A Viking's RS Ramblings

Religious studies quotes, essays and more...

[vintagraphblog]

Australia: The tallest trees in the British Empire. New in Vintage Travel Posters collection. (via Vintage Australian Travel Poster | Vintagraph)

[francisrs]

"Moral absolutism cannot be justified." Discuss.

It could be argued that moral absolutism cannot be justified. Sometimes there are occasions where it is not right to observe absolute rules. For instance, Kant would argue that one is not allowed to lie as it is not universalisable. However, what about Hitler? Surely we should lie to him if it is going to same millions of lives. Equally, with regard to euthanasia, if someone really wanted to die, they should be allowed to. For instance, Dianne Pretty asked to die whilst facing the prospect of a painful death from Motor Neurone Disease. A utilitarian would argue that the greatest happiness would result if she was allowed to die. However, an absolutist theory such as Natural Law would not allow her to die as it would violate the primary precept (which cannot be broken) "preservation of innocent life".

  However, perhaps moral absolutism can be justified. We arguably need rules in our society - without some absolute rules madness would break out. For instance, rules such as "do not murder" - certain universal and unchanging principles are certainly required in society. Relativist theories allow the individual to make their own moral judgements, which means the actions of people like Hitler or Stalin could be justified.

  Overall, moral absolutism on the balance of probability cannot be justified. It does not allow the morals of the individual to come through fully and does not take account of times where there must be exceptions to rules. 

[francisrs]

All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.

Peter Singer

[francisrs]

Explain what is meant by moral absolutism.

Moral absolutism considers that actions are right or wrong intrinsically, so consequences have no bearing whatsoever. Often absolute theories are deontological (focus on the act itself). Moral commands are often considered objectively rather than subjectively and are universally true.

  Moral absolutism does not focus on consequences. For instance Kantian ethics is not concerned with the outcome of any act, primarily because a good outcome can come from bad actions - take getting nice trainers from Nike for example. Although the trainers are cheap for the consumer they have had an emotional and physical cost on the producer, who has not been paid the full value of their work. The consequences of an action, therefore, are irrelevant. Kant claimed that acts must also be universalisable, i.e. that they are repeatable by anyone else if done again.

  Such theories almost always have absolute rules that must be followed. Absolute rules can never be broken. For instance, Natural law has five primary precepts which are absolute, including "preservation of innocent life", "worship of God", and "maintaining an ordered society". These absolute rules are in clear contrast to relativism, where there are rarely such absolute rules. Subjectivist ethical relativism has no absolute rules, with morality becoming an aesthetic judgement. For instance, someone in Scotland may enjoy bullfighting, though the general culture of Scotland would be to reject it, whilst someone in Madrid may hate bullfighting, while the majority of Madrid enjoy it. Here, morality is at the eyes of the individual - they can make their own morals. The ability to do this is almost impossible with moral absolutism. An exception to this is with Kant, where you can make rules, but they must be universalisable and they must be implementable in a Kingdom of Ends. As rational beings we are capable of doing this, according to Kant.

  There can be exceptions to absolute rules. For instance, abortion. For a follower of Natural Law, abortion would almost always be immoral for it would violate the primary precept "preservation of innocent life". However, abortion could be allowed in an ectopic pregnancy where the mother would die if the fallopian tube was not removed. Here the death of the infant would be the secondary impact; saving the mother's life is the primary impact.  Equally, for someone in a large amount of pain in a hospital, giving them an extreme dose of painkillers would have the effect of reducing their pain. The secondary effect, however, would be to end their life. This would be acceptable as the goal is to reduce the pain of the patient - the intention is not to kill the patient, though this is a consequence. 

[francisrs]

"The right to a child is an absolute right." Discuss.

Arguably, people do not have the right to have a child. Some would say that children are gifts, given by God. Particularly if taking a sanctity of life argument that only God can give or take life, then humans have absolutely no right to believe they have the right to have children. It could be said that couples who are incapable of having children have been made that way by God, for God does not want them to have children. The concept of artificially creating a child could be seen to interfere with nature - the only natural way to create a child is through sexual reproduction.

