Utilitarians and Situation Ethics on Sexual Ethics

UTILITARIANS

The Utilitarians do not support the wild party atmosphere that we might expect.
1. They stressed the importance of pleasure – that one cannot deny.
2. They stressed the importance of firm and informed relationships.
3. They were anxious to avoid the harm principle.

Remember Utilitarianism was the maximising of pleasure or good and the minimising of pain or evil.

1. The importance of pleasure. Consenting adults could behave as they wished. This would have included pre-marital relationships, homosexuality and sexual deviations. These actions would not have been considered wrong in themselves by Utilitarians. Such practices would have been judge on the consequences alone.
2. Firm and informed relationships are an important part of Utilitarian attitudes. If the relationship was not a firm one with both parties agreeing to the action, this would have signalled a wrong act. Utilitarians would not agree to exploitation by one person over another, both inside and outside of marriage. So rape and prostitution would have been condemned.
Sex with children or animals would not have been approved of because such groups would not be considered capable of having an informed opinion.
3. The harm principle is similar to this. Utilitarians would have urged respect for established human relationships. The consequences of extra-marital relationships should be measured against the pain and misery that might be caused to the family.

Jeremy Bentham
On this issue Bentham walked something of a tightrope
He stood by his Utilitarian principle that a moral course of action provided the greatest happiness for the greatest number. – maximising pleasure and minimising pain. He was also aware though of the harm that might be caused to society if men and women behaved in a libertarian manner.
He was sensitive to the abhorrence felt by society as a whole towards unusual sexual acts. Homosexuality even between consenting adults was a criminal offence in England and Wales until 1967.

John Stuart Mill
Mill was seeking to establish a philosophy that would liberate people.
He did not agree with any form of compulsion in sexual relationships. Such events had to be totally free consensual arrangements. Often, even in marriage, this was not the case. Mill championed the right of women.
He also urged people to seek the higher pleasures and indeed he did not consider sex was one of these.

SITUATION ETHICS AND SEX

Joseph Fletcher devised his ethical theory at a time when the nature of sexual relationships in the western world was undergoing a dramatic transformation.
Homosexuals were starting to “come out.”
Divorce had begun to lose the stigma of shame and disgrace.
Couples started to “live together” instead of getting married.
The contraceptive pill meant that couples expected to be able to have sex without the fear of the woman becoming pregnant.

The key phrase in Situation Ethics is agape – unconditional love.
When faced with a decision between right and wrong, the individual must be prepared to do “the most loving thing” – the most considerate thing – the most mutually respectful thing.
Agape unconditional love is a love despite everything. It is not the same as
Eros which is erotic or sexual need. – or even
Philos – brotherly love.

Situation Ethics does not approve of “free love” or irresponsible spontaneous relationships. It seeks equal treatment for everyone who acts out of love.

Jesus on the subject of marriage

If you are hoping to find lots of useful information in the Gospels which tell us about Jesus’ views on sex, you are going to be disappointed. All the topics people get hot under the collar about these days were not referred to by Jesus. Despite the ideas of a few “ever hopeful” scholars there is really no evidence for, or teaching about, homosexuality, pre-marital intercourse or the basis upon which sexual ideas should be grounded.

Marriage, adultery and divorce though is somewhat different.

In St Mark’s Gospel a question arises about the issue of divorce.

In St Mark’s Gospel, Jesus seems fairly clear about the marital situation.

One man – one woman – for life.
Divorce leads to adultery.

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ⁷ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ⁸ and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. ⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” ¹⁰ Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹ He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹² and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”     Mark 10:6-12

This all seems very straight forward to me. However one A level text book wants to to cast doubt on the reading of this passage The author of this books suggests

the word “and” (underlined above) Greek kai could be translated “in order to”
And “adultery” (underlined above) Greek porneia could be translated in “different ways”.
Both of these variants seem to me to be somewhat speculative in the case of Mark’s Gospel.

