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.

Natural Law:

Aquinas: Absolute, deontological

Purpose: good acts enable humans to fulfill their purpose in accordance with the primary precepts

♥Primary Precepts♥

1.Preserve Life and Protection of the Innocent

2.Reproduction for continuation of the species

3.Live in society

4.Educate the young

5.Worship God

♥Secondary Precepts♥ Use REASON to establish rules that will fulfill the requirements of the primary precepts. For example Do not abort the unborn from the Primary precepts: reproduction and protection of innocent/preserving life

Humans may be led by "apparent goods".Everyone tries to do good. Some people follow apparent goods (such as a person who has an affair – they seek pleasure, but it diminishes human nature). Real good is reached by using reason to determine our true purpose. We must also examine both the motive and action (interior/exterior motive acts)

Strengths:

♥Allows clear-cut approach to morality and establishes common rules

♥Basic principles are common in all cultures (reasonable)

♥Doesn't dictate individual cases- they are general moral principles

♥Concentrates on human character and its potential for goodness and flourishing rather than rightness/wrongness of an action (Humans at the centre of approach, not ethical rules)

♥Exhibits some flexibility with secondary precepts

♥Moral decisions are not done by reason alone it also allows practical wisdom from the body, passions and emotions

♥All things required for happiness are morally good- health and friends, so it is fulfilling our natures

♥Morality is straightforward and uncomplicated

♥Universal

♥Gives good bases for society as it gives clear wrongs

Weaknesses:

♥Based on assumption we all share a common human nature

♥Legalistic whereas Jesus broke rules

♥Natural instincts are from natural selection, not a God

♥Differing moral standards and cultural relativism (changeable natures, e.g. Homosexuals and heterosexuals. Is sexuality about reproduction??

♥Based on assumptions about the world and inbuilt purpose- questioned by science

♥Difficult to relate to complex decisions to basic principles in practice

♥Relies too much on reason- human nature is too corrupted to be trusted

♥Unholistic and too similistic

♥Ideas reflect a medieval mind (Feudal system, place, order)

e.g. Do not have an abortion, Do not commit suicide It is unclear how Natural Law should deal with conflicting rules– where there is overpopulation and limited resources, reproducing seems to conflict with living in society and protecting the innocent. Many people believe that Natural Law leads to wrong decisions, not taking into account the human suffering that, for example, not using condoms might cause. Natural Law, War, Peace and Justice Natural Law moves from an ‘is’ (a statement of how the world is) to an ‘ought’ (statements about what should or shouldn't happen) – the naturalistic fallacy.

Aquinas believes the real goods are virtues such as prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance – sometimes suffering can lead to these goods; pleasure is clearly only an apparent good. Interior and Exterior Acts – Your intention (e.g. to help someone who’s starving) might be good, but your action (stealing bread) might be wrong. Both interior and exterior are important. This is a useful distinction, as it is possible to do good things (e.g. give to charity) for bad reasons (to look good).

God is the goal of all human desires. He might argue that someone suffering greatly should not kill themselves – their life continues eternally, and they must not go against God’s design or purpose for them.

Double Effect – It is wrong to do bad acts (e.g. abortion). However, you can do a good act (removing the uterus of a woman with cancer) that may have a ‘double effect’ of resulting in an abortion. The ‘good’ act has to have a good intent (to save the woman’s life) and must be a good exterior act(removing the cancer).

Challenges to religious belief-

The problem of evil:

The Inconsistent Triad

God has the power and motivation (love and goodness) to eliminate evil

God isn't omnibenevolent/omnipotent OR evil doesn't exist. Experience tells is evil does exist, so God is not benevolent/potent and is therefore not the God of classical theism. To remain logical, one premise must be removed.

