APPLIED ETHICS What does it mean?. The process of taking the theories we have studied and applying them to set ethical topics and scenarios to determine.

APPLIED ETHICS What does it mean?

The process of taking the theories we have studied and applying them to set ethical topics and scenarios to determine the outcome. To analyse and evaluate whether the theories CAN be applied and how USEFUL the theories are when applied. APPLIED ETHICS

THEORIES WE HAVE STUDIED AND WILL STUDY: Religious Ethics including Situation Ethics Utilitarianism – all forms Natural Law Kant ETHICAL AREAS WE WILL APPLY THEM TO: Abortion Euthanasia The Right to a child Genetic Engineering War APPLIED ETHICS

EXPLORE THE ETHICAL AREAS OF: Abortion, Euthanasia, The Right to a child, Genetic Engineering, War LEARN THE KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SURROUNDING THE ETHICAL AREA You will not need a biology degree – but key knowledge about the process is vital. LEARN ANY AREA-SPECIFIC THEORIES E.g Just War Theory APPLY THE THEORIES TO DECIDE ON A PROPOSED OUTCOME ANALYSE, EVALUATE AND CRITIQUE THE OUTCOME APPLIED ETHICS PROCESS

ABORTION EUTHANASIA RIGHT TO A CHILD GENETIC ENGINEERING JUSTICE WAR APPLIED ETHICS CONTENTS PAGE

The word ‘abortion’ comes from the Latin word ‘aboriri’ meaning ‘to fail to be born’. Abortion can be defined as the premature expulsion of a foetus from a womb (termination of pregnancy). In matters of ethics abortion usually refers to the intentional destruction of a foetus in the womb. ABORTION

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or foetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Sometimes this occurs naturally and is called miscarriage. Induced abortions, where the foetus is removed deliberately, were illegal in England, Scotland and Wales until a 1967 Act of Parliament. The act stated that, with the consent of two doctors, an abortion could be performed up to and including the 28 th week of pregnancy. In 1991 an amendment to the act reduced the time limit to 24 weeks. Abortions may be authorized after 24 weeks if: there is grave risk to the life of the woman or risk of grave physical or mental injury to her by the completion of the pregnancy / there is evidence of severe foetal abnormality. ABORTION & LAW

(a) make the wording of these exceptions more precise and (b) lower the time limit in which most abortions are allowed to 22 weeks. All attempts to alter the law have failed in the House of Commons. Those in favour of further changes have argued that medical advances mean that it is possible for a foetus to be delivered at 21 weeks and survive. They also argue that what is meant by ‘severe abnormality’ is poorly defined. RECENTLY:

Abortion rate is down, but the number of abortions is up – by 2.1 per cent since 2003. - The proportion of abortions taking place in the independent sector, financed by the NHS, is up. - The vast majority of abortions were taken under Ground C of the Abortion Act 1967, of which 99.84 per cent were due to a risk to the mother’s mental health. Such a risk is, of course, notoriously hard to define and allegedly flexible in meaning. Opponents of legalised abortion claim that it usually is tantamount to abortion on demand. - Falling numbers of abortions may be in part down to the NHS reducing so- called healthcare tourism. - "Black or black British" people only make up 3.3 per cent of the population but account for 9 per cent of abortions. - Some 37 per cent of women having abortions had one or more before (up from 32 per cent in 2003) and around one in seven women who had abortions were in a relationship. That last piece of data suggests that abortion might be being used by some people as a form of contraception. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, everyone should be troubled by these figures. They contradict a great deal of what we’re told about abortion being safe, legal and rare. STATS 2013 GUARDIAN:

The law on abortion was changed in 1967 for a number of reasons: The 1960s saw huge changes in social legislation in GB. The Abortion Act was part of a progressive social agenda pursued by the Labour Government that included the abolition of capital punishment, easing of regulations on divorce and the legalisation of homosexuality. The reform of abortion laws was an important concern of the women’s rights movement of the 1960s. Feminists, such as Germaine Greer, argued that women had the right to control their own body. For some, the foetus was seen as being part of the female body in a similar manner to an organ. Feminists also made 3 other claims: THE LAW:

1.Making abortion legal would cut the number of deaths from ‘backstreet’ abortions. 2.Unwanted babies often live an intolerable life of poverty and social deprivation and the mothers who looked after such children were often abused and disadvantaged. 3.The ban on abortion was part of the male domination of the legal profession and, more broadly, the control of women by men. THE LAW:

The present Abortion Act prohibits abortion on demand. It lays down particular grounds on which 2 doctors can agree to the termination of a pregnancy. These grounds are: –That the pregnancy is no more than 24 weeks and that the pregnancy involves a risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman, or any existing children in her family; –To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman; –The pregnancy involves a risk to the life of the women; –There is a substantial risk that the child would suffer from such severe physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. In Britain there are about 200,000 abortions each year. Each year about 1500 women come to Britain for an abortion from Northern Ireland where the procedure is still illegal.

Two main issues dominate the controversy over abortion: the status of the embryo the status of the human body. There is general agreement that from conception the foetal material is a member of the species Homo sapiens, since genetically the embryo is biologically human. The argument centers on whether this embryo is a human being in miniature. STATUS OF THE EMBRYO

TYPES OF ABORTION  Providing that two doctors confirm that her need for an abortion fits the legal criteria, a woman does not need the consent of her own doctor, her partner or her family to have an abortion.  Women under 16 can have an abortion, without parental consent in some circumstances.  There are three main types of abortion:  The Pill (Morning after Pill 72 hours – Abortion Pill 7 weeks)  Vacuum aspiration or suction termination (from 7 to 15 weeks of pregnancy).  Surgical dilation and evacuation (D&E) (from 15 weeks of pregnancy).

TWO CAMPS There are two camps when it comes to abortion: PRO-LIFE –Pro-life campaigners argue against abortion. They think that the life of the foetus should come before the choice of the mother. PRO-CHOICE –Pro-choice campaigners argue for abortion. They think that the choice of the mother should come before the life of the foetus.

PERSONHOOD A person is a being that deserves protection under the law. One of the issues raised by abortion surrounds the definition of a person. The point at which a life becomes a human is the point at which it is wrong to kill it because it will be protected by the law. When we talk about LIFE or the START OF LIFE we will be referring to the start of HUMAN LIFE

WHAT IS A PERSON?

 When a foetus is given the legal status of a person is essential to understanding the debate over abortion.  This is because killing a person would be considered murder.  If the foetus is given the status of a person before birth it means that anybody terminating a baby after that time would be guilty of murder.  The claim: abortion is murder would be justified PERSONHOOD

POTENTIALITY Many people believe that a foetus should be given the status of a person because it is a POTENTIAL person. This is called POTENTIALITY Anything that has POTENTIAL to be a human is a human. What do you think about this? Does that mean we should include Sperm and eggs?

CONCEPTION  Conception is the point at which the unique selection of genetic information is present  It is the moment the sperm and the egg have combined to create a fertilized ovum.  if allowed to continue and successful in development will go on to be a unique human being.  1869 Pope Pius declared that a foetus is a human person from the moment of conception.  This has been the basis for Roman Catholic teaching on abortion that to kill a foetus is to murder a human person.

CRITICS  The fertilized egg is too different from anything that we normally recognize as a person to be called the same thing.  THOMPSON- accepts that there is continuous development in foetal growth but suggests that there is a point at which it is not a human being.  “There is continuous growth from acorn to oak tree but an acorn is not an oak tree; just as a fertilized ovum – is not a person.”  GLOVER – to call a foetus a human at the point of conception stretches the term beyond normal boundaries.

PRIMITIVE STREAK  Others have identified the presence of the primitive streak on the fourteenth day after fertilization, as the point at which a unique human being can be said to exist, albeit in potential form.  The primitive streak provides the structure around which embryonic structures organize and align themselves.  Up until that point it is not clear whether one individual or more than one individual will form, and at this point it becomes clear which cells will go on to form the placenta and which go on to form the embryo.

PRIMITIVE STREAK The ‘primitive streak’ is evidence of the start of the nervous system at 2 weeks. At this point it is thought that the young embryo can experience pain and has primitive sensations. 14 days is the limit for embryo research. After this point it cannot be used. This demonstrates that the law is recognising the change in the foetus at this point.

CRITICISMS  Thomson and Glover’s observations could still be remade about the foetus at this time.

CONSCIOUSNESS  Consciousness may be suggested as a definition of personhood.  Consciousness cannot be applied to all living tissue, as it implies sensory experiences, the ability to feel pleasure and pain. However, consciousness would include many animals, and most would argue that animals are not persons in the same sense as humans are.  The presence of rationality, and our ability to develop complex language and make complex tools, are distinctive features of personhood

CONSCIOUSNESS  However studies of chimpanzees and dolphins show that many higher animals use complex communications and can make tools with which to manipulate their environments.  Perhaps self-consciousness or self-awareness defines a human person.  This includes a sense of our own past and future.  However, very young babies are not self-aware in this sense and yet very few people would argue that killing a baby is not the same as killing a person, but this does not necessarily imply that full legal status should be aware on the basis of what it has the potential to be.  A potential victory is not the same as a victory.  A potential person is not equal to a person.

VIABILITY Viability is the point at which human personhood should be recognised. Viability means when the foetus can survive a birth and exist independent of the mother. This used to be referred to as quickening when the mother first felt the foetus move although now first-movement feeling and viability are not connected. 20-24 WEEKS

CRITICISMS TO VIABILITY  The age which the foetus can survive outside the womb is reducing as medical technology progresses.  The moral judgement is made on the basis of technical ability rather than anything inherent to the foetus.  There are many people who are dependent on continual medical assistance such as dialysis in order to survive. We consider them to be persons despite their medical conditions…  Even healthy born human babies would not survive without adult aid.

BIRTH  Warren 1991 – argues that ‘birth, rather than some earlier point, marks the beginning of true moral status’  If a foetus is a person, then sperm and ovum are persons.  Birth provides a clear boundary.  Glover rejects this argument because of the similarity between later foetuses and premature babies.  Birth marks clear stage in the process of coming into the world and presents a stage of recognition by others that the baby is an individual.

OTHER ISSUES  The MORAL STRUGGLE over personhood is unresolved even though the legal issue is settled.  Vardy and Grosch – note that despite the many attempts at drawing a dividing line in the foetus’s development there is no easy way of drawing the line with certainty.  1985 – Gallagher asks us to recognise that change is gradual.  If an embryo is x at one time and James at another time, then there will be a time when it is part x and part James.

OTHER ISSUES While personhood does not provide a clear solution to the abortion debate, the moral status of the foetus is crucial. in a book on Christian Ethics – SELLING has argued that if a being qualifies as a person, then it has a direct moral standing with rights, and others have a duty towards it. Whether that duty extends to full human status remains in dispute.

