Application of ethical theories to issues of importance

Welcome to the "Real World" of Ethics!

In your previous chapters, you looked at the big theories: Utilitarianism, Situation Ethics, and Natural Moral Law. Now, it’s time to see how those tools actually work when we apply them to two massive areas of human life: War and Peace and Sexual Ethics.

Don’t worry if this seems like a lot to take in at once. Think of this chapter as a "toolkit in action." We are taking those philosophical "wrenches" and "screwdrivers" and trying to fix (or at least understand) complicated moral problems. Let’s dive in!

1. War and Peace

The central question here is: Can it ever be morally "right" to kill another person in a conflict? Religion and philosophy have wrestled with this for centuries.

The Just War Theory (JWT)

The Just War Theory is a middle-ground approach. It suggests that while war is always terrible, it is sometimes the "lesser of two evils." Two key scholars you need to know are St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Three Stages of JWT:

To make it easier to remember, think of it like a football match. There are rules about when you can start the game, how you play during the game, and how you behave after the whistle blows.

1. Jus ad Bellum (The Justice of going to war): These are the rules before war starts.
- Just Cause: You must have a good reason (e.g., self-defence).
- Legitimate Authority: Only a proper government can declare war, not just anyone.
- Right Intention: You must be aiming for peace, not just wanting to steal land or resources.
- Last Resort: You’ve tried talking, sanctions, and every other option first.

2. Jus in Bello (Justice during war): How you fight.
- Proportionality: Don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The force used should fit the goal.
- Discrimination: You must distinguish between soldiers and non-combatants (civilians).

3. Jus post Bellum (Justice after war): This is a more modern addition.
- It focuses on reconciliation and ensuring a lasting peace rather than just punishing the loser.

Memory Aid: The "L-R-P" Trick

For Jus ad Bellum, remember: Last Resort, Right Intention, Proportionality. If you haven't checked these boxes, the war isn't "Just"!

Pacifism: The "No War" Approach

Some people believe war is never the answer. This is Pacifism.

- Absolute Pacifism: War is always wrong, no matter what. Life is sacred (Sanctity of Life).
- Relative/Selective Pacifism: They judge each war individually. They might be against a specific war (like the Iraq War) but not all wars in history.
- Nuclear Pacifism: They believe that because nuclear weapons are so destructive and can't distinguish between civilians and soldiers, any war involving them is immoral.

Quick Review:
- Augustine & Aquinas: Developed Just War Theory.
- Just War: A middle ground—war is a "necessary evil" under strict rules.
- Pacifism: Rejects war. Can be absolute or selective.

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't assume all religious people are pacifists! While many follow "Thou shalt not kill," many others use Just War Theory to justify fighting for a good cause.

2. Sexual Ethics

This section looks at how we decide what is "right" in our personal relationships. This area has changed massively due to social and cultural influences.

Religious Perspectives

Traditionally, many religions (especially Christianity) have focused on Natural Moral Law. This theory, from Aquinas, argues that sex has a specific telos (purpose): procreation (making babies) and union (joining a couple in marriage).

Because of this, traditional views often reject:
- Pre-marital sex: Because sex belongs inside the "safe container" of marriage.
- Contraception: Because it stops the procreative purpose of sex.
- Same-sex relationships: Traditionally rejected because they cannot naturally lead to procreation.

The Modern Shift: Dominian and Vardy

Students often find this bit tricky, but think of it as a debate between "strict rules" and "meaningful relationships."

Jack Dominian:
Dominian was a Catholic psychiatrist who argued that the quality of the relationship is what matters most. He believed that if a relationship is permanent, faithful, and full of love, it reflects God's love—even if it doesn't follow every old rule perfectly. He helped move the focus from "Is this legal?" to "Is this relationship loving and life-giving?"

Peter Vardy:
Vardy is worried about the "commodification" of sex in modern society.
Analogy: Think of sex like a beautiful, expensive watch. Vardy thinks society today treats it like a cheap plastic toy that you play with and throw away. He argues that when we use sex just for pleasure without commitment, we lose its deep spiritual and personal value.

Secular (Non-Religious) Approaches

Non-religious ethics often focus on Consent and Autonomy.
- Utilitarianism: Would ask, "Does this sexual act result in the greatest happiness for the most people?" If it's consensual and makes people happy without hurting anyone, a Utilitarian usually says it's fine.
- Situation Ethics: Follows the rule of Agape (selfless love). If the most loving thing to do is to support a same-sex couple or allow contraception to prevent poverty, then that is the right choice.

Key Terms to Know

- Adultery: Sex between a married person and someone who is not their spouse.
- Promiscuity: Having many sexual partners without commitment.
- Civil Partnership: A legal recognition of a relationship, similar to marriage, often used by same-sex couples.

Did you know?
In the mid-20th century, Situation Ethics was called the "New Morality." It caused a huge stir because it suggested that even "sinful" things like pre-marital sex could be right if they were done out of true Agape love!

Key Takeaway for Sexual Ethics:
The debate is usually between Absolutists (who follow fixed rules like Natural Moral Law) and Relativists (who look at the situation, the love involved, or the consequences).

Summary and Exam Tips

- Always refer back to the scholars: Mentioning Augustine for war or Dominian for sex will get you extra marks!
- Use the specific terms: Instead of saying "fighting fair," use Jus in Bello. Instead of saying "having babies," use Procreation.
- Contrast your points: If you explain a religious view, try to show how a secular (non-religious) view might disagree. This shows the examiner you understand the diversity of approaches.

Don't worry if you find the Latin terms in the War section confusing at first. Just remember: 'Ad' comes before 'In'. You have to go 'Ad' (to) war before you can be 'In' war!