However St Matthew’s Gospel has a different line on the subject of divorce and adultery. In the Sermon on the Mount the author of this Gospel has Jesus saying

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³² But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  Matt 5:31

In this Gospel the implication is that Jesus says there should be no divorce, except where there has been unchastity.”Unchastity” seems quite a hard word to define. Nevertheless, the general rule seems to be that Jesus is not in favour of divorce.

Rules seem to be rules – at least as far as adultery is concerned.

However before you throw your hat in the air, declaring “we have a decision” perhaps you ought to read part of chapter 8 in St John’s Gospel.

Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. ³ The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, ⁴ they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. ⁵ Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” ⁶ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” ⁸ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” ¹¹ She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”  John 8:2-11

Well that is quite a turn up for the book. In the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus seems to be tune with Jewish thinking – observation of the absolute principle. “you shall not commit adultery.” One of the ten commandments.

This last episode though is quite a good example of Situation Ethics – applying the principle of agape.

Sexual Ethics (Old Testament)

Perhaps the easiest way to look at this topic is to divide it up into its component parts. The ethics of sex in the Old Testament can be summarised in the following table, which I hope will be helpful but not too detailed. In the left hand column I have tried to show what the Old Testament writers approved of and in the right hand column those practices which aroused disapproval

Virtue Ethics

This curious ethical subject is one of the most enduring solutions to the question “how might a person live a moral life?”
It has its origins in Ancient Greek philosophy. Yet it experienced a revival in the second half of the 20th century
Essentially it claims not to focus on actions or consequences or moral acts but rather on the individual person who is seeking to answer the question “How can I be a good person?”

PLATO
Does consider how a person might achieve the highest good.
He introduces 4 cardinal virtues – temperance, prudence, justice and courage.
He also spoke about eudaimonia – supreme happiness or sense of fulfilment.

ARISTOTLE
Much more needs to be said about him in an essay on Virtue Ethics.
The seeds of his ideas may be found in his book Nichomachean Ethics.
For Aristotle Virtue Ethics was about human flourishing (eudaimonia)
In the case of Aristotle Natural Law and the Virtues were two sides of the same coin.
The complete, correctly functioning person, living in accordance with Natural Law will achieve a virtuous life.
Make sure you know the difference between – Moral Virtues – developed by habit
And – Intellectual Virtues developed by training and education.
Achievement of eudaimonia relied upon the correct use of reason
Golden Mean One distinctive teaching of Aristotle was the belief that virtue could be discovered in the Golden Mean.
Virtue did not lie in either the excess or deficiency of a quality – example the virtue of bravery. The brave person was not on the one hand “rashness” (excess of bravery) or “cowardice” (deficiency of bravery). The Golden Mean “bravery” lay between these two extremes.

There are problems with this idea. One of the areas you might discuss is whether or not all virtues have a deficiency and an excess. – for example “humility”

DAVID HUME
He is sometimes overlooked in studies of Virtue Ethics
What Hume says is
We cannot use reason to determine what we want.
Reason is the tool we use to achieve our aims
What we want is determined by our passions (likes or dislikes)
Our sense of morality therefore is based our own personal preferences and choices.
Morality expresses qualities that we find in people we approve of.
For Hume morality is based in people’s behaviour. Virtuous people are those who are recognised and approved of by society.
Sympathy with others is a strong factor in detecting virtuous behaviour.
Today we would say this is a much more psychological reflective approach to virtue.

MODERN VIRTUE THICS
This is very much a post second world war movement – a reaction in some ways to find meaning behind right behaviour in a world where
a) Religion had begun to lose its influence on people.
b) Where individuals became more autonomous and self-aware.

A) Agent Focused Theories – eudaimonism – coming out of Aristotelian ideas.

GEM Anscombe (Modern Moral Philosophy 1958)
She asks how can there be a moral law if there is no God?
She noted that Kant and some forms of Utilitarianism focus on actions rather than people.
She attempted to resurrect the concept of eudaimonia – human flourishing
Bernard Williams 1985 – reinforced these ideas.

