rsrevision.com/applied ethics

KS3: Yr7-9 | KS4: GCSE | KS5: A level
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions

Ethical responses to the Right to Life

small logo

Candles

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

 

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is teleological - it looks at the 'end' or 'purpose' of our actions, not the acts themselves. There is no sanctity of life principle here. The end justifies the means, so if we want to decide whether in this specific case it is wrong to kill, we would need to look at the consequences of the killing. If the outcomes are good, the action is a good one.

One of the problems with this approach is the need to ascribe a value to a human life based on the amount of pleasure/pain (or interest/preferences etc.) that the person is likely to experience. Firstly, it seems wrong to value one person more than another simply because they are capable of having more preferences, experiencing a greater amount of pleasure etc. Secondly, it isn't at all clear how you could say how much pleasure or pain was lost if an embryo was not implanted. Even if we assumed an average amount of pleasure, how much pleasure are we talking about for a whole lifetime?

Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant knows that we cannot prove moral principles based on experience. Morality is synthetic a priori - statements about the world that cannot be confirmed by looking at the world. Kant asks "If there were such a thing as morality, what would it be like?" The simple answer - we should all treat people as we would like to be treated. This leads to an obvious sanctity of life position, as rational people don't usually want to be killed.

However, it is easy to imagine a universal rule that allows you to kill terminally ill people with no hope of recovery who want to die. We could make a law of nature that said as soon as a terminally ill person loses the will to live, they will die. Kant is likely to come back here with his third statement of the categorical imperative - never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Killing someone to end their pain would be to use them.

What you get with Kant is a strong sense of moral duty. We should ignore our emotions, disregard the outcomes of our actions and do the right thing. You also get a thorough use of reason. It may be the importance of reason that explains how Kantians respond to the question "Where does life begin?" Rationality is what separates us from other animals. As such, a foetus, or even a baby, does not rate above an animal. They are not part of the 'kingom of ends'. However, they will develop reason, and once they have that faculty they will be able to act according to universalisable maxims. In other words, they will be able to ask "Would I want to have been destroyed as a foetus?"

This means, using Kant's theory, that as soon as human life is genetically distinct, and would, if allowed to, grow into a rational being, it is wrong to kill them.

It is important to remember that Kant came up with the idea of the United Nations (League of Nations) with common moral rules. The idea of 'rights' - universal, absolute deontological principles - is entirely consistent with Kant's ethical theory.

 

Natural Law

Natural Law is, like Kant's theory, deontological. It deals with absolute moral principles that look at whether an action is right or wrong. Killing, whether abortion or euthanasia, is seen as equivalent to murder. This explains why the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, euthanasia, Embryo Research etc. The Catholic Church said it was wrong to kill Mary to save Jodie. Life and Death issues are much more black and white with Natural Law.

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics demands that you do the most loving thing in any circumstance. There are no hard and fast rules. Situation Ethics is Pragmatic, and would look at what is in people's best interests. In the case of Baby Theresa, using her organs to help other babies would be a practical, useful thing to do. Situation Ethicists would probably have advocated ignoring rules about sanctity of life in order to do the pragmatic thing. That doesn't mean that you should discard the rule about not killing one person to save others. It's a good rule, but in some situations (each situation is different) love will motivate you to break the rules.

Virtue Ethics

It's important to remember that Virtue Ethics is advocated by Natural Law theorists (Aristotle and Aquinas) who have a very strong belief in the sanctity of human life. You could argue that doctors are courageous to carry out abortions in places where anti-abortionists threaten them, or that euthanasia is an act of kindness. Aquinas would disagree. Wisdom and Justice are cardinal virtues, and to end a human life would not be just or wise.

MacIntyre is a relativist, and works very differently. He would say that we need to understand the context of decisions about the sanctity of life. Increasingly in hospitals, ethicists are being employed to advise on medical cases with complex ethical dimensions. However, the ethicists generally don't say what the right course of action is. They simply 'unpack' the issue, explaining what the decision really is. For example, in one hospital they will not put patients with Downs' Syndrome on the waiting list for a lung transplant, and they argue that this is the same as not doing lung transplants on smokers. An ethicist could explain whether they were actually the same arguments.

We may think that a smoker doesn't deserve a transplant. However, surely a murderer or rapist would be less deserving. We simply do not make medical decisions based on what people deserve. Lungs are allocated on utilitarian grounds - what would bring about the greatest good? For this reason, people can move up the transplant list if their life is at threat - for them, waiting would be a greater risk. Young people go higher up the list than the elderly - they will get more use out of the lung. Smokers are likely to die younger, and get less use out of new lungs. People with Downs' Syndrome are also likely to die younger, and will therefore get less use out of new lungs.

So, the ethicist may conclude that the reasons for refusing lung transplants for smokers and people with Downs' Syndrome are consistent. This doesn't mean that the decision is right or wrong, just that the arguments don't contradict themselves.

About Us | Site Map | Contact Us | ©2015 rsrevision.com