Ethics and religion

Welcome to Ethics and Religion!

In this chapter, we explore one of the most exciting parts of Philosophy and Ethics: how we decide what is right and wrong. For many religious people, these decisions aren't just about personal feelings; they are guided by their faith, holy books, or the way they believe the world was created.

We will look at three major "Rulebooks" (theories) for making moral decisions and then see how they apply to massive real-world issues like cloning, abortion, and animal rights. Don't worry if it seems like a lot to take in at first—we will break it down bit by bit!

1. Three Ways to Make a Moral Choice

Think of these theories as three different "lenses" you can wear to look at a problem. Each lens focuses on something different.

A. Deontological: Natural Moral Law (Aquinas)

Deontological comes from the Greek word "deon," meaning duty. This theory says that some actions are just plain right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. Imagine a school rule that says "No running in the corridors." Even if you are running to save a kitten, you have still broken the rule. That is a deontological approach.

St. Thomas Aquinas developed Natural Moral Law (NML). He believed God created the world with a specific purpose (telos). By using our reason, we can figure out what that purpose is.

The Five Primary Precepts: These are the "Big Five" rules Aquinas thought were universal for all humans. You can remember them with the mnemonic W.O.R.L.D.:

• Worship God.
• Ordered society (living peaceably with others).
• Reproduction (having children).
• Learning (educating children).
• Defending the innocent (preserving life).

The Principle of Double Effect: Sometimes, a good action has a bad side effect. For example, a doctor gives a dying patient a strong painkiller to help them (good intention), but it also happens to shorten their life (bad side effect). Aquinas said this is okay as long as the intended result was the good one.

Proportionalism: This is a modern "tweak" to NML. It suggests that while we should follow the rules, we can break them if there is a proportionate reason (a very, very good reason) to do so.

Quick Review: NML is about following God-given rules that we find through reason. Key Takeaway: If an action goes against a Primary Precept (like killing), it is usually wrong.

B. Teleological: Situation Ethics (Joseph Fletcher)

Teleological theories look at the end goal or the consequences. Joseph Fletcher argued that we shouldn't follow "legalistic" (strict) rules. Instead, we should do the most loving thing in every situation.

The only "rule" is Agape—this is a Greek word for unconditional, selfless love (the kind of love Jesus showed). Imagine you are hiding a friend from a bully. A strict rule-follower might say "never lie." A Situation Ethicist would say, "Lie! It's the most loving thing to do to protect your friend."

Quick Review: Situation Ethics says "Love is the only law." It is flexible and depends on the specific situation. Key Takeaway: If an action produces the most love, it is right.

C. Character-Based: Virtue Ethics (Aristotle)

Aristotle didn't care much about "rules" or "consequences." He cared about the person. He asked: "What kind of person should I be?"

He believed we should aim for Eudaimonia (human flourishing or happiness). We achieve this by practicing virtues (good habits) like courage, honesty, and kindness.

The Golden Mean: Aristotle said a virtue is the perfect middle ground between two extremes. For example, Courage is the middle ground between being a coward (too little) and being reckless (too much).

Analogy: Learning to be virtuous is like learning to play the guitar. You aren't a rockstar on day one; you have to practice every day until it becomes natural to you!

Quick Review: Virtue Ethics is about building a good character. Key Takeaway: Ask yourself, "What would a virtuous person do?"

2. Applying the Theories: Theft and Lying

How do these theories handle everyday moral dilemmas?

Theft (Stealing)

• Natural Moral Law: Usually says "No." It breaks the Primary Precept of "living in an ordered society." However, Proportionalism might say it's okay if you are stealing a loaf of bread to save a starving child.
• Situation Ethics: It depends. If stealing a weapon prevents a murder, it is the "loving" thing to do.
• Virtue Ethics: Stealing is generally seen as a "base" action that doesn't help you flourish. A virtuous person is usually honest and respects others.

Lying

• Natural Moral Law: Lying is wrong because it goes against our "reason" and breaks the order of society.
• Situation Ethics: Lying is fine if it serves the purpose of Agape (e.g., lying to save a life).
• Virtue Ethics: Honesty is a virtue. However, a person with Practical Wisdom (Phronesis) knows when a "white lie" might be kinder than a brutal truth.

3. Issues of Human Life and Death

These are "big ticket" topics in the AQA syllabus. Here is how our theories look at them:

Embryo Research, Cloning, and 'Designer' Babies

• Natural Moral Law: Strongly against. It "plays God" and often involves destroying embryos, which breaks the Primary Precept of "Defending the Innocent/Preserving Life."
• Situation Ethics: Might be in favor if it leads to cures for diseases (like Parkinson's). If the result is massive relief from suffering, it is "loving."
• Virtue Ethics: Would ask if this helps humans flourish (Eudaimonia) or if we are being motivated by greed and vanity.

Abortion

• Natural Moral Law: Generally wrong. It violates the Primary Precepts of "Preserving Life" and "Reproduction."
• Situation Ethics: Not always wrong. It depends on the mother's situation. If the pregnancy was caused by a crime or puts the mother in danger, abortion might be the most loving choice.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

• Natural Moral Law: Wrong. It is a "failure of duty" to God, who gave us life. It breaks the precept of preserving life.
• Situation Ethics: Might support it. Helping someone end their unbearable pain can be seen as an act of Agape.

Capital Punishment (The Death Penalty)

• Natural Moral Law: This is tricky! Aquinas actually thought it was okay for the state to execute dangerous criminals to protect the "ordered society." Modern Catholic NML thinkers, however, often oppose it.
• Virtue Ethics: Focuses on Justice. Does killing a criminal help society become more virtuous, or does it just encourage a culture of vengeance?

4. Issues of Non-Human Life and Death (Animals)

Did you know? Many traditional ethical theories focused only on humans. Modern students must look at how these theories treat animals.

Use of Animals as Food (Intensive Farming)

• Natural Moral Law: Aquinas believed animals were created for human use. Therefore, eating them is okay. However, many modern NML thinkers argue that cruelty is wrong because it makes us less moral.
• Virtue Ethics: Focuses on the virtue of Compassion. Is someone who ignores the suffering of animals in factory farms truly a virtuous person?

Animals in Science and Organ Transplants

• Situation Ethics: If testing a drug on a mouse saves 10,000 human lives, the "loving" thing (for humans) is to do the testing. Love is procurative (it looks for the best result).
• Natural Moral Law: Generally allows it because humans have a higher "status" than animals in the hierarchy of creation.

Blood Sports (e.g., Fox Hunting)

• Virtue Ethics: Most Virtue Ethicists would find blood sports problematic. Does enjoying the death of an animal help you develop a "courageous" or "kind" character? Probably not.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Mixing up Deontological and Teleological: Remember: Deontological = Duty (rules). Teleological = Target (ends/consequences).

2. Thinking Situation Ethics is "anything goes": It isn't! You can't just do whatever you want. You must do what is most loving (Agape). That is often very difficult!

3. Forgetting "Reason" in NML: Students often think NML is just "God's rules." It's actually about using your human brain to figure out what God intended.

Final Key Takeaway

Ethical theories are tools. When you write your exam, don't just say "Natural Moral Law says X." Instead, explain why (e.g., because it breaks a Primary Precept). Compare the theories to show you understand that different people reach different conclusions based on the "lens" they are wearing.