Revision notes: Essay writing

In the examples below, colours are used in the following way to illustrate how to launch an essay effectively so as to maximise your marks.

Red………………………names

Blue………………………ethical terms

Green……………………..quotes

Purple…………………….twists (ie qualifications,  contrasts subtleties)

Question 1

a. Explain what is meant by absolute and relative morality. (25)

Absolute moral theories generate rules which allow of no exception, whereas relative theories link the idea of goodness to something which changes over time, such as customs or what J.L.Mackie calls “forms of life”. An example of an absolute theory is Kantian ethics, which is a deontological, duty based approach. An example of a relative theory is Fletcher’s situation ethics, although strictly, this is not a pure relativistic theory as it contains one absolute, the principle of agape or unconditional love which stands at its centre. A contrast between the two theories will help to bring out their essential features.

b. Absolute theories are inflexible when it comes to deciding the rights and wrongs of euthanasia. (10)

Absolute theories tend, as argued above, to produce rules which allow of no exceptions, and Kant himself tried to argue in a famous essay, that it was never permissible to break a categorical rule, such as “thou shalt not lie”, even when faced with a crazy knifeman asking you to reveal the known whereabouts of your friend. However, it could be argued that this inflexibility is not quite as rigid as may appear at first sight, because, as James Rachels suggests, it is possible to have a qualified command which is still universalisable, such as “thou shalt not kill, unless someone is in intolerable pain”.

Kantian ethics creates its absolute rules by a process of universalisability: Kant asks us to universalise our actions in the sense of placing ourselves in another person’s shoes. Taking the third formulation of the categorical imperative, is it not possible to imagine a universal law saying that the only exception to the rule, thou shalt not kill, is when someone wills their own death and it is clear that the illness is terminal? Such an exception is provided, for example, in the state of Oregon, USA, by the Oregon rules.

Question 2

a. Describe the main features of a natural law theory of ethics. (25)

Natural law theory originates in Greek and Roman philosophy as elaborated by Aristotle or Cicero. It was then adapted by Aquinas in the thirteenth century in order to reconcile Greek philosophy, rediscovered by the fall of Toledo in 1085, and Christianity. It is Aquinas’ adaptation which will be considered here, as it still forms the essential Roman Catholic ethical viewpoint illustrated by papal encyclicals, and so provides contemporary input into debates on contraception, abortion and euthanasia. There are three main features which need to be considered: natural law theory is deontological, reasonable and naturalistic.

Natural law is first of all deontological, it creates an idea of the intrinsic goodness or badness of an action based on the idea of fitness of purpose. So in the Catholic catechism, homosexuality is described as “intrinsically disordered” because, following natural law, sex (the action) is separated from the natural purpose (procreation). Although deontological in outcome, the worldview is actually teleological, because everything is seen as having a natural purpose (telos) discoverable by reason, as Aristotle puts it in Nichomachean Ethics “every action has some good at which it aims”.

b. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of a natural law approach to abortion. (10 marks)

Natural law as developed by Aquinas and then applied to abortion by the Catholic Church creates a clear rule: abortion is wrong and equivalent to murder. Indeed the Catechism describes abortion as a “grave sin” punishable by excommunication from the church. On closer analysis, however, it can be seen that it is not natural law which necessarily creates this inflexibility, but the interpretation of natural law in the secondary precepts. Put another way, it is the general primary precepts which are supposedly absolute: the secondary precepts are, as Aquinas concedes when he argues polygamy may sometimes be acceptable, liable to change over time and according to circumstances.

However, as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church, natural law does create a clear rule as abortion breaks the primary precept of the preservation of life. The advantages of this are simplicity and clarity. It is also clear that there can be no slippery slope whereby the sanctity of life, compromised here, starts to be threatened in other areas, such as the acceptance of euthanasia.

Situational ethicists such as Joseph Fletcher would ask us to consider the following scenario, in order to establish that natural law theory produces very unloving outcomes. A sixteen year old girl falls pregnant and fearful of her parents’ anger, goes late (at say eighteen weeks) to her GP. Her school career and general welfare are clearly threatened by having the child. Would it not be more loving for both mother and child if the foetus was aborted?

Question 3

a. Explain what Kant meant by the categorical imperative. (25 marks)

A categorical imperative is an unconditional command which allows of no exceptions, such as “thou shalt not kill”. This is contrasted with a hypothetical imperative, “you may kill if you are defending yourself” (notice the “if” provides a hypothetical situation where killing is allowed). Kant argued that his three formulations of the categorical imperative came out of reason, operating a priori, before experience, and, following Derek Norman’s description, produce three ways of universalising. We universalise our actions, our common humanity and the laws or rules we think everyone should follow.

b. Would Kant argue that everyone has the right to a child? (10 marks)

Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative states that for an action to be right we should treat all human beings not just as a means to an end, but as an end in themselves. This “principle of ends” implies that every human being should have rights, dignity and respect given to them, and forms one of the bases for human rights legislation. But does this imply that we should give every woman the right to have a child?