GETTING PREGNANT A pregnancy and a growing foetus have an enormous impact on the mother. Not only does it cause physiological and emotional changes it places the mother’s body under enormous pressure and has significant health risks attached. –In the past before developed health care childbirth was a principal cause of women’s death and it remains so in less economically developed countries. LDEC’s

THE ISSUE  There is a complex question about the conflicting interests between mother and child.  At one end of the spectrum are the severe danger of death examples:  An ectopic pregnancy will kill both the mother and the child if left uninterrupted.  There are also increased chances of pregnancy aggravating existing health problems.  Mothers with heart complaints or high blood pressure are under increased risk of serious problems. ECTOPIC PREGNANCY A pregnancy in which the foetus develops outside the uterus.

THE ISSUE  If mothers become unwell decisions about taking medicines are complicated by the possible harmful effects those medicines may have on the unborn foetus – one must be weighted against the other.  These seem to suggest a rather unpalatable reality, that what may be good for a mother can sometimes harm the baby and vice versa.  Interests can conflict leaving a moral problem centred on the question of mother and baby equality.

THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER In some situations it is hard to determine whose life is more important: Mother child

A DEFENCE OF ABORTION - THOMPSON Thompson sees abortion as an issue of self-defence and uses this to justify it in some cases. If the foetus threatens the health of the mother abortion is a defensive measure against unacceptable dangers. Thompson uses the example of a cardiac condition which should the pregnancy be allowed to continue would place the mother in real danger.

A DEFENCE OF ABORTION - THOMPSON Thompson argues that it cannot be seriously suggested that a person must be stopped from saving their own life for the life of another. It cannot be suggested that they must sit by and wait for death. We can think of examples where someone is reasonably prevented from risking their life for a child – such as entering a burning building to save a child stranded inside.

A DEFENCE OF ABORTION - THOMPSON  Once the fire is too bad the decision is made not to risk further life even though the desire of the parent to risk all and try is instinctive and laudable.  To prevent someone from escaping such a fire out of a duty to another seems unreasonable and unnatural  It is beyond a persons moral duty to give up their life for another. In the case of abortion if a woman’s life is in danger she should not be obligated to give up her life.  If she does, she goes beyond the requirements of morality.

DOUBLE EFFECT  One position which takes account of the threat to the mothers life is that which argues for a double effect way of thinking.  It may be that a medical procedure is necessary to protect the life of the mother which inadvertently and indirectly leads to the termination of the pregnancy.  In this way of thinking the action is not deliberately to kill but deliberately to save life.  The death of an innocent is an unfortunate side-effect. DOUBLE EFFECT: this is a doctrine devised to deal with moral conflicts in natural law theory. It says that it is always wrong to do a bad act intentionally in order to bring about good consequences. It is sometimes permissible to do a good act while at the same time knowing that it will bring about bad consequences. In rough terms, this is sometimes translated as ‘provided your intention is to follow the rule, you can “benefit” from any unintended consequences.

RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES Ancient views of abortion differed, just as they do now. ARISTOTLE favoured abortion to control the size of a family but the HIPPOCRATIC OATH prohibited it. No biblical text specifically prohibits abortion, although a number are cited as providing a framework for prohibiting abortion

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE  The religious perspective revolves around the sanctity of life. This view states that all life is created by God and therefore, only God has the right to take life.  Life is therefore SACRED.  To say that life is sacred implies reverence and respect.  This is a core belief of Christianity. For that reason murder is wrong.  TEN COMMANDMENTS

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE  Christianity generally prohibits abortion due to the sanctity of life.  However, despite the ‘sanctity of life’ there are some justifications for killing in the Bible; such as self-defence and war.  Death is ok as long as it is to prevent undesirable consequences such as the deaths of innocents.  Acceptance of these seems to be at odds with an attitude against abortion based on the idea of the sanctity of life.

OVERVIEW - CHRISTIANITY Historically abortion is sinful It is prohibited in many Christian writings Christian writers have disputed: the point at which the soul infused with the body (ensoulment) If early abortions are as bad as late ones But essentially it has always been viewed as murder.

CATHOLIC VIEW Catholic – Abortion is intrinsically evil Abortion goes against the natural law and the word of God and there are no exceptions or scenarios that make it right. the foetus deserves the same status as a born human being. Having an abortion leaves you open to excommunication EXCOMMUNICATION The act or banishing a member of a church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church; cutting someone off from the religious community. ENSOULMENT The process in Christian belief, by which a body is endowed with a soul. EXCOMMUNICATION The act or banishing a member of a church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church; cutting someone off from the religious community. ENSOULMENT The process in Christian belief, by which a body is endowed with a soul.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND  Leaves Anglicans to make their own decisions using the conscience.  The General Synod (church governing body), has expressed opposition to abortion, on the basis of: 1.The right to life argument 2.Contravenes moral law  They are concerned with the growing number of abortions but recognise their can be limited conditions when it is approved.  Such as the life of the mother being threatened.

 In an ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube is usually removed and the embryo dies, thus saving the Mother.  Christians use double effect to justify this.  The doctor intends to save the mother rather than kill the foetus meaning it is morally ok.  AQUINAS – there must be proportionate need, such as saving a life, to perform an action which has a second evil effect.  That evil effect must be equally immediate to the good effect so that there is no question that what is in fact going on is doing evil for a good reason.

Genesis 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man. Genesis 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man. Job 31:15 Did not God make him as well as me? did he not give us life in our mothers' bodies? Job 31:15 Did not God make him as well as me? did he not give us life in our mothers' bodies? Isaiah 44:24 The Lord, who has taken up your cause, and who gave you life in your mother's body, says, I am the Lord who makes all things; stretching out the heavens by myself, and giving the earth its limits; who was with me? Isaiah 44:24 The Lord, who has taken up your cause, and who gave you life in your mother's body, says, I am the Lord who makes all things; stretching out the heavens by myself, and giving the earth its limits; who was with me? Isaiah 48:1,5 Give ear to this, O family of Jacob, you who are named by the name of Israel, and have come out of the body of Judah; who take oaths by the name of the Lord, and make use of the name of the God of Israel, but not truly and not in good faith. For this reason I made it clear to you in the past, before it came I gave you word of it: for fear that you might say, My god did these things, and my pictured and metal images made them come about. Isaiah 48:1,5 Give ear to this, O family of Jacob, you who are named by the name of Israel, and have come out of the body of Judah; who take oaths by the name of the Lord, and make use of the name of the God of Israel, but not truly and not in good faith. For this reason I made it clear to you in the past, before it came I gave you word of it: for fear that you might say, My god did these things, and my pictured and metal images made them come about. Jeremiah 1:5 Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy; I have given you the work of being a prophet to the nations Jeremiah 1:5 Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy; I have given you the work of being a prophet to the nations Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: when his mother Mary was going to be married to Joseph, before they came together the discovery was made that she was with child by the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: when his mother Mary was going to be married to Joseph, before they came together the discovery was made that she was with child by the Holy Spirit.

NOW YOU DO THE WORK! APPLYING THE THEORIES

EUTHANASIA LEARNING THE THEORY

EUTHANASIA  Euthanasia is the termination of a person’s life, either with their consent or without, as a way of alleviating pain or removing unnecessary suffering.  The word comes from two Greek words  EU meaning good  And THANOS meaning death.  It literally translates as good death

KEY CASES Annie Lindsell – suffering with Motor Neurone disease in December 1997 was worried she would die in pain. She requested the High Court to allow a doctor to administer her with diamorphine. Tony Bland – victim of the Hilsbourgh disaster was allowed to die by the courts through withdrawal of food. Dianne Pretty – wanted the courts to allow her husband to help her commit suicide because she feared the choking and asphyxia often caused by her disease. This went to the ECHR and was declined because the right to die was not part of her right to life.

THE ROLE OF A DOCTOR The job of a doctor is to heal. The hippocratic oath that a doctor must take entails the requirement that they do not willing harm another person. But many people argue a doctors job is to preserve the quality of a persons life by healing. If this is the case surely if a person feels they have no quality of life a doctor should preserve that by helping them to die?

QUOTES I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death.’ Hippocrates

QUOTES “Physicians are not only to restore health, but to mitigate pain and dolours; and not only when such mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it serve to make a fair and easy passage” Francis Bacon

EUTHANASIA Some doctors maintain that killing a patient should not fit in with what a doctor should do. A doctor should heal, prevent diseases and assist people in living a healthy life. Some doctors today feel that the need to preserve the patient’s quality of life extends to a duty to help that patient end his or her life in the way that he or she sees fit. What do you think?

In thinking about what sort of death a person should have, one can say that a peaceful death is one in which pain and suffering are minimised, where the patient is never neglected and whose needs are always taken account of. However, in all countries, the peaceful death is not thought in legal terms to include euthanasia.

THE UK LAW ACTIVE / DIRECT EUTHANASIA: anything that involves the administering of a treatment or drug in order to shorten or end a persons life is illegal. This is true even if they have given their consent to the death. PASSIVE/ INDIRECT EUTHANASIA: withdrawing treatment from a person in order to bring about their death is legal and widely practised in Britain.

BRITISH LAW AND MURDER  Murder, is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought).  To murder somebody you must intend to kill them.  Euthanasia is the intentional killing of a person.  It is clearly murder under the current definition.  In order to legalise it we would have to define euthanasia so that it was considered legal killing, along with war.

EUTHANASIA  Euthanasia is a criminal offence in virtually all countries, and it is strongly opposed by most governments and religious organisations.  In Holland, about a thousand assisted deaths take place each year, and organisations such as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) campaign for a similar practice to be available in the UK.  It is worth noting that the VES, along with most other pro-euthanasia groups, would never support ending someone’s life against that person’s will.

FINALLY... There are active and passive dimensions to the ethical debate. If someone is terminally ill they may ask you not to intervene medically to help them and allow them to die sooner (passive voluntary euthanasia) or you may wish to do so after they have lost consciousness and basic brain functions (passive involuntary euthanasia)

The person may ask you to give them medicines which will bring about their death (active voluntary euthanasia) or you may wish to do so once they have lost consciousness and basic brain functions (active involuntary euthanasia) MORE FINALLY...

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA There may be situations where people are in terrible pain or have such a profound sense of indignity because of their mental deterioration that they wish while they still have the chance to express a choice, to bring about death more quickly. There are several arguments in favour of legal voluntary euthanasia.

FOR – VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA IS NOT MURDER In his article “why physicians should aid the dying” Gregory E. Pence argues that killing humans who don't want to live is not wrong. It isn't wrong to help the dying to die, because they are actually dying. You are simply speeding up the process. This is therefore, not murder.

FOR – VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA IS MERCIFUL  Voluntary euthanasia shows mercy for those suffering with intolerable pain from an incurable disease.  The English humanist Thomas More argued in his famous 1516 book Utopia that when a patient suffers a ‘torturing and lingering pain, so that there is no hope, either of recovery or ease, (they may) choose rather to die, since they cannot live but in much misery’.  Voluntary euthanasia is a merciful opportunity to end needless suffering – one which we offer to animals and should offer to humans as well.

FOR – VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA GIVES PEOPLE AUTONOMY  Mill argues that if it doesn’t affect someone else’s, individuals should have full autonomy. (complete freedom)  “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which [a citizen] is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign”  We expect to have control over our bodies in matters of life, and it should be the same in matters of death.

