Transcript Embryo Research: Arguments For and Against

‘There is no conscience;
conscience is merely a
word for our attempts to
make decisions creatively,
constructively, fittingly.’
Situation Ethics
CONSCIENCE
-
-
Fletcher views the conscience as a function
rather than a faculty.
He is more concerned with what it does
rather than what it is.
He rejects the following traditional views of
the conscience.
CONSCIENCE
Fletcher rejects…
1. Conscience as an innate, built in faculty
(intuition).
2. Conscience as being inspiration from an
outside decision maker (Holy Spirit)
3. Conscience as the internalised value system
of our culture/society (introjection).
4. Conscience as ‘reason’ making moral
judgements (Aquinas)
CONSCIENCE
-
-
Fletcher’s understanding of the function of
conscience is not about reviewing past actions or
apportioning guilt/shame…
It is about looking forwards at the moral problems to
solve instead of morality acting as a manual for the
conscience to follow.
For example; The principle that destroying embyos is
wrong is derived from the ruling found in the Ten
Commandments, ‘Do not kill’. When a person considers
embryo research/fertility treatment, their
conscience is dictated to by this directive.
However, Fletcher suggests that this is not
life/people centred, in contrast he Fletcher suggests
that the conscience acts irrespective of directives
but only in accordance with and the practical
application of agape (Christian love).
Situation Ethics
EVALUATION
Learning Objectives:
1. To reflect upon the
advantages and
disadvantages of Situation
Ethics.
2. To personally evaluate
Situation Ethics.
SITUATION ETHICS IS…
Task: Select one positive and one negative word from
those listed above and explain why/how in your opinion they
best describe Situation Ethics.
Challenge: Can you think of a word/phrase that is missing?
STRENGTHS
1. Flexibility: Many would welcome the flexibility of
Situation Ethics. It seems less rigid than other ethical
theories and understands that life is not always black and
white and that moral relativism is needed.
2. Diversity: It requires very little (if any) theological
assumptions – it in some ways suits our multicultural,
multi-faith age, allowing for the diversity that is present
in world. Don’t we all accept the concept of agape love,
regardless of faith?
3. Practical: It is not too demanding on those who would
follow it, making it an easy system, surely doing the most
practical thing in each situation is a common goal?
4. Acceptance: It allows for cultural differences, allowing
acceptance between peoples.
5. Intentions: If a person’s intentions are to do the most
loving thing (positivism) then more often than not this will
be the right action.
6. Freedom: People are given the autonomy to put principles
aside to do the right/most loving thing.
‘Lord, I know that no
one is the master of his
own destiny, no person
has control over his life.’
CRITICISMS
1. Defining Love: It does not provide a clear definition of
what love actually is.
2. Subjective: Some might say it is too subjective – because
decisions have to be made from within the situation.
Humans do not have a bird’s eye view on a situation so have
difficulty in seeing what the consequences will be. We
cannot predict the future.
3. Unrealistic: Agape love is too much to aspire to and may
be polluted by a selfish human tendency. It is also human
nature to love family more than strangers.
4. Contradictory: Fletcher criticizes legalism yet provides
us with two sets of principles to follow in the Four
Working Principles and Six Fundamental Principles.
5. Open to Abuse: It seems possible that Situation Ethics
could be used to justify all kinds of actions that are
simply inexcusable in the name of love. For example,
genocide, child abuse?
TASK…
This is an A02 skills based task – not a formal essay but it will
prepare you for one and this task will be PEER assessed to give you valuable feedback.
CRITICALLY ANALYSE AT LEAST ONE
ARGUMENT FOR/AGAINST SITUATION ETHICS.
In other words…analysing a point/argument from different
perspectives.
Success Criteria:
1.Excellent – A thorough analysis of an argument, with well
developed/several reasons given for and against the argument selected,
supported with clear evidence and examples.
2.Good – Developed reasons for and against the argument selected
against the statement, with some supporting evidence/examples.
3.Satisfactory – analysis attempted, one sided or only one simple
reason for and against the argument selected, limited in
examples/evidence.