Augustine's Theodicy: Soul-deciding

♦The Fall: Genesis 3. God created a PERFECT world (Genesis 1-2), Humans were created perfect with FREE WILL. "Evil" entered with disobedience of Adam and Eve. They fell from grace when they turned away from God and were unable to resist temptation. We are all guilty, all deserve to be punished as we're all SEMINALLY present because "original sin" is passed on through sex.

♦Evil isn't a "thing"; it's a privation of goodness.Evil enters when something in the world renounces its proper role in the divine scheme and ceases to be what it was meant to be. God's creation is "ex nihilo" rather than "ex deo" (out of God) so although God cannot be less than perfect, his creation can be destroyed/deprived. He is not the author of corruption due to free will- with freedom comes the capability of actualizing "evil"

♦God foresaw man's fall (omniscience) from the foundation of the world and planned their redemption through Christ- divine exchange was essential for our redemption from sin (salvation and repentance)

Irenaeus Theodicy: Soul-Making

♦Adam had the form "image", but not CONTENT of God. He was expelled from the Garden of Eden because of being immature and needed to develop and grown into the LIKENESS of God.The world is a vale of soul-making and Christ sets the example for everyone to follow. The presence of evil allows us to grow and develop. Some moral goods are responses to evil and wouldn't exist without it, for example Courage and Forgiveness. Perfect likeness of God through intelligent and informed responses to evils leads to eternal life in heaven.

Hick:

♦God made man in his image. We evolve the possibility of existing in a conscious fellowship with God. The existence of making responsible moral choices in situations is the necessary pilgrimage within life of each individual. In order to give people FREEDOM to come to God- he create us at an EPISTEMIC DISTANCE (not spatial distance but distance from knowledge of God). It enables free will because if we were to encounter God directly, , it would destroy the potential for fiath and individual growth into the likeness of God.

Natural and moral evil:

♦Natural comes from other sources than humanity for example volcanoes, disease, earthquakes, famine. Surely it is god's responsibility as it is his creation?. Moral evil is humanities doing; e.g. rape, murder

Strengths:

♦Free will is so valuable it justifies the risk of moral evil. Genuine free will includes the possibility of natural evil too.

Even if humans freely choose good, if God designed us to always choose good, we wouldn't be free and probably wouldn't know why and what is goodness. (Plantinga)

Evil is necessary to make a free choice (Swinburne)

Part of our essence to do evil is from when Satan infected the world with evil

Weaknesses:

Sending some people to heaven shows irrational consistency- questions God's benevolence

Darwin: falling from perfection seems contrary to evolution

It is a logical contradiction that a perfectly created world went wrong

God created a being whom he foresaw would do evil- responsible??

Existence of hell not consistent with a loving God

Everything depends on existence by God= must be casually involved in free human actions

Evil is a real ENTITY not, a privation

Scientifically, "seminally present" in Adam is rejected on biological grounds so we are not all guilty.

The extent of evil doesn't weigh up/isn't worth it- doesn't fit in with a loving God

The Moral argument:

Kant:

○God's existence can only be established through FAITH as God is beyond the limits of intellect and reason. However, it is reasonable to POSTULATE God's existence through use of reason.

○Happiness is the natural world for virtuous behavior. Behaving morally should therefore lead to happiness. This doesn't appear to actually happen. Therefore, there must be something else that leads people to behave morally. There must be a reward for moral behavior in the next world. The promise of reward for acting morally is too far away for us to feel a strong sense of behaving morally regardless of rewards/consequences. There must be certain objective laws ---> The Categorical Imperatives

○Objective moral laws that reason tells us we must obey. Moral people must act out of duty rather than personal desire to pursue the highest good "SB". Rational people have an overwhelming sense of duty. The categorical imperative is "duty for duties sake". People feel obliged to act out of duty, so we must have freedom to act. "Ought implies can" so the moral action must be possible to do. Happiness is the end which everyone seeks. Religion and obedience to moral maxims brings about this highest good where people are moral and happy. We cannot attain this by ourselves as we don't have the power,God has the power as he is the highest original good. God must exist in order for everyone to achieve that which they are morally required to pursue- greatest happiness. God's existence is morally necessary as it is illogical to be required to seek an impossible end. A rational, moral person must therefore postulate God's existence.