  However, the religious argument is somewhat outdated; people should have the right to have children. Infertility is a condition that can now be treated fairly simply, so parents can now have children that belong to them genetically. If indeed the right to a child is absolute then all parents should be entitled to IVF. Kant would argue that were this not possible, IVF would not be universalisable and therefore could not be used.

  Although the right to a child is perhaps not an absolute right, people should if they want to be able to have children. Modern medical technology has enabled this, and if they want to have children through IVF then the couple should be able to do so without criticisms of going against what is natural.

[francisrs]

Explain how a follower of Kantian ethics might approach the issues surrounding the right to a child.

Kantian ethics is a deontological (the consequences of an action are irrelevant, for a good act can come from bad actions - the act itself is what matters) absolutist (the categorical imperative must be followed) theory. IVF (in vitro fertilisation) is the major issue that needs to be considered here - particularly whether it is universalisable.

  People must be treated as an ends in themselves. For IVF, many embryos are discarded and only one ultimately used. If an embryo is considered a person a follower of Kantian ethics would need to ask whether the destruction of so many embryos to create one life is justified. However, if an embryo is not a child then discarding embryos would be considered acceptable, for the embryos therefore have no further emotional or physical value. If using a surrogate mother, a follower would also have to ask about whether that person is being used as a means. If the surrogate mother is later going to be treated as the effective mother of the child, then this could be seen as treating her as an ends. However, if all she is being used for his for her capacity to grow a child inside her body, then this would be unacceptable to a follower of Kantian ethics.

  Kant would consider universalisation. Processes like IVF are not cheap, costing roughly £5000, and are not guaranteed to work. A follower of Kantian ethics would have to consider whether the cost of giving IVF to every couple is worth the cost. If it is found that IVF would not be productive to give to every couple, or if there isn't enough money to offer the process to everyone, then the process would not be universalisable. An act is only universalisable of it can be repeated by everyone in society. However, IVF does the potential to be universalisable, for if everyone had IVF then there would still be pregnancy and childbirth.

[francisrs]

To what extent is the quality of life the least important factor when considering euthanasia?

Quality of life, the idea that people should be able to enjoy intellectual activities, is perhaps an important factor. If someone has a high quality of life many would argue that they should not be allowed to die, even if they had explicitly asked to. Their quality of life would overrule their autonomy. Certainly Singer would argue that someone with a high quality of life, for instance someone with Alzheimer's, would not have the right to die provided they can still enjoy higher pleasures such as reading or going to the theatre. If someone has a high quality of life, surely this has to be considered, for what is the point of someone who can still engage in everyday activities dying?

  However, perhaps someone's quality of life is not as important as may initially appear. Perhaps what is more important is that they have the right to be autonomous. Kant would argue that everyone should be able to make their own autonomous decisions; doing something because society wants them to is not autonomous, and neither is doing something because God tells them to. Hence, both quality of life and sanctity of life arguments are rejected. People should be able to choose whether or not they are euthanatized, but it should be an entirely individual choice.

  Overall, the most important factor when considering euthanasia is the person's wishes. If that person wants to die, no matter what condition they are suffering from (if any), then they should be able to prematurely terminate their life. 

[francisrs]

Explain the moral issues surrounding euthanasia.

  Euthanasia has many moral issues. Particularly prevalent are the sanctity of life (the idea that God created humans in his image, so only he can give or take life), quality of life (personal satisfaction with the cultural or intellectual conditions under which you live), personhood (whether some people, for instance in a PVS, are still people) and autonomy (people have the right to make their  own decisions).

  One major more issue for euthanasia is that of the sanctity of life. A believer in the sanctity of life would argue that only God has the right  to give or take life as he created all humans imago dei. If someone believed this, they would argue that under no circumstances does anyone have the right to take their life, or let anyone else take their life for them. Natural law accepts the sanctity of life argument, but would also reject euthanasia due to the primary precept (which is absolute therefore cannot be broken under any circumstances) "preserve innocent life". For instance, even in the case of Dianne Pretty who had motor neurone disease and was facing a painful death, she would not have been allowed to die, despite saying "I want to have a quick death without suffering". Both the sanctity of life thesis and the primary precepts would stop her being autonomous.

