War and peace

‘Just War’(sometimes, war is the morally right thing to do): 

• Jus ad bellum:

Proper authority

Just cause

Right intention

Last resort

Proportionality

Win possible

Comparative justice

• Jus in bello:

Discrimination' - that innocent people should not be targeted. 

'Proportionality

• Jus post bello:

Restoration of human rights

Bringing the way criminals to justice

Defeated country opportunity to reform

Strengths of JWT:

• Flexible theory which grows and develops with the times
• Recognizes the necessity for action against an aggressor
• Allows defense of the defenseless
• Doesn't allow acts of war because of selfish reasons (interest of one nation)
• Universal

Weaknesses:

• Says that violence is permitted, but morality must always oppose deliberate violence
• Unrealistic as the strong and powerful will always win (Bertrand Russell- it doesn't show who's right, just who's left)
• Conditions are too simplistic and ambiguous to apply in practice
• Many wars are only considered just in hindsight

Ethical and religious pacifism
Pacifism is where the answer is (mostly) always the same - war is always wrong and there is always a better solution than fighting. 
Absolute pacifism: all war is wrong: it is never right to kill another human being, no matter what the consequences of not doing so might be, even loss of life.  
Contingent pacifism: War as we know it cannot be waged in a morally acceptable way: all wars today involve killing of the innocent and this is morally unjustifiable. Allows self-defense and defense for others but the innocent must always be protected and therefore accepts violence/war in some circumstances. Pacifists see killing of innocent as morally unjustifiable - no matter what consequences. E.g. Bertrand Russell- war doesn't show who's right, but who's left. Taking human life can never be justified
Religious pacifism: teachings of Jesus: turn the other cheek, love your enemy. Non violent direct action advocated by Martin Luther King Jr. The loss of life, economic, and social damage is too great.  
Strengths of Pacifism:

• Clear cut as it opposes all forms of violence
• Follows teachings of Jesus (ignored by JWT)
• Promotes absolute view of human life

Weaknesses of Pacifism:

• Pacifism is wrong as it denies the right of self-defence
• The country has a duty to protect its citizens
• Allows evil to dominate (e.g. if we hadn't fought Nazis would we be under their rule?)

Realism: 
Ethics has nothing to do with war. They have no application to nations in times of war. To survive, a nation must look at its own interests, and the threat of war and war itself may make it impossible for any nation  to do anything but act in their own interest. War is often necessary to promote security, survival and economic growth. Accepts that war is a necessary evil. This and JWT allow war when other avenues have failed
Ethical Theories:
Utilitarianism: War is fine if it produces more happiness than pain. Oppose war if loss of life is too great. They may reassess their position as the war progresses. Likelihood success from the just war criterion may be used. End justifies the means. A utilitarian would not support selfish motives e.g the war in Iraq- oil
Kant: Kant would not support needlessly going to war, as it would mean willing that I 
might be shot, which is contrary to the will. support declaring war in defense of others 


and that could be universalized. Also, Kant would say to never treat humanity "merely as a 


means to an end". However, soldiers are fighting for their own safety and are paid. If they


had no vested interest in making the world a safer place, then they would be merely


being used. 
Natural Law: Primary precept: protect and preserve the innocent would justify going to war in order to defend others. However they would probably criticize war because of the way they are fought and the lack of respect for humans. Another primary precept is living in an ordered society. If an attack threatens the structure and authority of a society, it may justify a retaliation. However most of Natural Law is based on the Sanctity of Life(all life is sacred). It is impossible to fight in a war without innocent people being killed. 

Abortion: 

Women cannot be forced to carry a child for 9 months against her wishes. Is a baby fully human- cannot look after itself? Disabled foetus? Pain relief? 
‘Sanctity of Life’ : All life is sacred and a gift from God. Worthy of respect, reverence. We have a duty to preserve life. We are made in the image of God. However, doctrine of the double effect: e.g. an ectopic pregnancy- considered okay to remove the embryo  as the intention is to save the life of the mother rather than kill the foetus
Personhood: when does life begin? At conception-potential/after- when heart and brain work/at birth-first breath?? Is it a person?- does it have emotions, reason, ability to communicate? 
Quality of life: Who benefits and whose quality of life is being judged? 
Right to life and rights of those involved: potential life has rights and obligations as well as the mother/family. 
Issue of infertility and right to a child:  is a child a gift or a right? Is it right to pay someone to carry a baby?Is it right to obtain sperm samples by masturbation?  What is its moral status of foetus on journey from zygote to a baby? Replaced normal sexual activity as method of reproduction. The rights of infertile to produce of prime importance? Demand of more liberal adoption laws instead? Is there a right to reproduce?  Who has the right to a child: married couple, heterosexual etc? 
Status of embryo: severely disabled- quality of life???