The highest form of good is good will. To have good will is to perform one’s duty for the sake of duty and for no other reason

.

○Reason leads us to follow the categorical imperative (universalisable maxims for duties' sake). It is most important to aim for the Summum Bonum which is when virtue and happiness are united."Ought implies can" so the Summum Bonum must be attainable, but not in this life (there are many acting morally but are not happy). There must be an afterlife and there must be an omnibenevolent and potent God in order to provide it. For morality to have meaning, God must exist. No Summum Bonum and Categorical imperatives, no inclination to do good.

Moral experience tells us we are under obligation to strive for a higher good. It is not possible for humans to achieve the Summum Bonum without asssistance as we aren't the cause in the world. God must exist to help us achieve that which we ought to do. It is illogical to have a Summum Bonum without accepting the existence of God and eternal life.

(Reason= rationally perfect virtue that ought to be rewarded by perfect happiness and goodness (SB). This is achievable as ought implies can. Existence of SB leads to conclusion of God to ensure it happens)

○There is an innate sense of moral duty/awareness in humans- sense of moral power placed their at creation.

○The Categorical Imperative includes a Universal Law which is "do nothing you would not want to have turned into a law that applies to everyone"

Psychological challenge from Freud:

Duty comes from social conditioning and human nature. His challenge introduces the idea of external influences.

Religion = an obsessional neurosis

♥ID= basic desires and instincts for example hunger, lust, greed

♥Ego= our perception of the external world which aware of the reality principle. It is our most outward personality and is part of the id modified by contact with the external world. Mediates between moral demands of super ego, societal pressure and primitive instincts of the ID

♥Superego= response to social pressures, shaped from culture, functions as an internal censor to repress the urges of the id. Like the conscience which created guilty feelings.

Morality is brought about by subconscious activity in the mind reacting with experiences. Senses of duty and moral awareness can be explained by socialization i.e. adaptation of behavioral patterns of the surrounding culture. Our conscience (right and wrong) is a produce of our unconscious mind/ super ego of the human psyche.

Strengths:

• It does not rely on predicting outcomes or happiness and it is rational and certain

• Human life is given intrinsic worth (ends in themselves) promoting equality

• Cardinal Newman: Conscience is the literal voice of God within us (however, what about Yorkshire Ripper and others who were "following their conscience"?)

• Owen: Moral commands cannot write themselves: it is impossible to think of a command without first a commander.

Weaknesses:

• Whilst morality may exist, there is no reason for a God because of this, it could merely be evolutionary response to protect species

• Morality is genetic/environmental/guilt

• Morality cannot derive from a divine origin as the commands would be absolute and we would all come to the same conclusion, for example Euthanasia

• Brian Davies: objective moral law doesn't need to suggest God's existence- it maybe a "Pantheon of Angels"

The Teleological Argument:

♥Telos: end/result

♥A posteriori: based on empirical evidence using our sensory experience

Originates from Aristotle and the final cause. Ultime purpose of creation, and an unmoved mover behind the final purpose

♥Deductive: based on a set of premises

Aquinas:

♥Everything works towards a purpose

♥Therefore there must be an intelligent being/designer, which directs everything towards that purpose. E.g.an arrow requires the Archer to direct towards the target.

♥Everything in nature follows laws and they tend to have a goal or purpose. Some things must be directed by others to this purpose ---> Directed by GOD

Paley:

Analogy of the watch: If someone came across a watch and observed the intricacy, it would suggest to them a designer, even if they did not know the purpose of the watch. Similarly, the intricacies and mechanisms in nature resemble those of the watch with a definite purpose.Design and purpose can only be explained by the presence of an intelligent designer/being = GOD

Design qua regularity: the design of the universe is related to the evidence of regularity and design which is seen as evidence of a divine being

Design qua purpose: design of universe is in order to fulfill some purpose: we are here for a reason. We cannot exist by mere chance and therefore this suggests a designer. Things in the natural world make up interrelated systems aiming for a purpose.