For most people who do not suffer from infertility, and are heterosexual, the issue does not arise (except in China where limits are placed on this right because of overpopulation). But to the homosexual couple or the infertile couple the issue does arise whether the state should allow access to fertility treatment, where a number of embryos are created in vitro, in a test tube (to give one example of how the right to a child may be worked out in practice). This raises the moral issue, is it acceptable to waste embryos?

Where a Kantian could universalise the idea of everyone having a right to a child, where the individual choice is respected, this issue does turn on the status of the foetus itself, whether it should be accorded special “rights” of its own. On this question a Kantian could argue in one of two ways: either that we universalise this right, or, placing ourselves in the position of one of the “wasted” embryos whose right to life is never realised, outlawing fertility treatment on these grounds.

Question 4

a. Explain the difference between Mill’s and Bentham’s version of utilitarianism. (25 marks)

Bentham and Mill’s versions of utilitarianism are both teleological theories because the goodness of an act is linked to consequences rather than something intrinsic to the act itself. However they differ on the thing which is linked to consequences: for Bentham it is the maximisation of pleasure which produces the greatest good, for Mill it is a more general idea of happiness. They also differ in their view of pleasure and whether it is the act itself or a more general rule which needs to be followed in order that the greatest good be maximised.

b. “Utilitarianism is the best approach to solving issues concerning genetic engineering”. (10 marks)

What are these issues concerning genetic engineering? Genetic engineering includes practices as diverse as cloning, gene therapy through stem cell research and the production of “designer babies” whose eye colour, intelligence and other features are pre-selected. Each of these three examples produces different moral issues. Here it will be argued that gene therapy has much clearer utilitarian gains, as measured by the welfare of society, in the curing of diseases at present causing pain and suffering, than for example designer babies, which could arguably produce some kind of genetic super-elite as portayed in the film Gattaca.

Question 5

a. Explain the main characteristics of the ethics of a religion you have studied. (25 marks)

Christian ethics is as diverse as the study of ethics generally. There are Christian relativists, such as Joseph Fletcher, and Christian absolutists, like Thomas Aquinas. Christianity can proceed by divine command or from the process of human reason (as Aquinas argued it should, following his theory of natural law). In this essay I take the view that there are common threads in all approaches, which in the end may be judged by the life of Jesus Christ, his character, teaching and actions, but that the variety in ethical approaches also reflects differences in culture and in the way the Bible is interpreted, but that a Christian relativist and absolutist will take very different standpoints on many key moral issues.

b. “Religious ethics is the best way of resolving issues of killing in war” (10 marks)

Christians have disagreed historically on approaches to killing in war, which may suggest that the “best way” may not be something Christians can easily determine. There are Christians, such as Quakers, who say that killing is never justified. They cite Bible verses such as “turn the other cheek” or “blessed are the peacemakers” to support their position. Other Christians consider that war is justified under some circumstances, and these circumstances are defined by just war theory, which finds its roots in the writings of non-Christian Romans like Cicero. This second view might cite instances such as the cleansing of the Temple, where Jesus resorts to violence to expel the money-changers, or the book of Joshua, where God appears to order the armies of Israel to utterly destroy the city of Jericho.

Glossary of key terms you should sprinkle liberally through your essays:

A priori before experience (as in Kant)

A posteriori after experience (as in Mill)

Absolute allowing no exceptions

Autonomy self-rule or freedom of

the individual

(Kant’s assumption)

Categorical imperative unconditional command

Deontological creating rules or duties, good is

intrinsic to action

Euthyphro’s dilemma Either an action is good because God commands it, or it is commanded by God because it is good. If the former, what do we do if God commands us to do something we think is morally wrong? If the latter, then goodness has nothing to do with God: he is morally redundant.

Hedonic pleasure based

Hypothetical imperative commands based on

circumstances

good is external to action    (eg   good is linked to consequences in utilitarianism)

Natural law the goodness of an action is one

that is linked to its natural

purpose.

Naturalistic fallacy the attempt to derive an “ought”

from an “is”

eg you oughtn’t to steal

(the“ought”) as it

makes people unhappy (the “is”)

Objective source of morality is outside me

eg God, or Kant’s “objective moral

law”

Relativism Goodness is relative to culture,

belief, what J.L.Mackie calls

“forms of life”

Situation ethics Goodness depends on the

situation as long as we try to

maximise love.

Subjective source of morality is within me

eg feelings

Teleological goodness is extrinsic to the action

and lies in the end or purpose

Utilitarianism goodness of an action is one that

maximises pleasure (Bentham),

happiness (Mill) or preferences

(Singer).