Christian Ethics

Here is a short video on my discussing the different ways in which Christians “do” their ethics.

Advertisements

Just War Theory

Just War Theory

This theory dates back to St Augustine who had to persuade the pacifist Christian tradition in Roman times that war can sometimes be necessary. St Aquinas and other theologians later developed this theory. There are three parts to this ethical theory JUS AD BELLUM –rules set out for going to war, JUS IN BELLO – rules set out for being in war and JUS POST BELLO – the nature of how a war is ended.

So what are the Jus Ad Bellum Conditions?

  1. Just cause – in order for a war to be declared there must be a just cause. But who is to judge what is a just cause?
  2. Right intention – It is linked with the part of Natural Law that states that intention is really important. Ulterior motives such as acquiring land or protecting oneself should not be intended. But how can you test/measure intention?

Proportionality – The damage caused by the war should not exceed the good expected to come out. How are you supposed to predict this?

  1. Declaration by a legitimate authority – This principle is linked with this quote from the Bible “Obey the powers that be for they are ordained by God” Romans 13:1-2. Some like Wilcockson say that this principle has been overlooked so that terrorists now have rights of this nature.
  2. Last resort – Every other must have been used before going to war e.g. peaceful negotiations. If an authority has already decided this is what they want to do is there any point in negotiations?
  3. Formal declaration of war – Some countries do not recognise the UN rules for going to war and they may not recognise this principle. We have seen some of the most horrific example of when this rule has been violated e.g. Pearl Harbour
  4. Reason chance of success – There should be a relative chance of success but if one knows they don’t have a chance of success they may feel ashamed in declaring it.

Then what are the Jus In Bello conditions?

There are two conditions according to Just War Theory for how we should behave in war. Jus In Bello requires agents of war to be responsible for their actions.

  1. Principle of discrimination – innocent people or ‘non- combatants’ should not be directly or directly attacked according to the Geneva Convention. Is this really possible?
  2. Principle of proportionality – Minimum force should be used to achieve good and just like with proportionality before the damage caused should not outweigh the good. With nuclear weapons is this really possible?

And what about Jus Post Bello then?

This is a fairy new addition to the Just War Theory. This concerns the aftermath of war and restoring peace and fairness.

Restoring human rights – bringing back the equality and rights that everyone has.

  1. Distinguishing between innocent civilians and those who should be punished
  2. Bringing to trial war criminals and ensuring they receive justice
  3. Giving the defeated country the opportunity to reform.

Genetic Engineering

Types of Genetic Engineering

In this video I explore – somatic-cell gene therapy, germ-line gene therapy, enhancement genetic engineering (designer babies), eugenic genetic engineering, animal genetic engineering, gm crops, embryo cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Ethical Responses

In this video I look at what would Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Situation Ethics and Christian Ethics say to the different forms of genetic engineering.

As Christian Ethics is so varied I have not included it in the table below 

 

Natural Law

Utilitarianism

Kant

Situation ethics

Somatic-cell GT

☺ Fulfils precept to live

☺ Produces greatest good for greatest number

☺/☹ Depends on which way you argue it

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Germ-line GT

☺ Again helps fulfil purpose of life and reproduction

☺ Produces greatest good for greatest number

☺/☹ Depends on which way you argue it

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Enhancement GT

☹ Against God’s design and doesn’t seem to have a purpose.

☺  Makes people happy

☹ It doesn’t make other ‘that’ happy

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Eugenic GT

☹ No purpose in editing God’s design

☺/☹ Depends on the   situation 

☺/☹ Depends on which way you argue it

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

GM crops

☺ Help solve problem of world hunger which helps to also fulfil the precept of life.

☺ Solving the problem of world hunger outweighs any costs

☺ Imperfect duty to make people happy 

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Animal GT

☺ Humans have dominion over animals so nothing wrong with using them to fulfill the precept of life.

☺ Produces greatest good for greatest number

☺ Kantian ethics is based on the ability to reason so using animals to fulfil imperfect duty is not a problem.

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Embryo cloning

☺ Life is scared so this would be a NO.

☺/☹ Depends on the   situation 

☺/☹ Depends on which way you argue it

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Reproductive cloning

☹ No purpose in editing God’s design

☺/☹ Depends on the   situation 

☺/☹ Depends on which way you argue it

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Therapeutic cloning

☺ Helps fulfill purpose of life – to live.

☺ Produces greatest good for greatest number

☺/☹ Depends on which way you argue it

☺ Can be most loving thing to do but pragmatics and costs have to be taken into account.