FOR – VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA GIVES PEOPLE AUTONOMY The VES (voluntary euthanasia society) argues that every human being deserves respect and has the right to choose his or her own destiny, including how he or she lives and dies. Controversial American doctor Jack Kevorkian has said ‘in my view the highest principle in medical ethics – in any kind of ethics – is personal autonomy, self-determination. What counts is what the patient wants and judges to be a benefit or a value in his or her own life. That’s primary’

JACK KEVORKIAN Kevorkian aka 'Dr Death' because he photographed the eyes of dying patients. Later in his career (starting in 1987) he advertised his services as a physician offering 'death counselling'. When terminally ill patients learned that he was helping people to die, more and more people came to him. Despite several failed court cases, Kevorkian helped over 130 people to die. Kevorkian believed that helping people was not enough, and actually killed Thomas Youk, filmed himself doing so and receiving consent by the man. He was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison.

FOR – VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA GIVES PEOPLE AUTONOMY Advocates of voluntary euthanasia argue that it should be an option for a competent adult, who is able and willing to make such a decision. They argue that it should be on offer as one option among many, along with the kind of palliative care offered by hospitals and hospices. Free choice should be given to everyone! Palliative care: the care of patients with a terminal illness, not with the intent of trying to cure them, but to relieve their symptoms.

FOR –EUTHANASIA GOES ON ANYWAY  In 1994 the British Medical Journal published a survey that showed some doctors already help patients to die.  Doctors can legally give pain relieving treatment in doses that will bring about people’s deaths more quickly and, in certain circumstances, such as in the case of the bread dead or comatose, they may also withdraw or withhold treatment even though a person will die if they do so.  What is this type of euthanasia called?

FOR –EUTHANASIA GOES ON ANYWAY They cannot however, help someone to die at that person's request. The VES holds that it would be more honest and much safer if voluntary euthanasia was legal and regulated. They argue that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing treatment and delivery a lethal injection. Is this true?

FOR – VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA MAINTAINS THE QUALITY OF LIFE  Human beings should be able to maintain their dignity up until the ends of their lives.  This is not simply a matter of pain, but of self-respect.  If someone’s standard of living is such that they no longer want to live, then they should be able to end their life and, if necessary, be assisted in doing so.  What is more, the quality of life worth living is one that only they can define.  Having control over their life is a way of enhancing their human dignity.

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY  What cultural effect might voluntary euthanasia have on society?  Might it lead to other forms of euthanasia being supported – ultimately concluding with the kinds of involuntary euthanasia carried out by the Nazis on the sick, the elderly and the disabled?

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY  Glover rejects this argument as unconvincing and Helga Kuhse has observed that this has not happened in the Netherlands.  It is more likely that it might damage the care of patients who are dying.  Perhaps they would be put off by a perceived risk of an unwanted assisted death.  In order to stop the assisted dying of patients it would have to be severely legislated similar to the abortion laws giving a number of criteria you have to meet before having the act justified.

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY While opposing voluntary euthanasia, people have developed caring and sensitive provision for the terminally ill within the hospice movement, but legalisation would affect the culture in which that approach to care has been developed. If voluntary euthanasia were made legal, would people become concerned about visiting hospitals, fearful of what might happen?

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY  Ultimately, voluntary euthanasia, in its physician-assisted form, is not simply an individual matter.  It affects others and society as a whole – the doctor who assists, the nurses who are caring for the patient, the hospital in which it takes place and the wider community.  The argument of an individual’s right to die must be set against the interests of the community in which individuals exist.  Acceptance of the practice of killing in hospitals could reduce the respect for life that civilisations uphold now more than ever in terms of the human rights.

TONY BLAND  Tony bland was the victim of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster in which many football fans were crushed to death.  He survived but was left in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) in which it was thought he would never recover.  In this state the body can breathe and main organs function properly.  In Bland’s case he could open his eyes but did not respond to anything around him.

 He could not feed but could digest food so needed to have food and water provided through a feeding tube.  There was no cure for Tony’s condition but he was not dying.  The question, which eventually ended up in court, was whether or not it was right to remove artificial feeding and lead to death through starvation and dehydration.  This seems like a painful and cruel way if he was able to sense the pain although it was thought he would not. TONY BLAND

INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA  The 2005 mental capacity Act makes it clear that assisted food and fluids is a medical treatment which can be withdrawn.  This seems to take a step towards active involuntary euthanasia or even non-voluntary euthanasia.  The ethical challenge here is that there are instances where doctors are convinced that a person will never wake up from a coma, or has no capacity for higher life function, and yet can be sustained indefinitely.  Does it show more or less respect for the value of the human person to withdraw life-sustaining measures?

 Another area of controversy surrounds the care of severely disabled babies.  As medical advances improve, it is possible to keep alive more and more severely physically disabled babies.  Some argue that allowing a disabled baby to live is to disable a family.  In November 2006 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologogists urged health professionals to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled babies to spare the emotional burden of families bringing up the sickest of children. INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES  There are similarities between the religious approaches to euthanasia and abortion.  Many religious perspectives work from interpretation of sources and applying them to the issues at stake.  The most important thing to remember is that there is diversity both within and between religious traditions.

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES  Roger Crook captures the Christian perspective on euthanasia by posing the question of how we care for the dying.  What do we do for the person who is comatose with no hope of recovery?  How do we care for the terminally ill person whose remaining days are increasingly, agonisingly painful?  The human being is not simply a biological entity but a person, in the image of God and Christ. Death marks the end of personhood in this life.

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES - GENERAL 1.Biblical teachings prohibit killing 2.The sixth commandment “you shall not murder” (exodus 20:13) 3.Jesus ministry was about healing. Providing care for the sick, needy and the weakest members of society. 4.Christians have traditionally considering taking one’s own life to be wrong.

CATHOLIC – LIFE IS SACRED  At the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Roman Catholic Church condemned crimes against life such as;  Murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful suicide  “life is sacred and a gift from God”  To take a life opposes God’s love for that person, and rejects the duty of a person to live life according to God’s plan.

CATHOLIC – LIFE IS SACRED  In the same declaration they made it clear that it was wrong to ask someone for an assisted death.  And that an individual cannot consent to such as death: ‘For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life and an attack on humanity.’ The kind of autonomy that is argued for by JS Mill is rejected here. We simply don’t have that freedom, because we are made by God for the purpose of loving God. God has created us for a purpose, and it is our duty to live and pursue that purpose.

CATHOLIC – THE IMPORTANCE OF SUFFERING  A distinct argument is made about suffering and its role in Christian theology.  Jesus died in pain on the cross, and human suffering at the end of life connects us to the suffering that Jesus felt.  This does not mean that Christians should refuse to take painkillers or should actively seek pain, but it does grant suffering the possibility of having a positive effect on the individual.

CATHOLIC – THE IMPORTANCE OF SUFFERING  It provides the chance that he or she may grow closer to God.  In an article on euthanasia Thomas Wood writes that while suffering can seem meaningless, is terrible and never sought, it is not the worst evil – it can be on occasion for spiritual growth and it can have moral effects on those in attendance.  It can have meaning in the context of a life lived in faith.

CATHOLICS - EXCESSIVE TREATMENT SHOULD BE AVOIDED Burdensome excessive treatment, however, should be avoided. Similar positions are held by other Churches. Withdrawal of unduly burdensome treatment in cases where it would not lead to any improvement in the patient’s underlying condition and could not prevent death. In such circumstances it may be morally responsible to withhold or withdraw treatment and allow death to occur. DIVERSITY!!!

CATHOLICS  Hans Kung (1928-) has stated:  “As a Christian and a theologian I am convinced that the all-merciful God, who has given men and women freedom and responsibility for their lives, has also left to dying people the responsibility for making a conscientious decision about the manner and time of their deaths” When you die is an individual choice. God gave you the ability to choose and you should use that God given right. God is all-loving and will understand. Diversity !

LIBERAL PROTESTANTS The protestant Joesph Fletcher is an active advocate of the patient’s ‘right to die’ on the basis that Christian faith emphasises love for one’s fellow human being, and that death is not the end for Christians. Acts of kindness may embrace euthanasia, for instance when a human being is dying in agony, as a response to human need. Fletcher’s (1975) argument for euthanasia has four points.

1.The quality of life is to be valued over biological life 2.Death is a friend to someone with a debilitating illness. 3.All medical interventions place human will against nature and extraordinary means. 4.Special equipment and unnecessary surgery are not morally required for a person who is terminally ill. SITUATION ETHICS

 People are prepared to ‘face death and accept death a preferable to continuous suffering for the patient and the family’  There is no distinction between our response to a suffering animal or human.  There is no difference between passive and active euthanasia as the result is the same.  He extends his view of active euthanasia to very severely disabled children. SITUATION ETHICS

 This is a Situationists argument. If you meet these criteria you provide the most loving thing by allowing them to die. 1.The quality of life is to be valued over biological life 2.Death is a friend to someone with a debilitating illness. 3.All medical interventions place human will against nature and extraordinary means. 4.Special equipment and unnecessary surgery are not morally required for a person who is terminally ill.  Euthanasia in these situations is the most loving thing to do.

 A quite different conservative protestant approach is presented by Arthur Dyck (1975)  Dyck thinks an act of kindness can result in withdrawing treatment but not doing something actively to bring about death.  Permitting some acts of active euthanasia, such as in the case of severely disabled children seems to be creating a class of human beings who are treated as less valued. CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS

He argues that a mentally retarded child is not dying, is not in pain and cannot choose to die. Since killing is generally wrong it should be kept to as narrow a range of exceptions as possible. While mercy is a moral obligation, killing is never a mercy. CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS

The term mercy killing is a contradiction and when we use the term to justify the killing of the disabled or the mental incompetent, we fail to care for the most needy in the community, which is a fundamental moral duty. Dyck’s view is in keeping with traditional Christian thought, and most Christian theologians, which holds that active, direct help in the taking of human life is prohibited. CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS

 Whereas, voluntary euthanasia, self-willed by a rational, legally competent person, has been permitted by some theologians, active euthanasia in which the person plays no role, has been condemned by the majority of Christian thinkers.  The ethical approaches to the problem taken by Christians sometimes reflect a move from general principles to specific applications (the sanctity of life to the prohibition of euthanasia) and also at times to concern about the sinful nature of human beings and their unreliability at making good decisions through the use of ‘right reason’. (Vetachi)

For the deontologist death – euthanasia or abortion can never be good because you would have to extend it to all circumstances. Clearly abortion or euthanasia can not be GOOD is all circumstances as we could have serious abuses of the system and situations being justified which are grossly unethical. Such as? THE DEONTOLOGIST

 Religious teachings frequently describe abortion and euthanasia as intrinsically evil in any situation regardless of circumstances.  The sanctity of life is often given a greater value than all other factors when making a moral decision.  It is one of those issues which in religious teaching seems to carry the equivalent to a trump card which counters every other condition.  If we think in absolute deontological terms then the act of killing seems evil, rather than ever being a good.

THE RELATIVIST In some situations we make exceptions such as self defence where lethal force may be necessary, or in the case of war. Because this is the case we should be able to ask then whether abortion or euthanasia can be considered as one of these exceptions. There are many examples where we it seems clear than both euthanasia and abortion should be considered right.