Philippa Foot
She also relied heavily on Aristotelian principles and recognised the importance of individual reasoning which would lead to a virtuous life.

Alasdair MacIntyre 1985
He produced an interesting twist on the subject
1. People are unimpressed by moral theories – especially deontological based ideas.
2. He thought moral standards of the day were based on emotivism (things people liked)
3. He wanted to take up the Aristotelian idea that morality should be seen in terms of human purpose.
4. Virtues therefore would be reflected in community life.
5. It is in the community (towns and villages) that virtuous behaviour is cultivated.
6. In this respect he opposed individualism.

Rosalind Hursthouse
She also supports Aristotelian principles – although not his prejudices against women and slaves.
The virtues shape a person practical reasoning

WHAT HAVE WE SEEN SO FAR?
A number of modern scholars – listed above find value in the idea of Virtue Ethics as proposed by Aristotle. They try to avoid some of the limitations and damaging conclusions of Aristotle, including his preoccupation that there is an overall purpose for the world.
IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE to this Agent Focus approach?

B) Agent based theories – based on observations of behaviour as cultivated by the virtues.

Michael Slote

Michael Slote
To a certain extent he picks up on Hume’s idea.
For Slote virtue is an inner trait or disposition that we possess.
The whole idea of virtue ethics is based in a sense of caring for people around you and people in general.

You need to be aware of these two approaches
Agent Focused (Eudaimonism) what is done in order to be a moral person
Agent Based what one feels in terms of people’s action and how we evaluate these.

CONCLUSION
The standard text book is quite good on this topic for basic knowledge, although I think it is a shame it leaves out David Hume.

Researching the topic
1. Students should be encouraged to know the difference between Plato and Aristotle on this topic.
It is well documented in “Moral Philosophy” by Jones, Cardinal and Hayward pp 89-100.
2. Hume – again see “Moral Philosophy” by Jones, Cardinal and Hayward pp105-110.
There is also a book – not worth buying but should be read if you can borrow a copy
“Ethics – the fundamentals” Julia Driver pp147-149. I think it is an undergraduate introduction.
3. Twentieth Century Thinkers
“Ethics Matters” by Peter and Charlotte Vardy pp73-78

Thinking about the environment

That’s the trouble with this topic – all people ever do is think about the environment.
RELIGIOUS SOLUTIONS
DOMINION essentially based on a biblical idea. It is always useful to know that the idea of Adam naming the animals in Genesis 2 implies that he has power over them. In the ancient world if one knew the name of something or somebody, this implied that one have power over it. Equally important though is the teaching of Aquinas – undoubtedly influenced by the biblical tradition and Aristotle. Aquinas saw humans as the only morally important beings.
Remember ideas such as anthropocentric view of the world (man based)
Creation has intrinsic value – creation can respond to God
Passages from Psalms and prophetic literature which calls on nature to praise God (eg Psalm 148:3-10)
Even Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our own image, according to our likeness and let them have dominion over…”
St Francis of Assisi 1182-1226 – despite all the sentimental pictures – his view was that nature was a sign of God’s goodness and its purpose was to inspire human respect and love of God.
STEWARDSHIP -alongside dominion. While philosophically we may point to a distinct difference here. It is unlikely that the biblical writers shared our analysis. While Adam names the animals, showing his superiority, he is also in the garden of Eden as a steward. His task was to care for the garden.
This idea leads well in to the next aspect of religion and the environment which sees man’s failure to look after the world as an aspect of sin. The idea is pre-figured in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve are banished on account of their disobedience but also on account of their failure as stewards of the garden.
Christians tie in the idea of exploitation of the earth’s resources with sin – man’s failure as a steward.
RAPTURE – this movement is said to exist among some Christians in America. They claim that man is superior to nature and that in order to further the coming of the kingdom of God, destruction of the environment is to be welcomed.
Only when the earth fails will christ return in glory. It is said that these groups interpret some parts of the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic sections of the New Testament to show that the return of Christ and the end of the age could be encouraged by the failure of the earth and its resources.
The name Pastor John Hagee of Texas is cited by the text-book as a supporter of this view.