♥Order, design and purpose through the way the planets rotate and seasons change. Our lack of knowledge increases our sense of wonder.

Hume:

♥Machine like a watch isn't a good analogy for the universe as it doesn't grow and evolve in the way the universe does.

♥Why just one designer; why not many?

♥Maybe world was created by an inferior being than god

♥The presence of evil in the world suggests its designer isn't entirely good or not powerful enough; which doesn't fit in with the God of classical theism

♥There is no evidence of the universe being made so we should not argue from causes within the world to the cause of the universe

♥There is nothing in the universe that can compare with the universe- nothing to infer an intelligent designer "nothing to which a universe can be satisfactorily compared".

♥Matter may contain "spring of order" within itself originally

♥The effects observed in nature may be caused by a wide variety of causes

♥The world is a self-regulating organism. Chaotic matter can fall into order of its own accord

Mill:

♥Challenged "a posteriori"- nobody can have knowledge of God

♥Evil and suffering suggests a designer that cannot be all powerful and all loving, this may still point to a God but not the God of classical theism

♥

Darwin:

Theory of natural selection: new species evolve from existing ones without intervention from God. Suggesting that God's existence isn't necessary for existence of living things (not due to a designer).

The complex intricacies in nature are explained by the "Survival of the Fittest"

A designing God isn't necessary and a designed universe is a naturally evolved one.

The process of natural selection is gradual and ongoing- resulting from natural and random processes

"Memes"- cultural inheritance.

Strengths:

F.R Tennant: Anthropic Principle: The Universe isn't chaotic; it is beautiful and designed to support intelligent life. The world can be analysed in a rational manner. Evolution works to advancement of species but it's supported by an ordered world that provides all that's necessary to support and sustain life. If the Big Band had been any bigger or smaller, planets couldn't have been formed. The timing was perfect for development of life. A chain of coincidences that made life possible suggests intention and purpose ---> GOD. There is also purpose of life other than survival for example appreciation of the arts, suggesting life must be the product of a designing creator = God (Aesthetic argument)

Genesis 1.25: God as creator and designer "god saw it was good". The complexity of order, beauty and purpose in the world couldn't exist accidentally and so is designed by some intelligent and purposeful God

Although Mill says that cruelty in nature prohibits the belief in a loving God, our perspective of certain actions may seem cruel but from the perspective of the designer it may be a lesser alternative.

DNA exhibits too much design to be a product of mere chance

Weaknesses:

Darwin is defended by scientific research whereas Paley isn't

Progressive evolution

Second law of thermodynamics: Entropy- ultimately everything in the universe will fall apart and there can be no purpose. Everything is in a state of "ordered chaos"

There are other explnantation than God for apparent deign in universe for example DNA

Dawkins: The Universe accords to a small, finite set of rules and a God is not that simple.

The Cosmological argument

Aquinas:

Five ways:

1. Motion:Everything is in motion. Things with potentiality must be actualized by something already in a state of actuality (cannot be both actual and potential- nothing can move itself). The causes of motion cannot go back to infinity, without a FIRST MOVER that is itself unmoved there would be no subsequent movers. Reductio ad absurdum: there are subsequent movers so there must be a source of all change, a prime mover which has no cause and initiated the universe. Note: assumes infinite regression is impossible

2. Cause: everything that occurs has an efficient cause and that cause has a cause. Nothing can cause itself because a cause always exists before its effects. This cannot infinitely regress as if there was no first cause there would be no subsequent causes. Reductio ad absurdum: there must be as we have effects. Therefore there must exist a first cause that is itself uncaused--> GOD. There must be a necessary being. Cosmological, contingent beings come in and out of existence. There must have been a time when nothing existed. Things exist, so the cause must be external to it and has always existed.