BUT Just because something is right, does that make it a good for human kind? Can death ever be good for a human. If we consider abortion the killing of an innocent being then even though it may be morally right to abort the foetus does that make it a good? Something that is positive for a person?

CONCLUSIONS How we decide if abortion or euthanasia is right depends as we said on our ethical stance. Are we relativist or deontologists? if we give moral value to the situation and the consequences then we might take a different moral view from the absolutist deontological view that abortion is always evil.

NECESSARY EVIL  Perhaps abortion and euthanasia can be considered a ‘necessary evil’  One which is necessary in order to do good.  though for many religious perspectives, a necessary evil, is (or should be) an impossibility.  If death can ever be a good is a difficult question.  Surely, if you are saving life or upholding the quality of life then it is up the person involved and if they consider it ‘good for them’ then maybe it is a ‘good’.

THE RIGHT TO A CHILD

DIFFERENT ISSUES Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) – the right to design your embryo to be a certain sex or free from certain diseases. IVF treatments – the right to choose to conceive and raise a child.

Consequences for society for the individual Choice Implications for individual Should choice be limited to mothers deemed suitable? Cost – implications for society (eg NHS free treatment means money can’t be spent elsewhere)

PREIMPLANTA TION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS (PGD) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmOG_nMkVEQ& NR=1

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PGD A new form of eugenics which will have social consequences eg perfect versus imperfect children. A slippery slope will develop eg parents screen for gender (legal in USA). Expensive, so only a right for the wealthy. Affects the justice argument (in Situation Ethics love and justice are the same).

ARGUMENTS FOR PGD Establishes possibility of eliminating serious disease and abnormality. General welfare increases. Increases chances of older women conceiving – so fewer experience misery of infertility. Slippery slope can be halted eg in UK it’s illegal to screen for gender.

IVF TREATMENT Takes different forms. Injection of sperm into egg does not necessarily involve multiple embryos. Costs around £8,000 a cycle (of three attempts). Different trusts have different policies. All trusts have an ethics board that will deny treatment to unsuitable parents (see handout for the legal basis).

A UNIVERSAL RIGHT? No… a limited right. Limited by cost to a certain number of cycles (maximum three). Limited by age of mother (mostly 35 years old if NHS funded). Limited by suitability – hospital ethics committees have power of refusal if mother deemed “unsuitable”.

HERE’S THE SCIENCE OF ONE TYPE OF IVF (THE TYPE THAT WASTES EMBRYOS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WypK9TpD34&feature=related But note that single sperm can be directly injected into the egg – thus avoiding embryo wastage, as in this photo, called intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI),

DAILY MAIL MARCH 24 TH 2011 Only nine of the 151 health trusts fulfill national guidelines by offering women the opportunity to have up to three eggs fertilised outside the womb, government figures revealed. And four offer no treatment at all. The survey also showed that all but a few trusts have imposed tough criteria for free fertility treatment, rejecting patients who smoke or who already have children, including those from previous relationships. 45,000 cycles of IVF are performed in the UK each year. But the level of NHS provision means that more than 30,000 of these are conducted privately, at an average cost of about £2,000 per cycle. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028430/Infertile- couples-denied-IVF-NHS-postcode-lottery-means-just- chance.html#ixzz1HWZRK8wQhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028430/Infertile- couples-denied-IVF-NHS-postcode-lottery-means-just- chance.html#ixzz1HWZRK8wQ

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Some Christians argue violates the sanctity of life by destroying embryos. Some Christians argue devalues human life by playing God. It’s costly – where do we draw the line (it’s not a disease but a treatment to establish a choice). Probability of success is only 25% for under 30s (or 50% with latest US embryo screening to select healthiest) and 10% for over 40s.

ANYA SIZER ARGUES FOR IVF AS A CHRISTIAN (2 MINUTES) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3164032

ARGUMENTS FOR Increases happiness by giving hope to 14% of couples who cannot conceive naturally. Increases welfare/ reduces social cost by screening out diseases/disabilities. Gives autonomy and dignity to women. Establishes justice of every women’s right to choose.

CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT FOR IVF treatment doesn’t need to entail wasted embryos, or embryo screening. Gives a right to life to children who wouldn’t otherwise exist – still unique and loved. Increases the social good of happy family life – these children are much loved and wanted (see primary good of natural law – living in society).

THINK… ONE THING YOU’VE LEARNT About the science of IVF treatments About the ethics of genetic screening About the limitations to the right to a child

INTRODUCTION The first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, was born on 25 July 1978 at Oldham and District General Hospital. The consultant PATRICK STEPTOE was part of the team that developed in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Today IVF is used throughout the world to help women who are unable to conceive naturally.

These ‘test-tube babies’ raise a number of ethical problems. The most important of these is whether people have a right to a child.

THE RIGHT TO A CHILD CRISTOBAL ORREGO says that a right is something that is due to a person because that individual qualifies for it – so who qualifies for the right to a child? There are 2 answers to this question:

1.A woman is a free agent. Freedom includes: a.a woman’s right to use her body however she thinks fit and b.the freedom of choice. It can be argued the women should have the right of freedom of choice if IVF is available.

2. Natural Rights - Many women have a natural urge to be a mother. Therefore, to deny a woman motherhood is against her natural rights. However, the naturalistic fallacy can be used to counter this argument. A woman may, by nature, be motherly, but this does not mean that she has the right to be a mother.

Some scholars say that IVF treatment is not a right but a liberty. A liberty is a privilege given to the individual by society. It can be withdrawn if society thinks it is being abused or is not in the interests of the majority. A woman’s urge for a baby is a desire, not a right.

Recently there has been a growth in the number of older women in their 50s and 60s having IVF treatment. In 2006, a Spanish woman, MARIA DEL CARMEN BOUSADA, aged 67, gave birth to twins. Did she have a right to a child?

This case highlighted the problem of conflicting rights. Maria died in 2009 at the age of 69. She left behind her two year old children. Don’t the two young children left without a mother have rights too?

If it is considered morally wrong for a woman in the 60s or 70s to give birth to a child, because of the subsequent effect on the child, then there is no universal moral right to have children. Such a right cannot be universalised.

Do single people have the right to have a child? Do same-sex couples have the right to have a child?

IVF – OTHER MORAL ISSUES 1.What is the moral status of the fertilised embryos that are not implanted into the woman? This is the spare embryo problem.

When eggs have been fertilised only 2 or 3 are implanted back into the woman. The embryos are graded and the best ones chosen for implantation. What happens to the unused embryos?

In the UK a. The embryos may be frozen and made available for later implantation. b. They may be used in medical research or donated to other women. c. Alternatively they may be destroyed. (If used in medical research all embryos must be destroyed within 14 days of fertilisation).

When does personhood begin? Should embryos be graded, like eggs in a supermarket? It is argued that human embryos should not be regarded as objects or things.

2. What is the moral status of the biological father when he is not the spouse/partner of the mother? This is the donor father problem.

In the UK clinics can only pay expenses such as travel and loss of earnings to the donor. This is not the case in other countries. Commercialisation raises important issues about the relationship of the donor to the child.

A further problem is the right to know. Children born using donor sperm may wish to know their biological father later in life. Before April 2005 donors could remain anonymous. Children conceived after this date have the right to access details about the donor when they are 18. However, donors can still refuse contact with their donor-conceived child. This can be psychologically damaging to the child.

Legally, donor fathers are not required to take on any responsibilities for their donor-conceived children, but what moral responsibilities does a donor father have? What about a woman who has donated eggs?

3. What moral issues are raised by multiple births? In the UK, women under 40 can have two embryos implanted, and women over 40 three. But in some countries larger numbers are implanted to increase the chances of success. This can result in multiple births, with as many as 8 babies being born.

Nadya Suleman – octuplets!

This can pose dangerous health risks to the woman and the children. The mother may also have difficulty taking care of a large number of children.

4. Who should be permitted to have IVF? This issues relates to the age and sexuality of the parent-to-be. In the UK treatment is restricted to those under 50, but in other countries women in their late 50s, 60s and even 70s have had children after fertility treatment. Some think this goes against the natural order of things. It also means that parents will be very elderly or even dead when their children are teenagers.

There is also the question of providing fertility treatment to single women and to lesbian couples. In October 2009 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was amended so that clinics no longer have to consider the ‘need for a father’ when assessing suitability for fertility treatment. Instead people will be assessed on their ability to offer supportive parenting.

The result is that lesbian couples can no longer be refused fertility treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation. In the eyes of the law, all women have an equal right to fertility treatment; the moral question is whether all women and all men have a right to a child.

GENETIC ENGINEERING AND FERTILITY TREATMENT REVISION SUMMARY

KEY WORDS TO BE HAPPY WITH Genetically modified food – food whose genetic composition is altered to boost yields, disease resistance etc. Designer babies – babies whose genetic makeup is predetermined Therapeutic gene therapy – using gene and stem cell research to treat or cure diseases Totipotent stem cells - master cell that can become any kind of cell, present for first 14 days of embryo life. Cloning – creating a form of life with identical genetic structure. IVF treatment – creating an embryo outside the womb Embryo – a developing collection of cells up to eight weeks old

STEM CELL RESEARCH Stem cells can change into other cells (nerve, muscle, skin) eg mend hearts and repair bones. Click on link below for useful Q and A. http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=57%3Agenetic- engineering-and-embryo-research&id=155%3Aquestion-and-answer-stem-cell- research&option=com_content&Itemid=54http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=57%3Agenetic- engineering-and-embryo-research&id=155%3Aquestion-and-answer-stem-cell- research&option=com_content&Itemid=54 Cells in early embryos up to 14 days are totipotent (can change into anything). Embryos are destroyed after fertilisation. May be taken from surplus IVF treatment, or grown specially. Problem: may be rejected by patient as genetic makeup will be different, unless patient’s own stem cells are used.

Types of stem cells Adult All adults have some, but they are not totipotent Embryo They are easily collected from a 5 day embryo and they are totipotent Cloned embryonic Body tissue is cloned to provide exact genetic match to patient

EVALUATE THE FOLLOWING VIEWS The consequences are unknown (cancers, deformities etc), so it’s impossible to do the utilitarian calculation. A human life, even in embryo form, is sacred. This process is “playing God”. The embryo is just a cluster of cells, so the Kantian argument “never use a human as just a means to an end” cannot apply. The embryos used in IVF treatment are destroyed anyway, so this is clearly a utilitarian gain.

THERAPEUTIC CLONING Create identical clone to the patient to harvest stem cells/ bone marrow etc. Dolly the sheep was successfully cloned in 1997. In 2001 House of Lords legalised human embryo cloning as long as they are destroyed within 14 days. Reproductive cloning is still banned (so I can’t try and reproduce an exact copy of...me!). Is it moral to use some human beings as a means to an end? Has led some to create a child to save a child with a terminal disease as in the film “My Sister’s Keeper” (2009) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1078588/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1078588/

QUESTIONS OVER DOLLY THE SHEEP After 430 manipulated eggs, only Dolly was successfully reared. Others suffered abnormalities or miscarried. Dolly was put down at the age of six, suffering from a progressive lung disease. She was found to be ageing faster than expected. Do the risks of such experiments with human embryos outweigh potential benefits?