Conclusion on these approaches. The religious approaches all tend to be analytical and theoretical rather than practical. There are som splendid Christian websites linked to this idea “Christian Ecology” “Green christian” and “Christian Ecology Link”. This last group support and sponsor practical ideas, but they are all a bit churchyard based. There is also advice on how to run a green church. Readers are urged to contact their MP etc etc. It is all tinkering (well-meaning tinkering, but nonetheless tinkering on the fringes of much larger problems. Have a look at these sites and judge for yourself.

SECULAR APPROACHES

It is a good idea to be familiar with the history of environmental ethics. Know about Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring.

DEEP ECOLOGY    This approach depends to a large extent on the 1949 book by Aldo Leopold Sand County Almanac. A more accessible resource is the work of Aarne Naess. His work and his ideas are well documented in film available on YouTube. he was a stern advocate of the inherent worth of the environment. Humans, animals and vegetables have equal rights to life and to flourish. He called this ecosophy, which amounts to ecological harmony or equilibrium.
Species have a right to live for their own sake. Naess himself lived what many would regard as a primitive way of life – at one with, and not greater than the nature which surrounded him.  He considered even the Christian view of stewardship as arrogant.
Naess and George Sessions listed an 8 fold deep ecology charter.
Naess himself proposed humans should
Radically reduce the earth’s population.
Abandon all goals of economic growth.
Conserve diversity of species.
Live in small self-reliant communities.
“touch the earth lightly.

ECOLOGIC EXTENSION – ECO-HOLISM (GAIA)
Essentially this is the work of James Lovelock (1919- ) and his Gaia hypothesis.
There is a certain charm about this quietly spoken unassuming man. Again he is easy to resource. BBC Radio 4 “The Life Scientific” did a programme about him which can be accessed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h666h.
Know the origin of the name Gaia from William Golding’s book “Lord of the flies”
Gaia, Lovelock believed was the ability of the planet to self regulate itself. The earth acts like a living organism which can maintain its own existence despite catastrophes which may happen to it. The world is not the result of chance but of self engineering.
Work out the challenge this poses to evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins.
Lovelock would say that in the event of a world shattering catastrophe during which human life may be wiped out. Gaia would not only survive but would do so without our presence. In time new life-forms may develop. The human race has no particular significance, but we are part of Gaia along with other living organisms.
This holistic view of the universe reads rather like an offshoot of an Intelligent Design theory.
Recently though Lovelock has grown increasingly pessimistic about man’s ability to survive and is beginning to entertain the possibility that humans have inflicted so much damage to the planet that its total existence may be in jeopardy.

CONSERVATION ETHICS
This view differs from the other two secular theories. It believes that animals and plants are only valuable for their extrinsic instrumental value for humans. Plants and animals are a means to an end.
Conservation is a means to an end
Question Why do we put thing in green bins when we have finished with them?
Answer so that they can be recycled into more things that we can use!
It is fair to say that conservationists take seriously the damage that is being done to the planet and the seek international solutions and international agreement on what should be done.
Conferences – Rio 1992, Kyoto 1997. The latter brought about the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Check which countries are in or out of this agreement.
Apart from that have fun talking about Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth etc.
Environmentalism is sometimes referred to as shallow ecology.
Know all about Biodiversity.
The whole approach is governed by what is right in order to preserve human life. So, for example, environmental damage may be allowed to occur if humans will benefit from the change that is brought about.
Read up on Michael La Bossiere and his views on allowing species of animals toi die out.
Remember too Peter Singer and his views on sentience. Singer, who is a preference utilitarian, will be at odds with Deep Ecology and also Shallow Ecology.