3. Matter: (contingency/necessity) Everything is contingent (relies upon something else for its existence) There must have been a time when nothing existed . Reductio ad absurdum: things exist in the universe, so the cause must be external to it and it always existed. This necessary being created and sustains contingent beings.

Copleston:

Some things don't have in themselves the reason or cause for their existence (not self-caused). Everything within the world relies on things beyond themselves for reason/cause of their existence. The universe's explanation, therefore, must be external to it. The cause of the universe must be a self causing, self explanatory, necessarily existent being---> GOD

Russell’s counter arguments

Rejected idea of dependency/contingency for everything. Everything within the universe doesn't have to have a cause and the universe is entirely without reason.Even though people have a mother, it doesn't mean the human race/ the universe has a mother. The universe is "brute fact" it does not need an explanation (Does your "god" have to have an explanation?)

Hume’s criticisms:

♥Fallacy of composition: You cannot deduce that the universe has a cause just because we can identify the cause of contingent things within. Is it necessary for the whole universe to have a cause just because everything within it could be explained by reference to a preceding cause?

♥Some things may be uncaused or not caused by God.

♥We cannot prove that anything is necessary.

♥Even if the universe did have a cause, there is no solid proof to assume it's the christian God (could have been a committee of divine beings).

♥Illogical jump from causes of everything in universe to the universe itself having a cause.

♥Cause and effect could be no more than a statistical correlation. Experience of cause and effect may be a result of our own ignorance.Cause and effect may be something our minds pose upon perception of the world as a result of past experience.

Strengths

♥Simple and easily comprehensible

♥Liebniz: the Principle of Sufficient Reason: Everything has a reason for its existence. There must be an ultimate reason to account for the existence of the universe itself. This cannot come from within the world. For a sufficient reason for the worlds existence, there must be a being that can create existence ---> GOD

♥It is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes

♥Anscombe: Existence must have a cause without believing/knowing. Just because we are limited by empirical knowledge, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should accept that this is the end of reality of creation. God's creation may be beyond our knowledge.

Criticisms (inc.Russell, Hume):

♥Pi is infinite; why can't the universe be?

♥Big Bang: Random particles caused universe not God. (However BB could be deliberate action of God)

♥If God doesn't have a cause, why does the universe need one?

♥Notion of causation is scientifically problematic. The moment when cause is succeeded by the effect- immediately before, the cause isn't yet the effect, yet, immediately after, the effect is no longer the cause. What, then, happens at the precise moment when the cause isn't yet the effect and the effect isn't no longer a cause?

♥Steady state theory- energy cannot be created, it is just redistributed which causes the beginning of the universe, not God, but redistribution of energy.

♥Dawkins- if God can be necessary, why can't the universe?

The Ontological argument

A priori- not based on experience

Anselm:

♥1st Argument:To the Fool (Psalm 14)

♥Concept of God "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

♥It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than just in the mind

♥Therefore God exists in reality, because existence is a predicate of perfection

♥2nd Argument: argument from necessity and contingency:

♥Argument doesn't apply to anything but God as they are all contingent whereas God is a necessary being (eternal and transcendent, outside time and space but able to act and create within it)

♥The greatest conceivable being must have necessary existence (it cannot be thought not to exist)

♥A logically necessary being is one whose non-existence is impossible

♥God necessarily exists

(If God exists, he cannot come into existence, nor can his existence cease to be)

Descartes: existence is a perfection that God cannot lack

♥God is defined as a supremely perfect being

Existence is a predicate (attribute/quality/essence) of a perfect being

♥God therefore exists

♥If God didn't exist he would be self-contradictory as he would be imperfect and therefore not God

♥Trying to imagine a God who doesn't exist is illogical as existence is inseperable from "God"

(It is similar to a triangle that has 3 sides and 180 degrees is the sum of the internal angles. These predicates are necessary to the definition of a triangle)

○Gaunilo: Analogy of the Island on behalf of the fool:

We can conceive a perfect Island, than which no greater can be conceived. The "perfect island" could not just exist in the mind, to be "perfect" it must exist in both mind and reality. Reductio ad absurdum- you can conceive things which may not exist in reality. The fool is right to demand proof that God is real in fact, not just by definition as the greatest conceivable being.