  Another issue surrounding euthanasia is the idea of quality of life. If someone is still enjoying happy relationships, can communicate and is not in any unbearable, some would argue that euthanasia is wrong. The people here are still able to enjoy "higher pleasures". For instance, Peter Singer would argue that someone with Alzheimer's would not be able to be euthanized as they are still able to enjoy higher pleasures like reading or opera. However, he would argue that someone with a very low quality of life, such as Tony Bland, who could no longer enjoy any form of pleasure at all (having been left in a PVS after Hillsborough) would have the right to die as his quality of life was so abysmally poor.

  The idea of personhood with regard to euthanasia is a controversial one. Singer argued that someone in a PVS has lower moral standing than a rat, for a rat can still make rational decisions and, to an extent, engage in pleasurable activities. For instance, Tony Bland would be lower in moral standing than a rat, and perhaps would not be considered a person. Personhood, it could be argued, is the ability to make rational decisions, having consciousness and having independence. Without these, some would argue that a being is no longer a person, and if someone is not a person surely they are no longer bound by any sanctity of life argument and have the right to die.

  Mill argued that people should be able to be autonomous when it comes to euthanasia. In his book, On Liberty, he talked about the issue of moral autonomy. Arguably, people should be able to make their own decision about whether they die. Singer, who developed preference utilitarianism, argued that if someone's preference is to die, then they should be able to do so. Both these utilitarian thinkers believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. For Singer, this would mean that if the preferences of a greater number of individuals wanted the individual who wanted to die to stay alive, then the preferences of the greater number would overrule the preference of the individual. 

[francisrs]

"A foetus is not a person." Discuss. (?)

Arguably, a foetus is a person. The Catholic church would argue that the foetus is a person from conception, for there is genetic material present at conception. Equally, someone who believes in the sanctity of life would potentially believe foetuses are people, for if all life is God given then even at this early stage God must have created life.

  However, it is certain that a foetus is not a person. Even followers of the Bible will find it hard not to justify that something cannot be a person until is born. Genesis 2:7 said that man was created before he was given the breath of life. Until a baby can breathe outside of the womb it cannot be considered a human, even by followers of religion, surely.  Peter Singer goes further to suggest that even babies up to the age of one month old are not people, for they have still not developed rational capacity, and to a certain extent he is right. Judith Jarvis Thompson listed the traits of personhood, including the ability to make rational decisions. It is certain that at birth babies do not have this ability, so perhaps cannot be considered to be people until a certain age of birth, however extreme this perspective may be.

  It is almost undeniable that a foetus is not a person. Even religious followers would struggle to argue against this, and in addition babies display few traits of personhood, even up to birth. A sensible time to assume that a foetus becomes a person would be at birth, though even at this stage they may not display the traits of personhood, so by some would still not be considered people. A foetus is categorically not a person.

[francisrs]

Explain how belief in the Sanctity of Life may influence ethical approaches to abortion.

The sanctity of life theory is the idea that all humans are created in the image of God (imago dei), and because of this only God has the right to give or take life. An embryo, if considered a person, cannot be aborted if someone believes in the sanctity of life, for only God has the right to do this.

  Natural Law uses the sanctity of life in its approach to abortion. Natural Law is a theory which uses the five absolute (i.e. cannot be broken) primary precepts to make moral decisions. One of these primary precepts, "preservation of innocent life", leads to abortion being forbidden. Natural law observes the sanctity of life thesis, considering an embryo / foetus to be a person. However, although Natural law respects the sanctity of life, it is by no means a religious theory, for it is based on objective truth. Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented. If the mother's life is threatened as a result of the pregnancy, for instance during an ectopic pregnancy, then the destruction of the fallopian tube would be acceptable. Here, the primary aim is not the terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother's life. The secondary effect is that the embryo is destroyed. Here, abortion would be permissible even by Natural law followers, who believe in the sanctity of life.