DESIGNER BABIES: DIFFERENT CASES Design a baby with a genetic makeup to save another child. In 2003 the Hashmi family were allowed to design such a baby to save their daughter. Design a baby to prevent miscarriage. Philippa Handyside was permitted to design a baby with genes to prevent miscarriage. (NB the genes were not enhanced in any way, the embryo was simply chosen from a number of fertilised eggs). Design a baby to create a super-child: intelligent, good at games, disease free etc etc (illegal by 1990 Act)

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYO AUTHORITY HFEA (1990) Embryo research is allowed: - to promote advances in fertility treatment - to investigate congenital diseases - to investigate causes of miscarriage - to develop effective contraception - to help detect genetic abnormalities

RIGHT TO A CHILD ISSUES Do the Hashmis have a right to a genetically enhanced child to save another one? Does Philippa Handyside have the right to a child through a miscarriage-free pregnancy? Do infertile couples have the right to IVF treatment with/without a surrogate womb, free on the NHS? How many chances should they have? Does a woman have the right to use the frozen sperm of her dead husband? (Kantian principle of consent?) Do same sex couples have the right to a child by using a surrogate mother?

DISCUSS “Children are a gift of God. There is no right to a child.” Roman Catholic Church (1990)

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH VIEW The Church teaches that medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and mother, and on condition that the parents have given free and informed consent. Since stem cell research on human embryos invariably causes the death of those embryos, it too stands condemned. In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos. See Donum Vitae (1995) http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ev.htm

HAVE HUMANS BEEN CLONED? Dr Hwang of South Korea claimed in 2006 to have cloned the first human. The records were falsified and despite trying with over 2,000 eggs, no successful cloning took place. “When our children become the products of our wills, created by our design, to satisfy our desires, they are profoundly dehumanized— they are not begotten, but made.” Dr. Leon Kass

ISSUE 1: REDUCTIONISM “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Francis Crick The Astonishing Hypothesis Dr Robert Song sees developments as shaped by the “Baconian project”, the aim to maximise choice and eliminate suffering....so human beings are reduced to their genetic inheritance and children seen as an addition to human happiness, a product of choice.

ISSUE 2: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE Because the technology exists to clone sheep, it is inevitable that people will one day be cloned. So the process must stop now. Mary Warnock argues: “The techniques for isolating and developing embryonic stem cells are the same as those used for cloning whole animals, and it was argued that there would now be no stopping scientists from going on with the process. It is inevitable that the next steps should follow. Therefore it is morally imperative to prohibit the first step. I have never thought this a very strong form of argument. After all there is no logical necessity determining that the second or third step should follow the first. It is rather a reflexion on human nature: once they have one thing, people will always demand more.”

ISSUE 3: EQUALITY There is a risk of a nightmare two-tier society, like the film Gattaca portrays. Kantians using the principle of ends argue for the absolute dignity and equality of all of us. Although Bentham and Mill protest that utilitarians believe “everyone counts as one”, Mill’s higher and lower pleasures imply the academic is superior to the disabled person, because superior pleasures count more.

FRANKENFOOD: GM SEEDS GM seeds boost crop yields and promote disease resistance. But allegations of exploitation of poor farmers as seed self destructs and so cannot be re-sown. Click on link below for article on Indian farmers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian- farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html#ixzz0YMKyTDNUhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian- farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html#ixzz0YMKyTDNU Fears that balance of nature will be destroyed as GM seed wipes out natural seed.

CONCLUSIONS “Right to a child” is ambiguous: infertile couple is different moral case from designing a baby to be “superior”. Misery caused by infertility and inherited diseases gives an overwhelming utilitarian case for IVF and stem cell research...if risks can be managed. Natural Law theorists could support research under a “preserve life” precept...but Roman Catholic Church takes a strong view on the sanctity of the in vitro embryo, whose destruction constitutes a “grave sin”. Kantians require a decision on whether an embryo is a “person”, but would reject creating a life to save a life.

GENETIC ENGINEERING AND ETHICAL THEORIES Application FUN

GE AND ABSOLUTISM Strong Sanctity of Life oppose destruction of embryo and playing God. NLT to defend innocent life but also to live in an ordered society and learn so GM crops, somatic cell will be acceptable. KANT it is categorically wrong to use someone as a means to an end so Saviour Siblings are unacceptable.

GE AND RELATIVISM Situation Ethics: Loving to find answers to world poverty and hunger, to find cures for illnesses, provide hearts etc, saviour sibling is an altruistic act. BUT – depends on the situation: is it harming a foetus? Does the sibling want it? What if GM crops used for profit? Is designer baby for good of mankind or to be abused? Eugenics?

GE AND KANT Not concerned with consequences so have to ask if it is a duty to carry out GE. Some types such as GM Crops and Somatic Cell can be but others cannot EG: Germ Line. Duty – preservation of self and life regarded as a duty so Somatic Cell and GM crops could be accepted by Kant. Autonomy – Germ-line gene therapy rids future generations of autonomy. CI Formula 1 – Embryonic Stem Cell research cannot be universalised as the race would die out. CI Formula 2 – Saviour Siblings and Cloning is using people as a means to an end (EG: Their primary purpose is to save their sibling not be an autonomous agent). Emotion, desire etc cannot be taken in to account so Designer Babies etc would not be allowed as these tend to be His EG: To have a more intelligent baby, I must use Enhancement GE.

STREN GTHS OF APPLYI NG KANT Absolutist so easy to apply. Clearer moral decisions made. Defends rights of saviour siblings, future generations etc. Not based on emotion or personal circumstance so easier for medical professionals to set boundaries which apply universally.

WEAKN ESSES OF APPLYI NG KANT By ignoring consequences the potential hazards of GE are ignored (EG: GM Crops harm to eco-system). Duty alone provides no room for acts of compassion or love EG: Saviour Sibling. Uses reason and not emotion when this is often a personal, emotional decision EG: Xenotransplants. Unclear if an embryo is a human or not making it difficult to apply to methods which use embryonic stem cells: can they be used as a means to an end?

GE AND UTILITA RIANIS M BENTH AM Provided GE leads to the GGFGN it is accepted. However, considerations of where pain and harm can be caused may prevent certain types being accepted. Hedonic Calculus would value the intensity and longevity of the pleasure caused by GE which cures disease such as Therapeutic cloning, somatic cell, even GERM line as it leads potentially to other pleasures such as ridding future generations of illness. GM Plants and GM crops benefit the majority. Designer babies and enhancement GE could be acceptable under Act utilitarianism as it depends on the pleasure caused to the individuals involved.

GE AND UTILITA RIANIS M MILL GM Crops and cures for disease provide happiness and promote higher pleasures. Cost to society to be considered before making a general rule: GE is expensive. Designer babies and Enhancement GE could enhance higher pleasures but tend to focus more on the body than the mind: EG: To look better.

GE AND SINGER Preferences of all involved to be considered: Saviour Sibling, Sentient Creatures. Speciesism would not allow animal GE or xenotransplants, animal cloning (EG: Dolly). Personhood criteria would allow embryonic stem cell research.

STREN GTHS OF APPLYI NG UTILTAR IANISM Act would only justify for constructive means: EG purity of the pleasure. Fits HFEA. Flexible Takes in to account human happiness. Minimises pain and suffering EG: Correcting defects. Singer accounts for animal rights. Values current life over life of foetus.

WEAKN ESSES OF APPLYI NG UTILITA RIANIS M Impossible to assess the consequences: big risks to take in terms of unknown hazards. Act – allows for a rich – poor divide in allowing designer babies. Qualitative – Enhancement or Eugenic GE could be abused if the many decided to wipe out or enhance certain traits. Few boundaries EG: aesthetics rather than constructive, changing value of human life. Doesn’t account for the act itself only the consequences: is meddling in nature intrinsically wrong? Exploitation of small countries justified EG with GM Crops. Disregards embryo as human life. Bentham would allow a few to be sacrificed for the good of the many.

GE AND NLT Preserving life is a primary precept so cures etc are welcomed. Sanctity of life: foetus to be protected so some types wrong (when does ensoulment occur?) Divine law stipulates God is creator – so meddling is wrong. Imago dei so changing anything about life is wrong : everything has a purpose we should not play with this. We are fallen and striving for perfection so potentially could help us. Divine law – stewardship or dominion? Purpose of a foetus is to live? Could help us learn, order society etc GM Crops. God’s creation. Double effect – intention is good even if action is bad.

STREN GTHS OF APPLYI NG NLT Absolutist – does not consider consequences which are tricky to predict. Clear cut rules. Defends the embryo. Respects and values all life equally.

WEAKN ESSES OF APPLYI NG NLT Is the embryo a life and therefore worthy of preservation? Quickening? Ensoulment? Is morality supposed to become more like God by advancing and becoming more perfect or are we to respect God’s creation? Doesn’t look at consequences which is the whole purpose of GE – so doesn’t address the real issues. Could be seen to be cruel.

GE AND RELIGIOUS ETHICS Legalistic Christianity: Playing God – meddling in matters of creation and altering God’s creation so wrong. Double effect – Strong SofL may allow embryo stem cell research as there is a good intention. S of L – changing defects, killing embryo, promoting certain characteristics removes intrinsic value. S of L only applies to humans so when it comes to animals we have to decide whether or not to follow stewardship or dominion. RC Vatican document states ‘human life deserves respect from the very first stages and can never be reduced to merely a group of cells.’ They encourage tissues to be obtained from umbilical cord and adult cells. Psalm 149.13 God determines or characteristics before conception ‘you formed my inward parts, you knitted me together.’ NLT – Primary precepts to defend life: so some types acceptable eg somatic cell and those using animals but those which destroy embryo may not be. God’s creation is good – so GM wrong?

STRENGTHS OF APPLYING RELIGIOUS ETHICS Official Vatican statement so sanctioned by Jesus Clear cut and absolutist Defends all life and gives all life value Allows use of animals and environment for good of humanity

GE AND RELIGIOUS ETHICS Agapeism: A God of love does not want us to suffer Jesus healed the sick Fletcher – agape is the overriding theme of the Bible We are stewards of God’s creation and havea duty to help one another Hefner – human beings are evolving to become more like God Immanence of God could mean God has given us this technology – he sustains our progress (Hick) The two great commandments Matthew 22

WEAKN ESSES OF APPLYI NG RELIGIO US ETHICS Conflicting ideologies in the Bible When does life begin for none – Catholics Stewards or dominion?

EMBRYOLOGY The use of the human embryo in Genetic Engineering. Stem cells (cells in the early stages of development are totipotent and can turn in to anything: adult cells are pluripotent and cannot become all types of cell). Adult cells are found in placentas, or adults or children. Embryonic stem cells are found in aborted foetuses, or those left from IVF. Can also be specifically created. Embryology could cure Parkinson’s, cancer, research infertility – but this is a long way off. Many scientists beieve there are number of reasons it is uneccessary to use embryos nowadays. HFEA set up in 1991 to regulate such issues – can only be kept for 14 days. No evidence they don’t feel pain. Legal in the UK.