However, Gaunilo didn't take into account the difference between contingent and necessary beings

○Kant: Existence is not a predicate as it is not a property or attribute, it is to do with the subkect and existence is a thing including all its attributes.

Strengths

•Logical and decutive- infers existence through definition. Uses reason

•A priori- no physical evidence required

•It uses logical premises people are likely to accept

•Plantinga criticized Gaunilo by saying that Islands have no intrinsic maximum- you could always add more trees/beaches. Also God is maximal greatness meaning he exists in any possible worlds. In a possible world, the maximally great being could exist, and for it to exist, it would have to exist in all possible worlds so it must exist in this world as it is one of many possible worlds.

Weaknesses:

•Kant, Gaunilo

•Hume: not possible to take an idea out of the mind and apply to pure logical and reach a conclusion external to the universe. It comes from a perspective of prior belief. All existential propositions are synthetic (true or false based on experience) and can't be predicates.

•Bishop Berkely: if we dismiss the predicate (Existence) and the subject (God) then there is no contradiction

Judaeo Christian Influences

The concept of God as Creator:

Genesis 1:

♥Earth without form and void. God creates simply by demand "let there be..." and there is. God pre-exists the creation of the world and his sovereignty over created order

Isaiah 40

♥fragile life at mercy of the power of God who is in charge and brought meaning to the chaos

Creatio ex nihilo

♥Belief by most followers of the Bible that God is the creator and shaper of the universe through his intelligent design.

Genesis 2 + 3

♥Adam and eve and The Fall. Here, God WALKS and TALKS (anthropomorphism) and his creativity appears to be "hands on". Adam is created from dust on the ground and God appears to be heavily involved in his creation. He gives them the command of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and he later evicts them from the Garden.

God the craftsman

Seen as an expert builder in the book of Job, compared to a potter crafting clay

Omnipotence

He can do anything logically possible but cannot contradict and do evil of any kind because he can self limit

Omniscience

he knows everything. God exists out of time and space (transcendent) and this means he doesn't affect the freedom to act

Omnipresence

he is present everywhere and is able to know and act everywhere. Everything there is, is dependent upon the existence and activity of the sustainer. He was present at creation but external (transcendent)

Omnibenevolent

God is all loving, merciful and all good. He is morally perfect. He shares infinite love with creation

Comparison with Aristotle's Prime Mover

The prime mover attracts everything towards himself and knows nothing of creation whereas God is aware and is actively involved in his creation. He also is also the intimate creator of everything. God isn't unmoved and the will to move comes from God. He has a relationship with humanity (loving) and everything God made is good and purposeful

If God created the universe, God is therefore responsible for everything that happens in it. "God created everything and it was good" which doesn't explain the existence of evil. If God created the universe and everything in it, he is solely responsible for everything that happens within it. Even with the creation story explaining "The Fall", evil could not have created itself out of ex nihilo from a perfect world. So, either the world was perfect and God let it go wrong. Or, the world was created imperfect and evil and suffering already existed. Either way, God is rendered responsible.

The goodness of God

Morally perfect and the source of human ethics :

♥Exodus 20: God's message that loyalty shall be repayed. He is seen as a lawgiver and judge who gives humans known duties and sets standards. This shows his concern for humans and he cares about their behavior and rewards and punishes similar to a parent

♥Job 38: Respond with faith

♥Jeremiah 15- punish those exploiting others- doesnt show them mercy

♥Psalm 23: The Lord our Shephard- anthropomorphic language

♥Psalm 28: The Lord protects, defends, punishes those deserving

♥Psalm 128: Happy are those who obey the Lord and his commands

♥Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is right? If something is good because God commands it, then there is no independent way of deciding right from wrong. Of God commands it because it's good then this suggests human reason provides us with independent standard by which we can judge what is good. (Possible authority of human reason over God?

