Philosophy Essay Plans (Paper 2)
(1A) Natural law (3 plans)
Whether or not natural law (or telos) provides a helpful method of
moral decision-making
FOR- helpful as provides clear precepts and unquestionable moral
guidance
ABSOLUTISM: outlines fundamental, divine, and unquestionable moral
principles that should always be followed, without any debate (unlike
relativist consequentialist theories)
GROTIUS: unconditionally protects intrinsic rights of individuals,
including sanctity of life and value of rational autonomy, unlike
consequentialist theories like situation ethics
AGAINST- God-given derivation is useless for atheists and too
simplistic
ATHEISTS: little use to atheists and religious basis may encourage
backward morality (eg being used by the Catholic Church to prohibit
homosexuality and contraception)
VARDY: absolutism has too simple a view of human nature: does sex
always have to end in reproduction? Humans are adapted to gain
pleasure from sex as well as reproduction
FOR- telos is an optimistic and flexible view of the moral universe and
human nature
GROTIUS: argues that NML would still apply even if there was no God,
as the laws themselves are obvious to reason and primary precepts are
rationally self-evident
FLEXIBLE: legalistic reputation is incorrect due to flexibility of
secondary precepts and DDE, proportionalism = application of NML in
practical reasoning for proportionate good
AGAINST- falsely assumes a constant telos and shared morality for all
humankind
SARTRE: there is no ultimate purpose to human life; deontological
morality assumes there is an ultimate purpose, but purpose is
individualistic and relative, what we create ourselves
GE MOORE: commits the naturalistic fallacy of equating natural with
good by arguing telos can be inferred from a shared human nature, so
flawed due to its teleological basis
Whether or not the universe as a whole is designed with a telos,
or human nature (and indeed the universe) has an orientation
towards the good
FOR- the universe has a fundamental telos imposed by the will of God
ARISTOTLE: human beings’ telos is eudaimonia in a lifetime quest
where human beings orientate themselves to these rational purposes for
the establishment of social good
AQUINAS: outlines fundamental, divine, and unquestionable moral
principles that should always be followed, without any debate (unlike
relativist consequentialist theories)
,AGAINST- inference of telos is meaningless for atheists and may be
fallacious
ATHEISTS: little use to atheists and religious basis may encourage
backward morality (eg being used by the Catholic Church to prohibit
homosexuality and contraception)
GE MOORE: commits the naturalistic fallacy of equating natural with
good by arguing telos can be inferred from a shared human nature, so
flawed due to its teleological basis
FOR- the universe and humanity are evidentially oriented towards
good in the long term
GROTIUS: argues that NML would still apply even if there was no God,
as the laws are rationally self-evident and there has been a clear
trajectory of human moral progress
FINNIS: life/knowledge/play/work/aesthetic experience/rationality are
basic forms of human flourishing and evidence of a human moral
standard that preserves common good
AGAINST- the universe and humanity are chaotic and cannot be
considered good
BARTH/NIEBUHR: since the Fall, free will is corrupted and humans are
merely sinners following desires (it is too optimistic to think that we are
naturally inclined to do good)
SARTRE: there is no ultimate purpose to human life; deontological
morality assumes there is an ultimate purpose, but purpose is relative to
an individual in a chaotic universe
Whether or not the doctrine of double effect can be used to justify
murder (if killing someone as an act of self-defence)
FOR- DDE provides flexibility by distinguishing motivations from
actions
DDE: alleges that it is morally permissible to perform an action that has
two effects, one good and one bad, if intentions are fixed on the good
and the action is proportionate
RIGHT-INTENTION: the intention must be achieving only the good
effect, in this case preventing an attack to oneself which may threaten
sanctity of life (primary precept)
AGAINST- cannot be used to justify murder as intention is to kill or
maim (even in self-defence)
NATURE-OF-THE-ACT: condition that the action must be either morally
good or neutral: striking out or killing is never morally neutral, anti-
harmonious and harm principle
MEANS-END: condition that the bad effect must not produce the good
effect: the act of killing produces one’s own peace, which is not
justifiable: attacker’s right to life?
FOR- DDE is considerably vague so could be used to justify almost
anything
PROPORTIONALITY: the bad effect must not be disproportionate to the
good: if the bad effect is death and the good is preventing one’s own
death, these are equal in weight
VAGUE: DDE could justify any action praeter intentionem (accidentally
in excess) by arguing that intentions were pure and the bad was an
, unintended, unforeseen side effect
AGAINST- intention is ultimately unknowable so DDE is useless
IMPRACTICAL: DDE fails due to the privacy of consciousness, which
prevents intentions being proven by any moral agent and leaves every
situation open to vast relative debate
PARADOXICAL: confusingly attempts to fuse absolute and relative
morality: situation ethics is perhaps more appropriate and more simple,
using only agape (love not law)
(1B) Situation ethics (3 plans)
Whether or not situation ethics (agape) provides a helpful method
of moral decision-making
FOR- agape is a helpful measure for moral decision-making in
situation ethics
FLETCHER: situation ethics is teleological and relativist, providing
autonomy to an agent to achieve the end of agape, based on Biblical
literature (‘love never fails’ = Corinthians)
POSITIVISM: one cannot deduce good from natural principles as in
NML; ultimate moral authority lies in one’s own ethical intellect,
motivated by the Christian example of agape
AGAINST- agape is inherently subjective and there are debates over
its definition
VARDY: evil acts could be justified in extreme circumstances, if they
were bringing about a loving outcome (eg torturing a terrorist’s child in
order to disclose the location of a bomb)
MOTIVES: one could claim they were acting via agape but actually be
motivated by baser motives, so it can be used to justify inclinations,
rather than true moral obligations
FOR- there is an objective definition of agape from a religious
perspective
CS LEWIS: many misinterpret and oversimplify Fletcher’s use of agape
to mean a type of sentimental love, but really it is a more powerful,
unconditional, charitable form of love
JESUS: Sermon on the Mount presents agape as transformative love, a
mode of life that raises level of being and aims at perfection, adherence
to symbolic paradigm of Jesus
AGAINST- agape may not be a useful ethical aim on its own, or may be
misguided
MOUW: just focussing on the Biblical commandment of agape as a
guiding principle is mistaken, as there are many other ethical decrees in
the Bible (eg 10 commandments)
BARTH: since mankind is fallen, it is too optimistic to think that we are
naturally inclined to good things; our will is corrupted and we are
inclined to follow sinful desires, not agape
Whether Fletcher’s understanding of agape is really religious or
whether it means nothing more than wanting the best for the
person involved in a given situation
FOR- agape is based around religious values and described in the