Root of Natural Law

Roots of Natural Law

  • The roots of Natural Law can be dated back to the Greek (8th – 6th C BC) and Roman era (27th BC to 476 AD).
  • However, the two man roots of Aquinas’ Natural Law lie in Aristotelian work and the Stoics. 

Stoics

The Stoics existed in the 3rd C and they emphasized the importance of ‘logos’ (rationality that governs the world and sees human nature as part of one natural order). They believed that Natural Law is the Law formed by right reason. Right reason only serves its own ends and is not corrupted into serving special interests. This right reason helps humans to judge whether or not they want to follow a divine spark which existed in them. Being Pantheist they said humans have a divine spark within them which right reason helps them to follow.

Aristotle 

Aristotle believed that we can judge the extent to which an action is good by seeing if it helps us to attain our ultimate good. It is difficult to see what our ultimate good is, it is not like maths. Higher social activities which other animals cannot do are ones which should be fulfilled in order to live a well functioning life. He also believed reason was key in working out ethics, this he called practical ethics. In ethics, Aristotle claimed, we go from ‘true but obscure judgements’ to general ethical principles (see parallel with primary and secondary principles). We can work out these principles by comparing to what extent they help us to achieve our ultimate good. 

In summary: Everything has a purpose and by fulfilling it we can reach our supreme good – eudaimonia.

Aquinas came along and identified three crucial things from Aristotle and the Stoics which he married with ideas of Christian Theology to create Natural Law theory. Those three points were:

  1. Human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish.
  2. Even without knowledge of God, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing.
  3. The Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge the laws of particular societies.

Aquinas believed our telos isn’t eudaimonia buy rather perfection. We should strive for this because we are made in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, for Aquinas this isn’t something which can be achieved in this life but rather starting in this life and continuing through to  the next.

Natural Law helps us to fulfil our telos of perfection and this in itself will help to live a fulfilled life and flourish.

Aquinas said that humans have a natural inclination to do good and avoid evil. Hence, he distinguished between real and apparent good. As no human would for this reason knowingly commit an evil action, he said people are evil unknowingly. They are following “apparent good” (something which seems to be good or the right thing to do but does not fit with the perfect human ideal). A “real good” on the other hand is the right thing to do, it fits the human ideal. 

Kantian Ethics: Strength & Weaknesses

I have recently updated this table so not all strengths and weaknesses are discussed in the above video.

Strengths

Weaknesses

1. Creates a distinction between duty and inclination. Inclination is may be because something benefits us but morality is something above that it is about duty.

1. No rules if two duties conflict e.g. our duty to make other happy and our duty not use an embryo for genetic research even though genetic research makes people happy. Strangely Kant would argue in this situation one duty must not be a true duty. Furthermore, it can impractical in terms of trying to fufil all duties e.g. the duty to care for all patients equally in a hospital faced with a fixed budget.

2. Makes justice impartial because you cannot promote happiness if that happiness undermines another happiness. This is also a criticism of utilitarianism.

2. Personalised rules can not exist as they cannot be universalised. (Could also be a strength)

3. Humans are given intrinsic worth, dignity and respect. Demonstrates that humans have rights.

3. No allowance for compassion or sympathy.

4. We are equal individuals unlike some forms of Christian ethics which suggests that if you do not follow the Lord Jesus Christ you are not equal to other people.

4. What is more important consequences and people or actions? e.g.. man with axe example.

5. Easy to follow with a clear criteria because it is based on innate human reason. More importantly gives us answers which arguably other theories like Situation Ethics do not.

5. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative can be difficult to use in terms of world politics. For example, we cannot scarifice the few at war for the sake of many.

6. People generally do have the same idea about morality.

6. Kant’s deontological theory of ethics is in fact vague. The reason being no two moral situations are the same hence can one maxim fill both situations. No. Is murder the same as self-defence, suicide, abortion?

7. People recognise the idea of duty as a part of being human.

7. The theory only works if everyone agrees with it which is clearly not true. For Natural Law or Virtue Theory to work one doesn’t need everyone to work.

8. It is wholly secular which means it does not rely on the assumption that there is a God unlike Natural Law which if the existence of God is rejected then so is Natural Law.

8. It commits a Naturalistic Fallacy according to G.E.Moore. One cannot derive an ought from an is i.e. can ought really imply can?

9. Is it really universal can everyone really be classified a rational moral agent?

10. Kant argues that happiness is the by-product of morality not the intention behind it – is this suggestion really logical – why would you follow it then?

11. Not everyone is capable of ration decision-making hence theory is not universal.