  The sanctity of life can be deconstructed into weak and strong theses. The strong sanctity of life, the pro-life argument, strongly asserts that God is the creator of life and creates us in his image. We are therefore different to animals (God blew into Adam's nostrils, not into other animals). This brings up the idea that humans are different, or special. Humans, according to this theory, are created at conception, rather than at birth (or even after birth as Peter Singer believes). Because of the special nature of humans, they cannot be destroyed, for instance in abortion, other than by God. The weak sanctity of life thesis, on the other hand, says that abortion can sometimes be justified. This viewpoint is typical of the Protestant church. Although they respect the sanctity of life, they feel it needs to be balanced against the command to "love thy neighbour". Abortion remains, in all cases, evil, but can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. The Church of England supports experimentation on embryos during the first 14 days, which could lead to very important medical advances that affect the lives of millions. Equally, they would support abortion for extreme cases, for instance if the mother has become pregnant as a result of rape and would not be able to psychologically go through with the pregnancy. 

[francisrs]

"Kant's ethical theory has no serious weaknesses." Discuss.

It could be argued that Kant's ethical theory does indeed have no serious weaknesses. Kantian ethics treats all people as autonomous beings, which means they are not constrained to the rules of society or to the rules of a "God". Kant's theory also means that people are not treated as a means to an end, only ever as an end in themselves. For instance, this would mean that children are not exploited in sweatshops, being paid 10p per hour, to make t-shirts whilst Primark sell the t-shirt for £3. The child would not be treated as a "means".  One of the major strengths of Kant is that everyone is the same. There is no differentiation between people no matter what their class, colour, background etc.

  However, there certainly are weaknesses to Kant's ethical theory. Although people are autonomous beings, being able to make their own decisions, perhaps they should have to conform to some things that society demands. Equally, Kant would argue that it is always wrong to lie for the action is not universalisable. However, if someone like Stalin arrives at your home threatening to kill everyone in your home if you don't lie to tell him that there's nobody at home, then your family would die. Surely in some circumstances it is right to break the rules and lie, even if lying is not universalisable.

  Certainly Kant's theory has some serious weaknesses that should be taken into account. Even if Kant treats everyone as autonomous and creates a better society where we are "happy" for fulfilling our "duty", this does not mean that fulfilling ever rule is the best thing to do. Sometimes it is right to break the rules, which Kant does not take account of. Kantian ethics does have serious weaknesses.

[francisrs]

Explain how Bentham's version of utilitarianism can be used to describe the right course of action.

  Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which judges the rightness or wrongness of an action on its utility/usefulness, which represents the amount of pleasure of happiness caused by an action. An action is right if and only if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, hence the act itself is not of any value, rather the consequences of the act are what needs to be considered.

  Bentham would apply the hedonic calculus to a situation. The hedonic calculus is a system whereby the maximum utility is achieved for any situation. However, this process is very time-consuming and perhaps it would be better to use, as Mill does, a series of utility-maximising rules. The hedonic calculus of Bentham takes into account the intensity of pleasure, duration of pleasure, certainty/uncertainty, the closeness or remoteness, the chance of repeating pleasure and the purity of the pleasure. For instance, something which causes immense pleasure for a very long time and is repeatable would be very favourable in Bentham's view - for instance a long massage or a spa treatment. The hedonic calculus could be used to weight up the morality of euthanasia. If someone, such as Tony Bland (left in a PVS after Hillsborough), would receive greater pleasure than if he was forced to carry on living, then ending his life would be permissible. However, if more people in society would be unhappy than those left happy by the decision to terminate Mr Bland's life then euthanasia would not be permissible, as it would not lead to greater utility for society.

  Bentham is an act utilitarianism, as supposed to being a rule utilitarian. An act is right if and only if it results in the same amount of happiness as any alternative act. A rule utilitarian would say that a rule is right if and only if it itself it a member of a set of rules that themselves lead to greater happiness for society. Because Bentham is an act utilitarianism, the act of doing something has intrinsic value. If the act will result in negative utility for society, or more negative utility than any alternative act, then it should not be carried out. For instance, if a dying man's last wish is to donate all his money to Manchester United, and his friend promises to carry this out, then Bentham would argue that the money would be better going to a charity like Oxfam, for this would result in greater utility than giving the money to overpaid footballers. Here, the act of giving the money to charity would result in greater overall happiness than giving it to the football club - many children will be helped, rather than several footballers.