ISSUES SURRO UNDING EMBRY OLOGY When does life begin? Personhood? The sanctity of life? The roles of God and science? The strengths and weaknesses: potential to cure diseases, expense, time taken, donors, abortion and IVF links, better alternatives, can it feel pain?

EMBRYOLOGY AND ABSOLUTISM Strong S of L – it is a life so is wrong NLT Primary Precepts Catholic Church Kantian ethics – Duty to preserve life Kantian ethics – Uses embryo as a means to an end BUT ALL IRRELEVANT IF EMBRYO IS NOT A LIFE

EMBRY OLOGY AND RELATI VISM Situation Ethics – loving thing to do Utilitarianism – do the consequences outweigh the action?

EMBRYOLOGY AND KANT Kant not clear on embryo research but did put emphasis on reason – does an embryo have reason? If it is a person it is being used as a means to an end – created/ used for research for benefit of others Robs embryo of autonomy Not concerned with the consequences so cures benefit to society is irrelevant ‘Use spare embryos form IVF for stem cell research’ passes the first formulation (dependent on status of embryo) ‘Use embryos for stem cell research’ means human race would die out. Autonomy of mother/ donor to act freely as an autonomous agent Duty to preserve life – finding cures. Useful because – has some element of absolute guideline, respects autonomy of those involved. Not useful because – unclear about status of embryo and not allowed to consider consequences when these are the crux of the debate.

EMBRYOLOGY AND UTLITARIANISM Human life does not have absolute value so depends on the situation. Pain and pleasure only applies to those who feel pain and suffer so embryo need not be considered if it is not sentient. BENTHAM - Greater good – qualitative – saves more lives so is OK. HC - Longevity of pleasure makes it acceptable. MILL - Higher pleasure of current lives saved and medical advances. RULE - onsider cost to and devaluing of life in human society.

EMBRYOLOGY AND SINGER Personhood debate Does not have self awareness so interests not to be considered Interests of donors etc so consent must be given Minimises pain so OK Can look at consequences Promotes high quality of life Trade off may occur once people are informed of how unreliable it is?

IS UTILTARIANISM USEFUL? Yes – allows us to consider the consequences, Singer’s criteria clear about the status of the embryo, promotes happiness and advances in society. No – unclear if the embryo is sentient, it is difficult to predict the consequences. Could lead to suffering we cannot predict.

EMBRYOLOGY AND NLT Destroys life so fails primary precept. Sanctity of life. When does life begin? Double effect – intention is good. To improve creation – be more like God? Gaining knowledge = primary precept Divine law? Is it an apparent good? Purpose of embryo to live? USEUL – Clear rules, protects and values potential life NOT USEFUL – Is the embryo a life?

EMBRY OLOGY AND RELIGIO US ETHICS Legalistic: Playing God Strong S of L Vatican Document! Double Effect Psalm 139.13 Primary precept. Useful – clear rules and guidance. Not useful – when does life begin? Contradictions in Bible.

EMBRY OLOGY AND RELIGIO US ETHICS Agape: Fletcher – love is theme Two great commandments Hick – God’s immanence Intelligence given by God Jesus healed people USEFUL – Allows consequences to be considered, is loving and compassionate. Contradictions in Bible.

HOMEWORK FOR NEXT WEEK READ THESE NOTES FROM TODAY ABOUT EMBRYOLOGY – you also have articles in your booklet. FILL IN TABLES ABOUT EMBRYOLOGY

JUSTICE, LAW, AND PUNISHMENT Ethical theory and practice

WHAT IS JUSTICE? Our word ‘justice’ is derived from the Latin iustitia – fairness, equity. This is a much disputed concept in modern ethical debate, allowing for a number of possible interpretations. Personal justice Social justice Natural justice Theological justice Legal / constitutional justice

IS JUSTICE EVIDENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS? HOW IS IT TO BE DEFINED? You work really hard on an essay and get a good mark. A persistent chocolate bar thief gets 10 years hard labour. The income gap between the very richest and the very poorest people in Britain narrows. The wealthy have their income protected from the taxman by offshore accounts. A re-trial is granted to a convicted child molester, because some of the evidence was inadmissible. God forgives the sins of those who truly repent. God punishes the Egyptians with a plague of boils. What goes around comes around: a serial rapist dies of an STI.

PLATO: JUSTICE AND THE IDEAL CITY In his dialogue The Republic, Plato uses the extended metaphor of an ideal city as a way of explaining what justice is. This city has “the qualities of wisdom, courage, self- discipline and justice”. For Plato, the perfect city acts as a mirror for the perfect individual, so an ideal and just human being would be a bit like the just state he proposes. For Plato, an ideal society requires structure and equity in the use of resources. People must be divided into different classes: produces, warrior, and guardians (rulers), so that they all perform the function which they are best at. This harmony and specialisation is the essence of justice; the behaviour of the individual fits his or her best abilities and does not interfere with the tasks assigned to others. At the top of the just state is the ‘philosopher king’ – somebody who studies philosophy and thus values true justice above personal wealth, power, and ambition. “There can be no end to the troubles of the state, or of humanity itself, until philosophers become kings in this world.”

CHRISTIAN JUSTICE Christian ideas of justice have been profoundly shaped by the Bible, and it is a key assumption that God himself has justice as one of his divine qualities: “I the Lord, love justice” (Isaiah 61.8). It is a common biblical theme that God loves the poor, the widows, and the orphans. God’s demand for justice can be seen as an inevitable power; it “rolls like a river” (Amos 5.24).

CHRISTIAN JUSTICE The attitude of Jesus towards social justice in the NT, however, is controversial. It might be suggested that Jesus preaches a ‘reversal ethic’ of elevating the poor and humbling the rich. Such an approach is taken up in Liberation Theology, with theologians such as Gustavo Gutierrez arguing for a political Christian message. Christians must fight against social injustice and political oppression, since this is what Jesus did.

CHRISTIAN JUSTICE We might also speak of a form of theological justice in the Christian idea of rectification: God acts to repair his relationship with humanity through the atoning death of Jesus and forgiveness. ‘Justice’ would be a state of harmony and peace in creation, with God at one with his creatures.

JUSTICE AND OBJECTIVISM Justice can be described in many ways. Some suppose that justice is something concrete and real; it applies equally to everyone in all places. This is what we might call an objectivist account of justice. It is a moral truth. Plato’s view is clearly objectivist since he claims that justice is a realisable ideal, founded on the ultimate reality: Goodness itself. Thus, for Plato, justice cannot ever change or be denied; it is a philosophical truth. Christian views may also be regarded as objectivist, although very different from Plato’s. For Christians, God is the source of all being and truth, and so His commands and His justice are fixed and real. There is no escaping from or denying God’s justice. Consider the idea of Final Judgement – it is universally applicable. Perhaps the most famous ethical objectivist is Immanuel Kant, with his deontological theory of the moral law. Kant thought that true maxims could be discerned through the application of the Categorical Imperative; if a principle could be universalised (applied to everyone), then it would pass the rational test. From the standpoint of justice, equity and fairness could be demanded as a part of the moral law. Moreover, societies should be organised around the idea of equal and inalienable rights; the moral law demands that these are bequeathed to everyone, since they are universally desirable.

JOHN RAWLS: A THEORY OF JUSTICE One of the best known modern justice theorists is John Rawls. He has argued against the Utilitarian outlook, that society should simply maximise happiness for the majority. This does not guarantee fairness or even individual rights. According to Rawls, justice has to be a tangible good – objective – and available to everyone equally. Equal citizenship is a right for all in society and there should be no arbitrary advantage, taking advantage of power, wealth, or position within society. A key concept for Rawls is that of ‘original position’. That is, we have to consider that no one knows his true place in society, or what the future holds. So, we must start out from the supposition that we could all potentially be the most dispossessed and unfortunate in society. We must thus ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged by the system adopted. We act through a ‘veil of ignorance’. Rawls also explains this in terms of the ‘maximin rule’ of game theory: the best approach is the one in which the least well off person has the least bad result. He has shifted the focus of justice onto the protection of the weak. “Justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.” “No one knows his place in society … nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets.”

IMAGINE THE ‘ORIGINAL POSITION’ Imagine that you are a castaway on a desert island, in a group of several strangers. You have no resources beyond those on the island itself. You have no advantage of wealth, status, and no special legal protections. It is just you and the others. The possibility of a zero-advantage, zero-resource ‘original position’ has been realised. In this state, you and the others are obliged to find a way of living and organising yourself. How should you approach the following? - Distribution of the island’s resources (food, wood) - Dealing with the incapable: the very old, very young, and the sick - Responding to the differing qualities and productivity of labour: some it seems gather many coconuts, some gather very few.

WEAKNESSES OF OBJECTIVE JUSTICE Although a strong ‘realist’ or ‘objective’ concept of justice has its obvious appeal, there are a number of problems which such an approach raises. Firstly, it might be claimed that the ideal of true justice is too metaphysical. It is a nice abstract notion, beyond our normal experiences, but there are not any compelling grounds to suppose that justice is ‘real’. We could appeal to Nietzsche, who argued that Plato’s objectivist ethics are just a cynical ploy to restrict people’s freedom. Secondly, objective justice might be dangerous; by giving absolute value to a certain order of society, it might encourage totalitarianism. Plato opposed democracy, because he favoured the rule of philosophical dictators. Kant’s objectivity could lead to a severe police state; as Peter Singer argues, Kant really encourages moral fanaticism.

HOBBES AND LEVIATHAN Ideas of justice have always fluctuated through history, as a result of changes in society and political revolutions. This is very much the case when we consider the famous and controversial philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes lived through the English Civil War and saw his country tear itself apart. In response to these events, he wrote a book about the just ordering of the state, which he called Leviathan (1651). Hobbes writes of the state as though it were a great man or monster (hence the name Leviathan, after the biblical beast); it consists of different parts working in unison for the sake of the whole. Hobbes was appalled by the chaos of war, but saw this conflict as the natural state of mankind: “the war of all against all”. Without a strong government to protect us against our own human nature, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. So, Hobbes introduces the idea of a Commonwealth, a structure imposed on society for mutual protection. “THE final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby.”

HOBBES AND RELATIVISM Ultimately, Hobbes equates justice with the exercise of power by a strong ruler. Our state of nature is unjust or chaotic, and there is no abstract concept of true justice to which Hobbes appeals. Hobbes therefore gives us what we might call a contract theory of justice. He regards government as an agreement among individuals not to hurt each other, since this serves their mutual self-interest. We are naturally selfish, and so we seek collective protection. This is not a duty, but a compromise. We might regard Hobbes as starkly realistic, although some would say that his theory is cynical and negative. If we accept his moral relativism, then his approach to justice seems sound. By denying the idea of natural or universal justice, Hobbes implies that justice cannot be fixed or absolute. This is a relativist view; all we can say is that different cultures and societies manifest varying views of ‘justice’. In Leviathan, Hobbes tells us that we should avoid the state of nature, not because it is wrong in the absolute sense, but because it does not serve our own best interests.