Conclusion   It is a bit like the devil and the deep blue sea. Clearly the man with the solution is Arne Naess. Deep Ecology is the answer to all the earth’s problem. The painful nature of the solution though make the medicine unpalatable and impractical. While individuals may wish to go and live half way up a mountain, reject the world and all its technology, thee will be no mass following. James Lovelock has a wonderful track record of being right about many things. There are, or course, questions about his theory and no shortage of those scientists and scholars who would denounce him. Even Lovelock though admits that we may have gone too far in our misuse of the planet, so it would seem that he is not offering a solution. Shallow Ecology. This is what we would all feel comfortable with. As we trundle our wheely bins in the direction of the dustcart there is a sense of pride that we are “doing our bit.” The trouble is that it is only a bit and probably not enough. There is a lack of international agreement on climate change and over matters of conservation thee are as many defaulters as there are those who would comply.

Ethics and Business

Welcome to the minefield. In reality this is a vast topic, a sort of bottomless pit. Quite how OCR ever imagine that this forms only half a topic is beyond me. Potentially it is the largest issue you have to study at A2 and as the years go by it increases in size as new markets, new issues and new theories evolve. It seems best to confine yourself to the aspects of this study tackled in your text-book.

Below is a suggested ethical business model and all I can do here is to suggest areas of study rather than giving detailed ideas in each topic.

Purpose of Business
The purpose of business is to maximise profits for the owners – Milton Friedman

But it is a good idea to know about the writings of Adam Smith 1723-1790 and two works The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. These two works underpin much of what we now regard as modern capitalism with surprising insights into modern ethical concerning accountability towards suppliers and workers as well as the environment.

Who owns the business
There are still family run businesses and here the owners finance the enterprise and seek a profitable return. In most cases though a company will be a limited company with shareholders. Make sure you know what this entails and consider how this might affect the running of the company. Increasingly these days Banks also have a financial interest in companies and they too may impose condition on the running of the enterprise.
In some cases – for example John Lewis Partnership, employees may also have a say in how the company is run. Make sure you can talk about these employee-run businesses.

Employees
This is essentially a two-way relationship these days.
Employees work on behalf of the business and have a responsibility to work hard and produce a quality result.

Management has a responsibility to maintain human rights and good working conditions. Workers must be able to feel that their grievances can be heard through unions, arbitration services such as ACAS and where there are abuses whistleblowers must be allowed for.

There has been much in the newspapers about whistleblowers in the National Health Service in the past twelve months and government is taking action to stop companies insertion gagging clauses into employment contracts and severance deals.

Suppliers
Ethical considerations here include payment of suppliers. If raw materials come from LEDCs then Fair Trade agreements are encouraged as a sign of good practice. When a major company fails it is worth remembering that suppliers not only lose their market but may also have money owing to them which they will have little chance of recouping.

Technology
This is very much a two-edged sword. Major businesses must keep abreast of improvements and advances in technology if they are to remain competitive. At the same time it is possible that improvements in technology may cause unemployment in the workplace. machines are able to do the job of several employees.

Politics
Clearly governments have an active interest in the world of business. It is a source of revenue and a very necessary part of national employment. At a time when budgets are being cut to local authorities, the role of private companies to provide employment is crucial.

Governments also may move to improve export links and in some cases may be responsible for closing certain markets, such as in the arms trade.

Globalisation
This is quite a topic. Trade, investments, capital, migration and technology are now global issues and have an effect on economies and the world of business.
Trade and effective markets have increased. If you go to any major city anywhere in the world, the names you see in the high street in the UK will be there.
Less economically developed countries (LEDCs) have seen increase in employment, an upsurge in technology, investment and development. This has been because they provide a pool of cheap labour, lower overheads and a welcome by the local population. Don’t forget issues of exploitation though.
Should LEDCs accept poor wages, substandard working conditions, unsafe/unregulated workplaces.
Should MEDCs accept unemployment and harsh economic measures because companies are simply interested in profit and cheap labour.

Environment
Businesses have an impact on the environment.
The way raw materials are used do companies put back as much/more than they take out (sustainability)
Pollution – disposal of waste, pollution of rivers and the sea, pollution of the atmosphere, global warming acceleration.
International conferences Kyoto 1997.
Frustration felt by many environmentalists about the failure of countries to sign up to international agreements and the failure of others to observe existing arrangements eg (Whaling)
Don’t overlook the work of organisations such as Greenpeace.To what extent are finished products environmentally friendly and the packaging recyclable.

Consumers
This is essentially a two-way relationship. Consumers are restricted by what companies produce. On the other hand companies can only sell what the consumers wish to purchase.

The finished product from the company must be “fit for purpose”, safe, appropriately labelled, accurately advertised and, where appropriate instructions for use must be provided. Pricing is also an issue. Companies need to make a profit, but consumers expect value for money.

From an ethical point of view much can be made of the way in which consumers influence business ethics.
Make sure you look up Shell over Brent Spar and Ogoniland.
Monsanto over GM food.
Nike and Gap over child labour.
BP over Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

It is also worth bearing in mind the ways in which consumers have certain expectations about large multi-national companies. Consumers dictate market trends, essentially what goes in or out of fashion.

Sometimes consumers may attempt to dictate how a company finances its work and where it invests its monies. Tridos is a bank that specialises in ethical investments and has seen a 78% increase in customer enquiries (Oct 2012).      Co-operative Bank saw a massive rise in customers in 2008 and even in 2012 reported a 43% increase in people switching their accounts to them.  (See BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19929371  Consumers may also bring pressure to bear on companies that use tax avoidance measures. Starbucks UK agreed to pay Corporation Tax only after there had been evidence of consumer anger at their “tax avoidance measures.” ( See Guardian report http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/06/starbucks-to-pay-10m-corporation-tax)

Conscience and contraception

The Roman Catholic Church maintains the right of the individual to decide upon a moral action on the basis of his or her conscience.

Having said that there are many conditions, safeguards and qualifications issued on the statement.

Saint Augustine taught that “there is no soul, however perverted, in whose conscience God does not speak.”

Thomas Aquinas taught that a person must always follow his  conscience even if that conscience be erroneous. For “when a reason which is in error proposes something as a command of God, then to dismiss the dictate or reason is just the same as dismissing the command of God.”

John Henry Newman in his Difficulties of Anglicans speaks of conscience (and he means right conscience) as ‘the aboriginal vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness’. In talking about the Pope and allegiance to the Pope, Newman felt that conscience was supreme and the Pope was not in opposition to the primacy of conscience, but was there to guarantee it.

In terms of history it is sometimes admitted by the Roman Church that the teaching of the church lags behind changing circumstances. This was the case over slavery. Changes to church teaching about slavery were preceded by persons of good conscience acting at variance with traditional teaching.

The Second Vatican Council in its Declaration on Religious Freedom in 1965 teaches:
In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom he was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.

The point is that following one’s conscience is not about each person choosing for him or herself what course of action should be followed. The conscience, in order to maintain autonomy must be properly informed on the matter. It has to fully understand the issues involved and the implications of a decision which differs from that of the church. The rule seems to be educate your conscience and to that conscience be true. Each of us must ensure that we have a formed and informed conscience as we decide not only what we will believe, as that is probably the less problematic part, but also as we decide what we will do.

Birth Control

The matter comes to a head over birth control. After the Second Vatican Council many Catholics on the basis of their beliefs based on conscience that they could not follow the Pope’s advice about contraception.

Paul VI taught “that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”. It is not possible to know how many Catholics agreed with the Pope, but there were those who agreed with this position and supported the Pope in his stand against not only modern trends but also the advice he had been given by a Papal Commission.

The result today is an uneasy compromise.

The church maintains that it represents a considered, thoughtful and prayerful conclusion in support of Natural Law and its precepts. Some Dioceses were forthright in their support of this in every situation. Literature from Ireland in the 1970s virtually declared that freedom of conscience was subject to the good counsel of the church.

At the same time the official line of the Catholic Church is that conscience must be obeyed

In his 1993 Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II stated:
Like the natural law itself and all practical knowledge, the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality. Later to become Benedict XVI says, “It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience, or at least not act against it”.

Conscience – the unseen force

My worksheet for revision on the topic of conscience isolates 3 different approaches to the origin and understanding of conscience.
1. The God Squad
2. The Shrinks
3. The Holistic People

1. The God Squad
It is assumed from New Testament times that conscience is one of the ways in which God seeks to guide the individual.
St Paul in his letter to the Romans discusses at length those who fulfil God’s wishes because they carry the law in their hearts. He saw conscience as an internal decision to follow God’s law despite the fact that the individual was not an adherent of the law of Judaism.
The Intuitionist approach
Augustine of Hippo 354-430 believed conscience was God’s voice speaking to the individual. In this he was followed by Cardinal John Henry Newman 1801-1890 who thought of conscience as the “messenger of God”.
Although Joseph Butler’s 1692-1752 ideas were more developed he also supported an intuitionist approach to conscience.
Conscience for Butler had its own self-authenticating authority. It would exert itself on the individual spontaneously and had the final say in moral decision-making. For Butler conscience was the highest form of internal authority.

Rationalism
Aquinas 1225-1274 For Aquinas conscience was the natural ability to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Synderesis – an innate sense of goodness in all people – the desire to do what is right.
Conscientia – the more practical decision-making process leading to a course of action whereby a person acts ethically.
For Aquinas the whole business of conscience is limited with the ability of the individual to use his or her reason.

2. The Shrinks
Sigmund Freud 1856-1939 Here you need to be familiar with Freud’s concept of the human personality
The id – the basic animal instinct, desires. fantasy that we all possess, but which remains largely hidden from the world.
Super-ego – the restraint first placed on us by parents to combat the potential unruly desires of the id, but taken over by our own self-restraint, sense of respect, responsibility, decency and inhibitions.
Ego – That conscious self we present to the world.
For Freud there is no such thing as a conscience. It is the name we give to those controls on human behaviour and our response of shame, embarrassment or guilt we feel when we have transgressed the imposed rules.
Piaget 1896-1960 and Kohlberg 1927-1987
Both Piaget and Kohlberg have drawn attention to the fact that a child’s conscience is subject to development.
Piaget spoke of 2 stages of moral development – Heteronomous Morality and Autonomous Morality.
Kohlberg identified 6 stages of moral development.
The social element
Fromm 1900-1980
Fromm’s thinking shows two different views of conscience. His views changed over the years.
a) Authoritarian conscience. The conscience is affected by those in authority eg church or state. They can create or banish guilt by their policies.
b) Humanistic conscience – a self-examination of behaviour leading to the creation and maintaining of personal integrity.

3. The Holistic People
These represent the latest investigations into the role of conscience mainly by Roman Catholic scholars.
Vincent Macnamara He believes that conscience is not just a voice, but represents a person’s attitude or awareness of the existence of a sense of right and wrong. Conscience is a moire holistic interpretation of our entire personality.
 Richard Gula – argues that conscience represents our sense of vision or our choices and the way in which we interact with the moral decisions of the community and the church.
Timothy O’Connell He has a sort of triple decker approach to conscience.
1. A general sense of personal responsibility.
2 A sense of obligation to search out the good.
3. Personal judgements and decisions and the carrying out of them.
It is in the third section that O’Connell claims the human conscience is infallible.
Daniel Maguire – has similar views to O’Connell, but he feels there are certain human traits and events which help to shape our personality. Both O’Connell and Maguire feel that conscience is based on reason, but it is subject to or is regulated by cultural and personal experiences as well as human disposition.

Meta Ethics

When you have learnt all your normative ethical theories, you may feel that all you have to do is apply them to the various problems and issues which confront people.
It is worth remembering though that the very terminology you have been using can come up for scrutiny. Words we take for granted like right and wrong can still be examined.
“It’s right to kill flies
Is it right because the Bible says so?
Is it right because there is plenty of evidence to support the idea?
Is it right because intuitively that’s what people think?
Is it right, although no one can trace the reason why?
Not sure a fly would agree!