[francisrs]

"The idea of the Fall remains the most significant insight into human nature today." Discuss.

It could be argued that the Fall does provide a clear insight into human nature. Augustine argued that as a result of the Fall human nature has become corrupted with a weakness of will, akrasia, and a rebellious will, concupiscence. It is certainly true that humans are selfish, power-hungry and have a lust for money. Augustine illustrated the idea that the body became corrupted as a result of the Fall by using the example of stealing pears for the sake of stealing as a child, for he had better pears at home. St Paul also claimed "What I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do". Clearly the idea that human nature has been corrupted as a result of the Fall is one which has some plausibility.

  On the other hand, perhaps the Fall does not really give us a true insight into human nature. Some would argue that the Fall is not actually to be taken literally, rather as a metaphor of human relationships with God, other humans, and the environment. Perhaps also, Freud and Augustine were both wrong to argue that concupiscence/ the rebellious will is passed via sex. This perspective makes absolutely no sense - if we all have a sinful aspect to our nature it comes from nature, not from sex. Also, it is almost certain that we are not born with a predisposition to sin. Just because most people have a desire to "sin" (for instance sexual desire), this does not mean that it came from birth, rather that it is acquired as a result of the social situation and education that each person receives.

  Therefore, it is almost certain that the Fall itself does not give us that much of a useful insight into human nature. The Fall itself cannot be held responsible for the corruption of mankind, and to pin human sin on two people is simply absurd. There are more rational insights into human nature, such as that of the environment or situation in which someone grows up.

[francisrs]

Explain Augustine's teaching on the relationship between men and women before and after the Fall.

Augustine, unlike many other Christian thinkers, believed that men and women were created equal, but that their roles were changed as a result of the Fall and the issues with regard of akrasia and concupiscence that were created as a result.

  Augustine argued that sexual desire came as a result of the Fall. Augustine interpreted the Fall fairly literally, the Fall referring to Adam and Eve's fall from grace, with Eve eating the fruit and Adam encouraging it. From this point on, the nakedness of Adam and Eve took on a new meaning, that of shame. In their pre-lapsarian state, God had told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply", and they certainly had the power to have sexual intercourse, but they would not have had the desire to do this. Adam and Eve enjoyed a sexual relationship, but as friends rather than sexual partners. After the Fall, in their post-lapsarian state, their bodies became sexualised, so they felt shame because of their nakedness. In the story of the Fall, the sex drive is linked to sin and the loss of harmony between body and soul.

  Augustine believed that men and women were created as equals. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were created at the same time, hence had equal standing. However, although they were equal they were created differently. Philo interpreted Genesis to mean that women have a subordinate role to men due to Eve's evil nature persuading Adam to eat the fruit. Augustine, however, argued that because both males and females were created in the image of God/imago dei, they both share in God's rational nature.

  However, although this is true, Augustine has been argued to "give women equality with one hand and take it away with the other". Yes, he argues that women were created equal, but he also notes that a woman's body is symbolically different. The rational nature is designed to obey God and rule over the animals, but a woman's body, according to Augustine, suggests that she is designed to be rules over by man as a "help mate". In other words, men and women are equal, for they possess the same spiritual nature, but woman is subordinate to man in practical reason.

  Augustine suggests two different functions of the soul that correspond to the practical differences between man and woman. The two different functions of the soul are deliberative and obedient. For man, the deliberative role refers to his role in the world, to rule over the irrational animals. Thus, his place is in the public sphere. A man's obedient soul is to worship God. A woman's role, however, is that of a homemaker or mother in the home. Her obedient soul therefore is to obey man. 

[francisrs]

"There is no such thing as human nature as well are all different." Discuss.

It could be argued that there is no such thing as human nature. Although men and women have different natures, they act according to their upbringing and background in society, rather than about how their nature tells them. The Fall, commonly perceived to be when human nature develops akrasia and concupiscence, could be seen instead as a situation where humans are simply responding to God. Hence, rather than using a somewhat literal interpretation of the Bible and Genesis, we could be able to argue that we do not have an inherent human nature.

  However, humans do display many common traits. Augustine argued that as humans we all have human nature which is selfish, competitive, and driven by an immense desire for power over others. Augustine also described how the human soul was weak (akrasia) and rebellious (concupiscence), illustrating this with a story about how he stole pears as a child for the sake of stealing, for he had better pears at home. Augustine is backed up by thinkers such as Darwin who argue that humans need law or social contact to live by - without this our inner human nature would be revealed.

  Overall, it is more plausible that humans do have a nature. Because of various common traits that are shown by all humans, such as being selfish, there is more evidence to suggest this. Humans do have an inbuilt nature, which is not necessarily that that commands us to obey God.

[francisrs]

Explain Christian teaching on human nature.

Augustine developed views of human nature and sexuality that shape much contemporary thinking. He interpreted the Fall fairly literally, believing that we all have concupiscence (rebellious will). He also believed in the duality between body and soul.

  Augustine describes men and women before and after the Fall. Genesis 3, Adam's fall from grace and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit, meant that nakedness took on a new meaning, shame. Augustine argued that in their pre-lapsarian state, Adam and Eve enjoyed a sexual relationship, but as friends. God had commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1), having been created as equals. Sexual intercourse was of course possible before the fall, but was subject entirely to reason rather than desire). In their post-lapsarian state, Adam and Eve's bodies became sexualised. The sex drive in the Fall is linked to sin and the loss of harmony between body and soul.

  Augustine puts forward the case for concupiscence/rebellious will and akrasia.. St Paul claimed that "what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do". Augustine illustrated concupiscence using an example that as a child he stole pears from someone's pear garden, despite having better pears at home. He described this as stealing for the sake of stealing, for he did not need to steal, but still did it. This problem is described the Plato, Aristotle and Augustine as the weakness of will - akrasia. Indeed, although Augustine links sex to sin and the body to sex, he does not believe that the body is inherently sinful. It is not the body which is sinful but the rebellious will. This will craves money, sex and power.

  Augustine, being heavily influenced by Plato, was a dualist. Hence, he believed that the body and the soul were different. However, he differs to neo-Platonists and the Manichees by arguing that the soul undervalued the body. He argued the soul was unstable, but that the body would only dominate when the body was weak from akrasia, which it was. In the pre-lapsarian state, the human being's body and soul existed in a more harmonious relationship, but after the Fall akrasia and concupiscence meant that there would be conflict between body and soul.

  Some have argued that Augustine "gave women equality with one hand and took it away with the other". This refers to how Augustine saw the role of men and women with regard to the deliberative and obedient soul. Augustine argued that although men and women were created equal in Genesis, they were inherently different. Augustine argued that because men and women were both created imago dei/in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), they both share in God's rational nature. However, a woman's body must be symbolically different, he argued, which suggests that she is to be ruled over by man as a "help mate". Although men and women possess the same spiritual nature, the woman is subordinate to man in practical reason. Hence there are two functions to the soul; deliberative and obedient. For man, the deliberative soul is the rule over animals in the public sphere, but his obedient soul is to worship God. For women, her deliberative soul refers to her work in the home as a wife and mother, whilst her obedient soul is to obey the man as a "help mate".

[francisrs]

"The Bible should be read like any other text." Discuss.

The Bible could in theory be read like any other text. Because the Bible was written over such a long time, by so many different writers and in response to so many different situations, there can be no differentiation between the Bible and any other text. The idea that there are four gospels particularly gives rise to this - if there are four gospels then surely we should read and interpret them all in the same way that we would a novel. If the Bible is treated in this way it is certain that the Bible does not need special consideration or interpretation.

  However, perhaps the Bible should be read differently from other texts. The Bible is supposedly a witness to the word of God, containing propositional truths. The Bible cannot be read like a novel or a history book but should be read as a revelatory text containing revealed truths about God. Though some would still maintain that it could be read like any other text, the Bible would always turn out differently because of the special nature of the religious experiences contained within it.

  The Bible certainly could be read like any other text, but because of the special nature of the Bible, perhaps it shouldn't be. The special revelations contained within it allow the Bible to be different to other books or novels. The Bible should not be read like any other text.