BACK ON THE ISLAND … Again, imagine that you are on the island without any resources, status, or special protections. You and a group of strangers are trying to survive and create some sort of order in your lives. One of the group members (Tom) seems to be a bit pessimistic about the chances of things going smoothly. It is only a matter of time, he argues, until people start fighting over food, and someone might even end up dead. Tom’s friend (Charlie) is tall, strong, and well educated. He also has the only gun on the island. Tom tells us that we should be governed by an island council, and Charlie will be the chairman. That’s our only chance to survive, he says. So, it’s decision time, but what are you and the others to think? … 1)Thank God for Tom and his theory! We’ll be much safer with Charlie and his gun in control. 2)There are plenty of coconuts, and everyone seems to be getting on fine. I think this is a bit of an over- reaction, but a council sounds cool. 3)I don’t trust Tom and Charlie; they are just trying to scare people into obeying them. We could have peace and justice if we all do our own thing.

ROBERT NOZICK: ENTITLEMENT AND JUSTICE A libertarian and critic of John Rawls, the philosopher Robert Nozick has argued in Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) against the idea of universal justice, founded upon equality. Essentially, Nozick thinks that we should be able to keep our property, and it is unfair to expect us to give some of it up to help the poor. Justice should be seen in terms of entitlement to possessions. If we have acquired something in a just manner, then it is ours. It is unrealistic to expect us to share it. We have no moral obligation to anyone other than ourselves. This means this is an individualist approach. Nozick also takes a relativist line, in that he does not see justice as an objective ideal, which society should conform to. If we all follow the law, we can chose for ourselves what a just use of our resources would be.

Weaknesses of relativist justice Although Nozick’s resistance to an ideological and rigidly structured society may seem like a sensible precaution, it is questionable whether such liberalism is of practical benefit. Many societies which re-distribute wealth perform well in measures of quality of life and satisfaction. Also, Nozick has not really dealt with Rawls’ point that we are all the potential victims of misfortune; we should treat the protection of the poor as an objective good, because it could potentially benefit everyone. Plato had already anticipated the arguments of figures like Hobbes, who claimed that justice lay in the hands of those wielding power. This ignores the real goods which Plato regarded as universal, ideas which were again emphasised by modern Platonists like Iris Murdoch. Surely there are some qualities which are favourable for all just individuals and societies: promoting knowledge and truth, beauty and art, and seeking the guidance of wisdom, rather than raw power.

WHAT IS PUNISHMENT? From the Latin punire: inflict a penalty, cause pain for an offence. Ideas about punishment come in many forms and have changed dramatically in western Europe over the last few centuries. Retribution Rehabilitation Deterrence (Divine?) judgement Restoration / compensation

HOW WOULD YOU PUNISH OFFENDERS IN THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS? A 3 rd former shows you ‘disrespect’ by criticising your dress sense. A student misses a deadline for an essay, and then misses the extended deadline. A tired driver (not on drugs/drink) crashes into your car, causing minor damage. A drunk punches you in the pub, knocking out two of your teeth. A serial killer is caught, after the deaths of ten innocent people. An insurance fraudster is caught, having defrauded £50,000 from a major international firm. Robin Hood is caught at last, having spent a lifetime robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. A serial rapist is caught, after 10 years of terrifying attacks. You lied on your UCAS personal statement, and are discovered by your school (but not UCAS, yet).

DETERRENCE THEORY Very simply, this is the view that we should punish people to deter others from committing crimes in the future. If I see that there is a 10 year sentence for armed robbery, I may think twice about committing such a crime. Deterrence theory may be justified from a Utilitarian perspective, it is felt that the consequences of punishing criminals are beneficial for society as a whole. This may also be accepted from a relativist perspective, since punishment is not seen as a true objective standard but as something created to serve a practical need. It could be seen as a moral compromise or necessity, as Charles Colson writes: “The primary purpose of criminal justice is to preserve order with the minimum infraction of individual liberty.” An ordered society needs visible warnings of the negative consequences which follow from crime. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham developed the slightly creepy idea of the ‘Panopticon’ – a perfect prison in which it was possible to spy on all the prisoners whenever desired. The invisible guards could never be detected and so the prisoners would assume that their actions were being observed. Although they would have no liberty, the possibility of persistent spying would prevent the prisoners from engaging in further unruly or criminal behaviour.

WEAKNESSES OF DETERRENCE Deterrence theory has been criticised on a number of grounds as an approach to punishment. It could be argued that it fails on practical grounds. It does not work or perhaps even makes crime worse. C.L. Ten argues that punishment alienates people from society and so makes them more likely to commit a crime again. Meanwhile, Roger Crook notes that psychiatric studies show that the threat of punishment has no bearing upon people’s choice to commit serious crimes such as murder. We could also question the rational choice assumed in this argument. Do criminals really weigh up the consequences of their actions before engaging in crime? Finally, we could criticise the moral relativism of deterrence. Is it acceptable to mistreat or imprison people for the benefit of society? We should not ask whether prison works, but whether it is right.

RETRIBUTION THEORY Retribution theory states that those guilty of a crime should be paid back for what they have done. It is like something ‘owed’ to the criminal in response. It is expressed most severely in the biblical Lex Talionis – “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. The philosopher James Rachels has argued in favour of retribution, stating that “people deserve to be treated in the same way that they have (voluntarily) treated others.” This principle shows us that we must treat others well to succeed ; it encourages us to see our actions in terms of reciprocity. C.S. Lewis has also argued in favour of retribution on the basis of natural law. The idea of a clear and natural repayment for crime (‘just desserts’) means that a criminal can only be punished insofar as it is fair, rather than being at the mercy of a panel of experts: legalists and doctors who claim to act for the benefit of society. Retribution theory may be supported on objectivist grounds, since ‘real’ or universal standards of behaviour might need to be enforced with absolute consistency. This approach is found in C.S. Lewis’ natural law argument in favour of retribution. However, retribution may also be supported on subjectivist grounds: the view that our personal feelings and perceptions are the basis of our values. James Rachels supports retribution in terms of subjectivity: we live in a society based upon personal and emotional reciprocity. Retribution also “fits naturally with many people’s feelings.”

WEAKNESSES OF RETRIBUTION In religious terms, retribution becomes ambiguous in the light of teachings regarding mercy and forgiveness. In the New Testament, Jesus intervenes to prevent the punishment of a woman caught in adultery, while those saved by Jesus’ atoning death have their sins forgiven. Perhaps there is some merit in a more flexible and forgiving approach? Key examples of retribution in the modern world (such as the death penalty for murder) do not seem to benefit society. There is no evidence to suggest that such retribution improves anybody’s lives or that it reduces crime. C.L. Ten notes that retribution only applies to those who have deliberately broken the law, but it is questionable whether punishment can really work in this way. Surely it has to be clearly and consistently applied, regardless of people’s intentions. Relativists might argue against both objective and subjective justifications of retribution, since both (mistakenly) attempt to universalise our non-rational responses to crimes in a series of supposedly fitting punishments. Post modern writers such as Michel Foucault have questioned the motivation of those wanting to punish wrong doers. Foucault explains punishment

REHABILITATION THEORY Rehabilitation refers to the attempt to reform or improve a criminal. It may be founded upon the intrinsic worth of each human life, supposing that the improvement of every human life is desirable. Rehabilitation might be justified upon relativist and consequentialist grounds; it does not attempt to right a wrong or impose a moral order, but rather strives to improve general life conditions on practical grounds. A Utilitarian might argue that it improves the quality of life within society (Bentham: “all punishment is mischief”). A Situationist meanwhile might argue that it promotes the most loving outcome. However, a deontological and objectivist case for rehabilitation could also be made. If all human life is considered to be of equal, absolute, and intrinsic worth (e.g. Kant), then the reformation of character might come to the fore. Similarly, rehabilitation could be justified on Scriptural grounds (“do unto others …”). In England, the Quakers have been key advocates of rehabilitation and restoration in punishment, on theological and objectivist grounds. Quakers argue for the equal, absolute, and God-given worth of each human individual. A famous supporter of prison reform within the Quaker movement was Elizabeth Fry. She claimed that it was important to approach prisoners with mercy rather than condemnation. Fry based her support for rehabilitation upon the theological principle that there is hope for everyone.

WEAKNESSES OF REHABILITATION A problem with rehabilitation might be that it takes away our dignity and responsibility for our actions. We behave as we do because we choose to and should be accountable, not simply seen as broken or ill. C.S. Lewis argued against the idea that criminality just needs to be ‘treated’. Bernard Hoose has argued that punishment itself cannot reform, but rather the educational and psychiatric facilities within the penal system. It is questionable whether rehabilitation should be considered a punishment at all. Roger Crook accepts this: we should treat criminals, not punish them. The relativist consequentialist argument in favour of rehabilitation may not work; over half of all criminals in the UK go on to re-offend (Times newspaper: 2005). The positive consequences of rehabilitation are unclear. Objectivist claims of universal human dignity are of no comfort to the victims of crimes: how would they react to the restoration of a rapist or murderer? C.S. Lewis

What else might the examiner ask about? ‘Authority’ The authority of philosophers in Plato’s Republic The power of the state in Hobbes’ Leviathan The authority of the Bible in its teaching on justice. The authority of the state in administering punishment ‘Law’ How do we implement theories of justice through the law? Law as protection (Hobbes) Law as counter- acting inequality (Rawls) Law as protecting property rights (Nozick) Devised by philosopher kings (Plato) ‘Capital punishment’ As a deterrent As retribution Critique from rehabilitation theory Considered in light of biblical teaching Be aware that the examiner could throw in some slightly tricky questions in terms of the following topics. You have plenty of information, but need to think carefully about how to apply it. The state as having absolute power over human life (Hobbes)

WAR AND PEACE D’oh !

THE PROBLEM OF WAR War presents a major challenge to the morality of the modern world; in our age of progress and reason, why is it that the human race is so self-destructive? Can armed conflict ever be justified? From the religious perspective, war is doubly problematic. World religions have often claimed the moral high ground, but how can this fit with an acceptance of killing? Thus, we find much debate within religion in the modern world concerning the justification (or not) of war. Christian approaches to war are particularly varied, with a spectrum of different attitudes ranging from the enthusiastic endorsement of ‘holy war’ to outright principled pacifism. These tensions in Christianity reflect the mixed signals we find in the Bible, as well as a long history of Christian involvement in politics and conflicts. The question is, is there any one just and reliable ethical approach to war? Our options include classical just war theory, Christian realism, and pacifism.

ORIGINS OF JUST WAR THEORY The first approach we’ll consider is just war theory. This is a practical ethical theory, first developed by the Christian philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 CE). The earliest Christians by and large were pacifists. However, the Roman Empire converted to Christianity under the Emperor Constantine in the early 4 th century, and so it was necessary to have a Christian army to defend the first Christian empire. The justification of war thus became a pressing concern. Augustine, one of the great ‘Doctors of the Church’, looked back to the Bible and found quite a mixture of ideas. While a previous generation of Christians had cautiously sided with the most peaceful option, Augustine thought that a clear case could be made for justified Christian warfare.