Righteous anger: angered at injustice because he cares about creation and human actions

.

Activity/interaction/direct intervention (miracles):

♥Samuel 1: responds to prayer of Hannah to bear a child

♥Joshua 10: Suspends the laws of nature (stops sun in the sky and sends hailstones) to help the Israelites against the Amorites. This shoes he is closely involved in his creation as he directly intervenes with the laws of nature

John 3: shows goodness through Jesus. God came to the world in order to demonstrate his love for humanity

•St Augustine: time is an intrinsic part of creation ("in the beginning" doesn't refer to a particular time

♥Criticisms:

•if God is capable of change and response, how can he be perfect?

•if he is outside time and space, how can he come into the world at a fixed point

•if God is both benevolent and potent, why does he permit evil?

•Science and religion- matter can't have been brought into existence when there was no matter before (creatio ex nihilo)

•Aristotle- nothing can come from nothing

•Babylonian Creation Myths: Similar to genesis. Either imagery is borrowed from the myths in order to express the inexpressible. Or, they may have believed their story as historically accurate

•The Problem of Evil: "God made creation perfectly and it was very good" which doesn't explain the existence of evil. If God created the universe and everything in it, he is solely responsible for everything that happens within it. Even if Genesis 2 explains the Fall as a source of evil, evil couldn't have created itself out of ex nihilo from a perfect world. Either the world was perfect and God let it go wrong, or the world was created imperfect and evil and suffering already existed. Either way, God is responsible as creator.

Aristotle:

An empiricist who contrary to his tutor Plato, believed a "form" was structure and characteristics which are perceived using our senses. His work derived from reflection of natural studies observable in the physical world

♥Four Causes:

•Material: what an object is made of (it matter or substance) E.g. a bowl is made of clay

•Formal: its structure or model upon which it is made (characteristics) E.g. bowl-shaped

•Efficient: the means/agency by which brought something into existence. E.g. a potter

•Final: goal or telos (ultimate purpose) E.g. Holding food

♥Idea of cause and purpose in relation to God: The unmoved mover is a principle of activity that allows things to achieve their ends.a things "purpose"--or, final cause--is internal to the thing itself. There is no "purpose" imposed from the outside. The prime mover sets things in motion.

♥The Prime Mover:Something that causes motion but is itself unmoved and is eternal. It is pure actuality whereas contingent things are constantly changing (transient). The prime mover is the originating cause of all motion eternally that sustains the pattern from actuality to potentiality in the world. The prime mover only thinks of themselves (only knows of themselves and remains eternally unaware of the physical world's existence. Prime mover is immaterial and is therefore incapable of performing a physical action and therefore must be spiritual and intellectual(thought). (Influenced Aquinas 1st way- Motion)

•Exists by neccessity: Cannot fail to exist

•Not capable of change: Pure actuality by nature so its nature is good. Something that is pure actuality lacks no quality and is what it should be

•Final Cause: Ultimate explanation of why things exist

For Aristotle, God is the prime mover. The universe depends for its existance on the prime mover, but he also points out that all things in the universe are ordered to some 'Final Cause' and ultimately to the prime mover. Aristotle thought that God was a necessary being but doesn't interact and act in the world. He is eternal, transcendent and impersonal

Aristotle defined badness or evil as the absence of actuality that God most perfectly has; a lack of something that ought to be there.