Ethical theories:
Kant: No. Even with threat to mother's life it is still using humanity as a means to an end. Foetus= humanity?? Abortion would be hard to universalize- many different circumstances and motivations. Abortion is an emotional decision especially in the cases of rape, disabled foetus, etc. Would also take no account of the stage of pregnancy at which abortion was taking place. Abortion would be treating foetus as a means to an end if it's considered a person. Kant's stress on acting out of duty alone, no account for compassion/love means all consequences are ignored. 
Natural Law: purpose of humans is to protect and preserve humanity. Absolute deontological principle. Ectopic pregnancy- no exception. Act of abortion itself: reproduction as a PP and abortion goes against it- stops the purpose of the outcome of procreation. If foetus is considered human from conception, it also goes against PP of protection of the innocent
Utilitarianism: If it promotes the greatest happiness, the end justifies the means- f it brings about the greatest good. Individual sovereignty. Only works if possible to assess the effects of an abortion- difficult in practice and can't always predict the consequences. (Mother may react badly to operation-unable to have further children, may haunt her for rest of life- regret (pain and suffering)
Preference U.: considers family, mother- measures harm to all those involved
For IVF, U. would consider the low success rate and and the effect of unhappiness on the couple and family and friends. The cost on the health service also could be better spent saving more lives and so increasing more happiness for the majority. Is it ethical to spend money on assisting reproduction for a few and so adding to the population of the world and the pain and suffering of many as a result of the growing poverty in the world.

Euthanasia 

‘Sanctity of Life’ : idea that life is God-given (a gift). Life is sacred, worthy of respect and reverence, intrinsically worthwhile. People have a duty to respect and to preserve life. Catholic church: "euthanasia is an act/omission which of itself/by intention causes death in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated". To do this is not allowed due to Natural Law, first primary precept of self preservation. However suffering can be great both physically and psychologically  that it can make a person wish to remove it at any cost. Suffering has a special place in God's plan of salvation. 
Doctrine of double effect:painkillers and drugs used to hasten death with a secondary effect of killing pain. 
‘Quality of Life’: Most would say we are a person when we think and act consciously. Some believe we are human from conception/birth: meaning embryos/comatose patients are still persons. Whereas some people say people in a permanent vegetative state may be a human but not really a person because they are unable to do so. Could be considered "incomplete" and already dead. When death is imminent a patient may refuse unnecessary treatment . Some say we cannot cease to be a person and yet be bodily alive. 
Right to life :duty of others not to kill a person (rules out Euthanasia). We don't see the duty to kill as absolute- wars can be justified, or killing in self defence, capital punishment, etc. It is easier to justify killing in voluntary euthanasia as the person chooses death. Life is a person's most valued and precious possession. Do we have a duty to kill them? Who has the duty? 
Do we have the right to choose when to die?
Applying ethical theories
Utilitarianism: Resources spent keeping them alive - more happiness could be produced if resources used for others. if continued existence brings  more pain and suffering than happiness, both to them and their family, then their life could be ended. "Death with dignity" as it seeks not just absence of pain but preservation dignity and exercise of personal autonomy. However, if people gain happiness and quality of life from death of one person, such action is justified- no protection of individuals against majority and no safeguarding individual's rights. 
Natural law: Doesn't look at people involved in situation- considers act itself. Protection of life as a primary precept goes against this. NL does allow patients to refuse treatment if it is above that necessary for existence. Weak santity of life: where death is inevitable, doctor treats with care and compassion but need not strive officiously to keep them alive. 

Genetic Engineering: the technology involved in cloning, gene therapy and gene manipulation

Types of Genetic engineering:

• Germ-line therapy: changes in parent's sex cells in aim of passing on changes to offspring
• Somatic-cell: changes in body cells to cure otherwise fatal diseases (not passed on to offspring). Eradicate hereditary diseases. Mistake could have disastrous effects. Reduce number of minority groups- defect seen as a disability, reduce variety in human gene pool. 
• Enhancement: Germ-line gene therapy to improve person rather than rectifying defects. Hard to define defects. Unnecessary- not worth risks. Driven by companies trying to make money, not to improve humanity. Poor judgement of what constitutes "improvement". Available to rich, reduces worth of humans, replaces God as creator
• Eugenics: Using germ-line GT to create a "better" race of people. Encourages discrimination of anyone not seen as "perfect". Values humans for wrong reasons-misused for racial/social/political ends. Attacks basic freedoms and rights.
• Animal Genetic Engineering: Selective breeding, better yield (fatter chickens), greater resistance to diseases. Unnatural- attacks God's role as creator. Suffering of animals.
• GM Crops- increases yield, resistance to disease, pests, immunity, pesticides. Provide answer to world hunger. Improve environment? Driven by profit, not concern for environment. Costly to develop. Destroy species diversity in environment
• Human embryo research: removed from early embryos which destroys the embryo. (From leftover IVF treatment, created in laboratory from donation sperm and eggs. 
• Sex selection: designer babies