Many Christians have pointed out that Jesus seems to condemn all forms of violence in the New Testament: “blessed are the peacemakers”, he said (Matt 5). Jesus did not oppose those who crucified him. However, things are a bit different in the Old Testament, and this might help Christians to justify war. God commands a number of wars against Israel’s enemies. Meanwhile, in Exodus 15 it is said that “the LORD is a warrior”. This implies that God sometimes approves of war, particularly in the case of idolatry and fighting against foreign gods.

So, Augustine developed what is now known as just war theory, basing his arguments upon the belief that God commanded justified wars in the Bible. Augustine divided his theory into two main parts: jus ad bellum – just reasons for going to war, and jus in bello – just practice while at war. Much later, in the 13 th century, Augustine’s ideas were taken up a developed by the philosopher Thomas Aquinas. He sought to formalise and expand upon Augustine’s ideas. Like Augustine, Aquinas was a major Church authority and saint (known as ‘Doctor Angelicus). His ideas were hugely influential in the Church and in history as a whole.

AQUINAS: JUS AD BELLUM Through history, philosophers have developed seven key criteria for jus ad bellum, for going to war. If the criteria are met, the war is justified. Aquinas, building on Augustine, gives the first three of these: 1)Just Authority – The war must be ordered by a competent and legitimate authority (king, pope). 2)Just Cause – There must be a just reason for going to war in the first place, (e.g. self defence.) 3)Just Intention – The war must be intended to achieve some good outcome (e.g. lasting peace).

SUAREZ AND DI VITTORIA: JUS AD BELLUM During the war ravaged era of the Reformation, the theory grew in significance as a justification for the new bloodshed and was further modified. The philosophers Francisco Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria (16 th cent.) added another three criteria for jus ad bellum: 1) Proportionality – the injustice which led to the war must be proportionate to the damage it causes. 2)Last resort – all peaceful alternatives must first have been attempted. 3)Reasonable chance of success – a war can only be just if it can succeed. Hopeless wars are immoral.

Finally, the Catholic bishops of the United States later (1983) decided that jus ad bellum should receive one extra criterion, in their statement The Promise of Peace: 7) Comparative justice – the interests of both sides must be taken into consideration. Wars are rarely just, because they are usually one-sided. Governments seldom think of their enemies when waging war. The Catholic Bishops: jus ad bellum

APPLYING JUS AD BELLUM CRITERIA Now that we have examined all of the criteria for jus ad bellum, let’s see how this might apply to a conflict from history. You may wish to make this sort of application (briefly!) in the exam. The conflict which we will look at is the Allies’ war against Germany in World War II. This is usually regarded as ‘just’ by most Britons and Americans, so it is worthwhile considering whether it fits with the criteria.

Despite my rude gestures, I (Winston Churchill) should probably be regarded as just authority. Britain was a parliamentary democracy, and I governed with the consent of its people. In 1939, the German army made an unprovoked attack on Poland. Britain and France wanted to protect their ally, which was unfairly treated. Arguably, this gave them just cause. Throughout the war, I (Adolf Hitler) led Germany with my fascist and racist National Socialist Worker’s Party (Nazis). The Allies wanted to remove me from power, which suggests that they had a just intention.

The war started quite badly for the Allies and they were desperate for success. They would try anything to get an advantage, including the bombing of large civilian areas such as Dresden. This makes it questionable as to whether they fought with proportionality. Britain did everything it could to avoid war with Germany, including intensive negotiations between Hitler and Neville Chamberlain. So, it is fair to say that war was a last resort. To begin with, the Germans were successful, having greatly superior military technology. So, the Allies were unsure as to whether they would win. Still, they had a reasonable chance of success.

Today, Germany is a successful and peaceful democracy. Arguably, this has directly resulted from the Allied victory in the war. Since the German people have benefited from the destruction of the Nazi party, one could claim that comparative justice was served. Overall, it seems that a fairly good case can be made for the Allies fighting a ‘just war’ in World War II. They had the right authority, cause and intention. The war was a last resort and, although it was quite risky, the Allies still had a fair chance of success. The strength of modern Germany also suggests that comparative justice was served. However, even this war has a real problem in terms of the criteria: was it really proportionate? Thousands of German civilians lost their lives, often unnecessarily.

JUS IN BELLO: JUST PRACTICE IN WAR Another aspect of just war theory is what is known as jus in bello – during the war itself, just practices must be maintained. This concept goes back to the medieval Church, which tried to regulate the way in which Christian nations fought each other, trying to promote codes of conduct such as chivalry. The key ideas of jus in bello include discrimination (only killing or capturing active participants) and proportionality (only using measures which are fitting and humane). Certain types of behaviour and virtues are expected during war: courage, loyalty, fairness, etc. Of course, these apply to Christians; there would be no rules to protect Muslims during Crusades.

MODERN APPROACHES TO JUS IN BELLO The modern world has seen a number of attempts to implement the ideal of a just and fairly fought war, particularly in international agreements (early 20 th century):  Hague Conventions – a set of agreements designed to regulate military conduct, banning cruel weapons such as “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body”.  Geneva Conventions – these aim to protect prisoners of war, outlawing torture and other cruel forms of treatment.

STRENGTHS OF JUST WAR THEORY It fits with commonly accepted views of justice, allowing wars to defend, protect or prevent a humanitarian disaster. The concept of a just war is popular and has historical precedent (World War II). It is realistic; it recognises the need for force and tries to make it as fair as possible. It provides important checks on a state’s use of force. It outlaws war except in defence of others or upholding important values.

CRITICISMS/WEAKNESSES It contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who brings a message of peace in the Gospels. Aquinas contradicts himself; in his Natural Moral Law he claims that life is sacred and must be preserved. Yet, he allows killing in warfare. How can this make sense? The attempt to justify war actually encourages war; it suggests that war can be positive. The criteria are open to interpretation and can be manipulated for evil purposes. For example, in 1939 Germany faked a series of ‘Polish attacks’ to give them just cause for invading.

PACIFISM Generally speaking, this is the view that violence is wrong in any circumstance. People can be pacifists for religious, philosophical or practical reasons. Pacifism is often advocated where just war theory is held to be inadequate. Historically, many Christians have been pacifists, looking back to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus lived non-violently and brought a non-violent redemption (against some messianic expectations). The very first Christians refused to join the Roman army. Following the Reformation (16 th century), a number of pacifist Protestant sects emerged: Quakers, Mennonites, Brethren, etc. These groups remain powerful advocates for peace today.

“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5). “They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26). “We totally oppose all wars, all preparation for war, all use of weapons and coercion by force, and all military alliances.” (Quaker Peace Testimony) Religious, Christian Pacifism

PRINCIPLE PACIFISM Or, ‘philosophical pacifism’, this is a deontological, absolutist view: violence is always intrinsically wrong. It assumes that people have real moral duties and must always seek to preserve life. Opposition to warfare is thus a consequence of other, abstract ideas. This approach can be supported through a sanctity of life argument. If killing is intrinsically wrong on an individual level (i.e. murder) then it must also be on a national or societal level (i.e. war). The whole point of an absolutist principle is that there are no exceptions, and so, argues philosopher Richard Reagan, to say that war is an acceptable form of killing entails a contradiction.

OTHER PACIFISMS Relative Pacifism – this is the view that peaceful solutions should always be the first choice, but without having an absolute objection to war. Wars might sometimes (very rarely) be allowed. Nationally orchestrated violence is always an evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils. Pragmatic Pacifism – the view that peaceful approaches to conflict should be taken because they work better. Pragmatic pacifists can point to the success of non-violent protest campaigns in bringing about political change (e.g. Martin Luther King’s peaceful march on Washington was highly effective).

CRITICISMS OF PACIFISM We can reject the underlying principles: perhaps life is not intrinsically valuable. Utilitarian's might say that it is sometimes right to kill, to protect others. It is the greater good. Pacifism is unrealistic; wars will happen. The most we can hope is that wars will be just. Violence is sometimes necessary to defeat great evil, as with the destruction of Nazi Germany. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr argued for Realism – the view that violence can be used to restrain the actions of evil people.

Having once been a Pacifist, Reinhold Niebuhr changed his mind after he witnessed the evil perpetrated by Germany in the Second World War. He adopted ‘Theological Christian Realism’ – the view that the collective character of all humans contains a natural disposition to do evil. In his book Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr wrote: “Evil is not to be traced back to the individual, but to the collective behaviour of humanity.” For Niebuhr, this meant that lawful and legitimate governments would need to use violence to restrain the evil tendencies of some human beings. The Allies needed to defeat the evil of Nazi Germany. Christian Realism

FINAL THINGS TO THINK ABOUT… In the AO2 (evaluation) component of the exam, you might be expected to have an opinion on these issues:  Which is generally superior: Just War Theory or Pacifism?  Are certain forms of Pacifism compatible with Just War Theory?  Generally, can war be justified?  Is warfare compatible with religion?

War and Peace: Realism

Reinhold Niebuhr – American Protestant theologian and the founder of Christian Realism Reinhold Niebuhr was born in 1892, the son of German immigrants. His father was a church minister to the German community, and Niebuhr grew up speaking German at home. Following in his father’s footsteps, he went on to study theology and entered the ministry. He quickly became a famous Christian intellectual, writing on political and social issues. At first, Niebuhr was a pacifist, like many liberal Christians of his era. However, with the onset of World War II, Niebuhr was horrified by the actions of Nazi Germany. He was determined that America should stand up to this evil power. Niebuhr developed the theory of Christian Realism as an alternative to Pacifism.

At the root of Niebuhr’s Realism is the belief that humans are naturally disposed to be evil. Pacifism, he claimed, fails to take this into account, naively assuming that an ideal, non-violent society can be realised. Famously, he wrote: Evil is not to be traced back to the individual but to the collective behaviour of humanity. This means that high ideals such as Pacifism are viewed as unrealistic: it is inevitable that evil will emerge. In his book Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr argued that legitimate and lawful governments need to use violence to control the evil tendencies of human beings. Later, Niebuhr claimed that events like the Holocaust showed how real evil needs to be stopped by violence, if necessary. Essentially, according to this theory, violence used by individuals tends to be immoral, but in the case of (good) governments, it is permissible or even necessary.

Possible criticisms of Niebuhr: - Why should there be a moral difference between individuals using violence and governments using violence? - Realism can be used to justify evil, rather than suppress it. Consider the Iraq war – a realist could say that it was necessary to remove the evil of Saddam Hussein. However, the war itself could be considered evil, in that it had negative consequences for the people of Iraq. How do we determine what is ‘evil’?

APPLIED ETHICS What does it mean?. The process of taking the theories we have studied and applying them to set ethical topics and scenarios to determine.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "APPLIED ETHICS What does it mean?. The process of taking the theories we have studied and applying them to set ethical topics and scenarios to determine."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

APPLIED ETHICS What does it mean?. The process of taking the theories we have studied and applying them to set ethical topics and scenarios to determine.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "APPLIED ETHICS What does it mean?. The process of taking the theories we have studied and applying them to set ethical topics and scenarios to determine."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback