting human rights and gender justice reflects the virtue of justice (fairness) and benevolence, helping all individuals within a society reach their potential for eudaimonia.
3. Punishment: A virtue ethicist would emphasize reform and rehabilitation over harsh retribution, aiming to help offenders cultivate moral virtues and reintegrate into the community.
AO2 Evaluation: Strengths and Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics
Strengths:
• Holistic and Realistic: Considers emotions, motives, character, and context, rather than demanding rigid adherence to cold rules.
• Focuses on Moral Growth: Encourages continuous personal development and the transformation of society toward flourishing.
Weaknesses:
• Lack of Clear Guidance: When faced with urgent global crises (e.g., whether to deploy military intervention in a foreign conflict), virtue ethics offers no explicit formula or rule to determine the right act.
• Cultural Relativism: Virtues can vary across cultures and eras. What one society views as courage, another may view as aggression.
Key Takeaway for Virtue Ethics: Virtue Ethics shifts the focus from external rules to internal character. In global scenarios, evaluate the motives and virtues displayed by international actors rather than simply ticking off consequentialist or deontological checklists.
---3. Free Will vs. Determinism and Moral Responsibility
How can we hold individuals or global leaders morally accountable if their actions are determined by prior causes? The debate between Free Will and Determinism lies at the very heart of moral responsibility, justice, and legal punishment.
The Three Major Philosophical Positions
1. Hard Determinism:
• The Idea: Universal causation applies to human choice. Every human action, thought, and decision is entirely determined by prior causes (such as genetics, upbringing, psychological conditioning, and environmental factors).
• Free Will: An illusion.
• Moral Responsibility: Since individuals could not have acted otherwise, they cannot be genuinely praised or blamed for their actions.
2. Libertarianism:
• The Idea: Human beings are autonomous moral agents who possess genuine free will. While the physical world is governed by cause and effect, human conscious decision-making is not causally determined.
• Free Will: Complete and real.
• Moral Responsibility: Full moral accountability. Individuals are entirely responsible for their moral choices and the global consequences that follow.
3. Soft Determinism (Compatibilism):
• The Idea: Determinism and free will are compatible. Human actions are determined by our internal desires and character, but an action is considered "free" if it is performed without external coercion or physical restraint.
• Free Will: Defined as acting according to internal desires free from external force.
• Moral Responsibility: Maintained because an agent acts voluntarily according to their own character.
Memory Aid: The Spectrum of Free Will
• Hard Determinism: 100% Determined \(\implies\) 0% Free Will \(\implies\) No Moral Responsibility.
• Soft Determinism: Determined internally \(\implies\) Free from external force \(\implies\) Moral Responsibility intact.
• Libertarianism: Not Determined \(\implies\) 100% Free Will \(\implies\) Full Moral Responsibility.
Application to Law and Theories of Punishment
Your understanding of free will determines which theory of legal punishment you can ethically justify:
• Retributive Justice: Assumes Libertarianism. If a criminal freely chose to break the law, they deserve to be punished proportionally ("an eye for an eye"). Under Hard Determinism, retribution is deeply unjust because the offender had no real choice.
• Deterrence and Protection: Fully compatible with Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism. Even if an offender has no free will, locking them up protects society, and the threat of punishment serves as a deterministic external cause that discourages others from offending.
• Reform and Rehabilitation: Aligns with Determinism. Since human behavior is conditioned by psychological and social causes, the criminal justice system should seek to recondition and educate offenders toward positive social behavior.
AO2 Evaluation: Free Will and Determinism
• The Challenge to Retribution: If socio-economic and biological factors heavily influence violent behavior, harsh retributive sentences (including capital punishment) become morally problematic. The focus must shift to restorative justice and systemic reform.
• The Danger of Hard Determinism: Eliminating moral responsibility risks undermining human dignity, personal accountability, and the very concept of human rights, treating humans merely as machines to be conditioned.
Key Takeaway for Free Will: Always connect the free will debate directly to theories of punishment. If humans are free (Libertarianism), retribution is justified; if humans are determined (Hard Determinism), punishment must be utilitarian (deterrence, rehabilitation, protection).
---4. CCEA Exam Success: Essential Tips & Common Pitfalls
Balancing AO1 and AO2
In Unit A2 7, marks are divided equally between knowledge and evaluation:
• AO1 (50%): Accurate terminology, clear explanation of theories (Kantian, Utilitarian, Natural Law, Virtue Ethics, Determinism), and relevant religious or scriptural references.
• AO2 (50%): Sustained evaluation, weighing up strengths and weaknesses, comparing contrasting viewpoints, and reaching a justified, coherent conclusion.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
• The "Personal Opinion" Trap: Never write an essay that reads like a general newspaper opinion column on war or crime. Every point you make must be tied directly to an ethical theory or philosophical stance.
• Confusing Synoptic Connections: Section B requires you to link Unit A2 7 (Global Ethics) to other areas of human experience and foundational ethics (e.g., AS Unit 7). Be prepared to show how foundational normative theories (like Utilitarianism or Natural Law) continue to shape contemporary international law and human rights debates.
• Superficially Listing Pros and Cons: To achieve top-band marks in AO2, analyze the weight of each argument. Do not simply state "One strength is X and one weakness is Y." Explain why one argument logically outweighs another in practice.
---Quick Revision Checklist
Before sitting your exam, ensure you can confidently:
1. Define and explain the Categorical Imperative, Principle of Utility, and Primary Precepts in the context of global rights.
2. Explain how Aristotle's Eudaimonia and the Doctrine of the Mean apply to global leadership and ethical decision-making.
3. Contrast Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, and Libertarianism, explaining how each affects moral responsibility and legal punishment.
4. Evaluate whether retributive punishment can be justified if human choices are determined.