Kant on Genetic Engineering:

• Hard to universalize (no embryos left to reproduce and human race would die out)
• Treating embryo as a means to an end not just an ends. This is a problem is the embryo is considered a person
• Respect for persons and requirement for human rights to be respected- informed consent should be obtained . Respect for autonomy and privacy. Acting out of duty alone, no account for compassion/love, all consequences are ignored

Utilitarianism on Genetic Engineering:

• Only works if able to assess the results of the GE and embryo research and decide whether they favor all concerned. We cannot predict the consequences until the research has happened.
• From a utilitarian point of view, it is better to save many lives in the future from embryo research at the cost of a few embryos now
• Hedonic calculus: Early embryos, do not have the capacity to feel pain and so cannot be measured according to the HC. However, benefits are justifiable using the HC- pleasures brought about by curing diseases outweigh the cost of embryos possible suffering. 

Natural Law on Genetic Engineering:

• Preserves life by curing diseases
• Self preservation: no embryo research as a secondary precept as it destroys life
• Reproduction: destroying embryos stops continuation of species

Ethical theories

Absolutist and relativist morality:

Moral absolutism: objective, deontological. Absolute rules that always apply. Actions are right/wrong intrinsically. Consequences and circumstances have no bearing. Moral commands are considered objectively and morally true

E.g. Kant, Natural Law

Strengths of Absolutism:

♥Need for universal truth that transcends cultures/history

♥Universal/unchanging principles e.g. Don't Murder. There is a need to set absolutes applying to all regardless of culture, religion, etc.

♥Fixed ethical code and can support universal laws such as the United Nations declaration for human rights

Weaknesses of Absolutism:

♦Rigid

♦Cannot consider circumstance/consequences of an action, for example is it wrong to steal if you are poor over stealing when you are rich/not in need?

♦Seems intolerant of cultural diversity and need to accommodate different lifestyles

♦How do we know what absolute morals are, as all sources of morality are open to human interpretation?

Moral relativism: no absolute principles applying. Moral truth varies according to culture, time, place and religion. There is no fixes morality and morals are subjective. Human situations vary so much that isn't not possible to have one moral rule.Teleological and subjective. Consequentialism, e.g. Utilitarianism

Strengths of Relativism:

♥Allows for diversity in the world we see

♥Understands life isn't "black and white"; we are emotive creatures

♥Allow for acceptance and understanding between different peoples

Weaknesses of Relativism:

♦No real evaluation/criticism of practices such as slavery, the Holocaust, torture of innocent

♦Does not allow societies to progress (realization slavery was unacceptable was slow to develop).

♦Gives little reason for behaving morally except to be socially acceptable.It reduces the meaning of what is ‘good’ to ‘what is socially acceptable’.

♦Some statements are true absolutely e.g. it is wrong to torture innocent people. Just because cultures vary, it doesn't mean there is no objective "good"

♦Just because there are different moral views, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all of equal value, e.g. the Nazis. Cultural Relativists would not be able to criticise the Nazis as they believe that all cultures have views of equal worth.

UTILITARIANISM

♥Teleological – it is the end or goal of moral action, not the act itself, that is good or of value

♥Consequentialist – moral judgements based on outcome

          ♥Hedonistic – humans desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain

Bentham (ACT- each situation should be assessed separately), quantitative:

• The principle of Utility; theory of usefulness- greatest happiness for greatest number

          •Moral acts are those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain

Hedonic Calculus:

REMOTENESS

PURITY

RICHNESS

INTENSITY

CERTAINTY

EXTENT

DURATION

Mill (RULE), Qualitative:

Higher and lower pleasures – ‘Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfies; Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’

Mill is often associated with Rule utilitarianism – “Act in accordance with those rules which, if generally followed, would provide the greatest general balance of pleasure over pain.”

Preference Utilitarianism: Peter Singer:

Take view of impartial spectator and look at what is in the best interests of all those affected

Our own preferences cannot count any more than the preferences of others

The best possible consequences means what is in the best interests of the individuals concerned. Everyone's preferences/interests are weighed equally.