Strengths:

•It has derived from reflections in the natural world (empirically) as they are "observable in the physical world"

•The four causes can readily be applied to things in the world and can appropriately explain them

Criticisms:

•The relationship between prime mover and the universe is unclear. He links it with God but says he cannot interact in universe at all

•Many people dispute as to whether anything has a final cause, specifically a purpose of the universe. They would argue that it exists by mere chance and involved in the laws of science. Maybe things don't exist for a reason

•No evidence that this material world is the source of knowledge

•Casual relationship between the world and the prime mover is unclear

•Aristotle says that Humans are the only creature with reason but some scientific research suggests otherwise

Plato Analogy of cave:

♥Imagine a large, dark cave, with a very long, difficult passage leading to the outside world. In the cave, there are chained prisoners, with their backs to the entrance of the cave. A bright fire behind them casts shadows upon the wall they are facing and voices are echoed. For the prisoners, their reality is the dark cave with shadows and echoes A prisoner is released and is blinded by the fire. They are dragged up the long passage and wants to go back to the reality they understood. When they reach the outside world, the sun blinds them, eventually they adjust to the light and start to understand the outside world and accept it as the real reality. On returning to the cave to share with the others his discovery, he is blinded by the darkness and the prisoners are hostile towards him- showing their ignorance of knowing nothing but the shadows What things represent:

The prisoners: the rest of humanity unable to understand the enlightened, don't know real reality The shadows: reality to common humans, our perception of reality The cave itself: the visible world (phenomenal world of appearances), away from reality The outside world: true reality, world of the Forms, eternal, immutable world of ideals The sun: Highest good (Form of all forms), perfection, knowledge of true, essential goodness, allows soul to gain real understanding The journey out of the cave (struggle): philosophical enlightenment, struggle and battle for knowledge, ability to see real world and understand concepts/forms The chains: bound by preconceived ideas they have about life Return to the prisoners: attempts to show how those not enlightened are ignorant like the Rulers of Athens at the time who killed Socrates for "corrupting the young", who was also Plato's tutor, the escaped prisoner was representing Socrates, the philosopher

Concept of forms and form of good

♥‘Forms’: true reality, perfection eternal, invisible and unchangeable. They are more real than the sensory world of appearances. Imperfect replicas of the forms are seen around us; for example, we may say that a rose is "beautiful" but it isn't as beautiful as the Form of beautiful which perfection in itself. We can access the forms through intellectual reasoning.

♥Relation between concepts and phenomena; Concepts are innate ideas that our souls were exposed to in the transcendental world of pure forms. Phenomena is empirical evidence- these material objects are subject to change and are contingent whereas concepts

you cannot step in the same river twice

♥‘Ideals’; ideal universal forms which exist independently of anything else

♥Form of the Good and the other Forms: the forms are hierarchical with form of the good at the top like a sun, it illuminates to other forms

♥Theory of recollection: soul existed before birth in realm of forms and we recollect the forms during our life and we strive to return to them. We can help the soul recollect the forms by ignoring earthly matter and concentrate of philosophical reflection and become free the slaves of our senses

♥Body and soul: Each person has a directing force (SOUL) which is guided by a body involved in worldly matters. The mind (immaterial and capable of knowing eternal truths) wants to travel to the realm of ideas and gain understanding. The soul is trapped between the two opposing forces and tries to steer but is imprisoned in the body

Strengths: •It explains why we all recognize the same qualities such as beauty, goodness, and justice •It allows for imperfections in the world around us •Encourages us to question in order to learn and not accept everything at face value

Criticisms: •Is there forms of bad things such as smallpox, hatred? •Is there a form of an animal or a form of every species? •What is goodness? •No evidence Forms exist (empirically), no existence of another world •Perfect forms of things could just exist in our minds and are people probably have different ideas on the perfect form of things. Forms could be ideas preserved in peoples minds shaped from societies and cultures. (Richard Dawkins- "memes") •3rd man argument (copy of a form could turn into an infinite series making the theory meaningless) •No clear relationship was given between the 2 realms •Our sense are instinctive behavior for human survival