On the other hand “Killing flies is right”
Could just be your own personal emotive reaction to the flying insect
Could be what you are recommending to others

That in a paragraph is what Meta-Ethics is all about.

Expressed diagrammatically

Cognitivists say
Moral statements are about facts.
They make statements and are propositions. They state that something is – or is not.

Non-cognitive approach
Moral statements are not propositional.
Such statements may be an expression of feelings and as such would not be followed by a question about truth or falsity.

Back to Cognitivism
Realism
Is dealing with something out there.

Anti-realism
Something which exists within the person experiencing it.

Ethical Monotheism
What is right or wrong is decided by God and is probably revealed in the Bible for Christians.

Ethical Naturalism
Non moral evidence may be used in order to reach a decision about right or wrong.
Naturalists treat moral statements as propositions.
They believe it is possible to establish moral facts by looking at the evidence.
They believe that statements such as “stealing is wrong” can be verified. Possible non-moral evidence might be “because victims lose precious possessions” or “criminals, if caught will go to prison.”

Naturalistic Fallacy
This was a knock-out blow to Ethical Naturalism – you must know G.E. Moore 1903 book Principia Ethica. He challenged the principle of using non-moral evidence to explain moral values. Moore claimed that terms like “goodness” cannot be defined.
(Remember yellowness)

Equally one cannot observe what is … and then move to say what ought to be.
Vardy observes “It is common for men to seek sexual pleasure, but it does not follow that this is what all men ought to do every Friday night” – you cannot make an “ought to” out of an “is”.

Intuitionism
People know what is meant by goodness or evil.
We have a moral intuition – we just know!
We recognize goodness intuitively.
See the advances in this idea by H.A. Prichard and W.D. Ross.

Synthetic Moral Realism
It is not possible to determine what the foundations of moral judgements are, but it is clearly the case that they exist. Know about Andrew Fisher.

Now for Non-Cognitivism
Emotivism
You must know about A.J. Ayer
Ayer had belonged to a group of philosophers who had become known as logical positivists.
They believed that knowledge had to be capable of being verified. (You had to be able to prove it was true).
Ayer felt that this excluded all moral facts and so also rejected naturalism.
Ayer believed that sentiment was the source of right and wrong. All ethical statements and moral judgements are emotive responses. He claimed that such statements were expressions of preference, attitude or feeling.

“Henry is good”
“Murder is bad”
This has become known as the boo hurrah theory.
To say murder is bad causes people to boo.
To say “Henry is good” causes a cheer – boo hurrah theory
Good to know as well C.L. Stevenson

Prescriptivism
This is associated with R.M.Hare
Ethical statements are expressions of opinion.
They are also universal.
They not only express our views but prescribe them to others.

Whistleblower defies super-gag

Last week whistleblower Garry Walker, former Chief Executive of the United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust gave an interview to the BBC 4 Today programme about what he described as “the unacceptable culture of fear at the highest level in the Health Service” despite a gagging order forbidding him to talk about the circumstances surrounding his dismissal.

Mr Walker was sacked by the Trust in 2010 for gross professional misconduct for allegedly swearing at a meeting.

He claims that the dispute between him and his employers resulted in him being ordered to meet national targets for non-emergency patient operations, regardless of the demands that were currently required by emergency patients requiring treatment.

Just before a hearing for unfair dismissal in April 2011, it is alleged that the NHS proposed a settlement of nearly half a million pounds for Mr Walker on condition that he remained silent about the circumstances surrounding his dismissal.

Mr Walker’s disclosure to the BBC came as Stafford Hospital and 14 other hospitals, including Untied Lincolnshire Hospital Trust were under investigation for unacceptable levels of patient care.

Such super-gags on potential whistleblowers have been condemned by Stephen Dorrell, Chairman of the House of Commons Health Committee. The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has criticized action taken by the Hospital Trust after the gagging order was broken.

For more on this story BBC News link