Racism is wrong as it goes against the principle of acknowledging other people's interests/preferences and gives greater value to the preferences of one's own race.

Hare – preferences: the morally right action is the one that maximizes that satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved.

         Sidgwick – motives: it is the motive (intending to bring about the greatest good) rather than the           outcome that is good

Strengths:

♥Straightforward as it is based on single principle of minimising pain and maximising pain

Relates to actions observed in the real world (cruelty is bad= pain, giving to charity for those unfortunate= increases pleasure

♥Consequentialism- natural when acting to weigh up consequences

♥Acceptance of universal principle is essential for ethical system- important to go beyond own personal point of view

♥Idea of promoting well-being of greatest number is important- bases of healthcare system

♥Preference U. gives valuable principle of being impartial observer as it is important to think about other's interest/preferences

♥Largest amount of people benefit (act)

♥It is applicable to real-life situations because it doesn’t generalise and recognises the complexity of life.

Weaknesses:

♥Consequences can be difficult to predict with accuracy (no certainty)

♥Ignores importance of duty (Act may be right or wrong regardless of the amount of pleasure/pain it produces)

♥Advoation of injustice: somebody may be condemned with something wrongly to please the masses

Allow evil majority to prevail over good minority and exploitation of minority groups. What if "minority" is 49%??

Doesn't consider motives/intentions- rejects principle of treating people with intrinsic value

Too impersonal and doesn't consider rights of human individuals

Kantian ethics:

          ♦Deontological, absolute

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives:

Hypothetical: if i do this, i will get this for example, if i give to Charity, i will feel good.

         Cateogorical imperative: i ought... for example i ought to give to charity (regardless   of any extrinsic/intrinsic reward/value)

Formulations of Categorical Imperatives (Kant assumes we are free, autonomous agents)

1.(Universalisability): Act only in accordance with a universal maxim (will that whatever you do could be universalised)To work out if you should follow a maxim, make it into a universal rule. I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.

2. Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.Humans should be treated as ends, never as ends for a means.

3. Live as if in a Kingdom of Ends (Ends in themselves): So act asto treat humanity, whether in yourown person or in that of any other,in every case as an end in itself, never as means only(Every other person is an end, a free autonomous agent.

• Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so goodness is based on doing the correct thing.
• Kant believed that there was nothing that could be said to be good except a good will
• We are to do our duty and we must be rewarded for our actions. The summum bonum is the place where our happiness and our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together. Some people are morally good and aren't happy so there must be an afterlife in order to achieve that which we are duty bound to do.

Strengths:

♥Straightforward and based on reason

♥Clear criteria and the moral value of an action comes from the intrinsic value of the action not from consequences which cannot always be accurately predicted

♥Gives us rules that apply to everyone and command us to respect human life

♥Clear that morality is doing one's duty, not just following feelings/inclinations

♥It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects utilitarian assumption that minority can suffer so long as majority are happy

♥Sees humans as being of intrinsic worth and dignity as rational creatures- humans cannot be enslaved/exploited- basic declaration of Human Rights.

♥Universal- treats everyone equally

Weaknesses:

♦Abstract and not always easily applied to moral/ethical situations. Tells you types of actions are good/bad, but doesn't tell you what to do in particular situations. Not easily applied to complexity of life for example would you tell a murderer where his victim was?

♦Can use the Universalisability rule to justify anything

♦Result of action is quite important in ethical decision making

♦Only works if everyone has the same view of purpose and of end of humans.

♦Sometimes human life has to be sacrificed to stop others or more people being killed or suffering. Greater good.

♦Naturalistic fallacy- can't jump from an "is" to an "ought"

Application: The Good Will – The only good thing was the good will, a will that did its duty of following the right course of action. “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes… it is… good in itself.” Kant said that no outcome was inherently good – pleasure could result from evil acts like child abuse, for example. Also, no virtues were inherently good – kindness could lead to wrong actions like buying cigarettes for an underage child. Deontology – Duty: there is an objective moral law that it is our duty to follow.  If I couldn’t act freely, I wouldn’t have a sense that I ought to do certain actions.  Accepting that something is a good action presumes that the world is designed so that doing good leads to happiness, so there must be a God.  I cannot achieve the good in this lifetime, so there must be an afterlife. Just because I feel free, doesn’t mean I am.

Kant, War, Peace and Justice

♥Categorical Imperatives – these are rules that would be followed by any rational moral agent. They are duties – you should do your duty because it is your duty.

♥Moral absolutes are easier to follow than consequentialism – you don’t have to think about whether to lie, steal or kill, as these would be contrary to your duty.

Consequences aren’t predictable or calculable, and aren’t good in themselves.