2F Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism: application of the theory Flashcards Preview

A-level RS - Ethics > 2F Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism: application of the theory > Flashcards

Flashcards in 2F Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism: application of the theory Deck (25)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

What are the two instances that the spec requires you to apply Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism to?

A
  • Immigration

* Capital punishment

2
Q

[Finnis] What is the issue with applying Finnis’ Natural Law to immigration and capital punishment?

A
  • Some b.g.s and req.s support and some oppose (some even do both)
  • Mixed messages ∵ does not give specific ethical guidance
3
Q

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that support immigration.

A
  • Life: Might be saving ppl from dying e.g. Syria
  • Knowledge: Could bring knowledge of other countries/cultures
  • Friendship: Should extend the hand of friendship to all
  • Aesthetic exp.: Wider variety of cultural aesthetic influences e.g. poetry
  • Religion: Different avenues to answer the ultimate questions
4
Q

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that do not support immigration.

A
  • Life: The strain on the NHS might endanger others
  • Friendship: This b.g. seems to limit sociability to our friends, not ppl we do not know
  • Aesthetic exp.: Could erode a cultural identity through forms such as art and poetry
  • Religion: Could being extremists from other religions
5
Q

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that support immigration.

A
  • Life as a whole: Long-term benefit to society - contribute to the workforce
  • Equality: B.g.s apply equally ∴ should not neglect immigrants
  • Effort to improve: Being kind by allowing imm. allows you to flourish
  • Common good: The world = a community; must help others to flourish
6
Q

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that do not support immigration.

A
  • Don’t harm b.g.s: If we allow imm., we are harming every b.g. that doesn’t support it
  • Common good: Possible breakdown in local services due to influx
7
Q

[Finnis, Immigration] Give a conclusion to the application of Finnis’ Natural Law to immigration.

A

• Finnis believes it is our moral (and legal) obligation to follow the law ∵ it creates the best conditions to achieve the common good
- If laws of society reject imm. (e.g Trump administration), we should follow this
• Finnis argued that controlled imm. = good ∵ benefits to community outweigh problems (helps ppl within the community to pursue b.g.s)
- But, mass imm. would have the opp. effect ∵ of disruption and breakdown of services
• Even the originator of the ethic cannot provide a clear answer

8
Q

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that support capital punishment.

A
  • Life: So that they cannot murder anyone else (if the criminal was a murderer) and prevent them from pursuing the b.g.s
  • Friendship: If a killer threatened my friend
9
Q

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that do not support capital punishment.

A
  • Life: Life = imp. - c.p. takes that human right away
  • Friendship: My friend might be a killer
  • Practical reasonableness: Statistics show that c.p. does not act as a deterrent ∴ reason suggests that it is wrong
  • Religion: Most r.s teach that it is wrong to kill
10
Q

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that support capital punishment.

A
  • Not obsessive: Serial killers = obsessed w/ killing

* Common good: Individuals cannot flourish if they are dead

11
Q

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that do not support capital punishment.

A
  • Life as a whole: The criminal may be sorry in the long-run
  • Prioritise: Prioritise ‘life’
  • Equality: All ppl have the right to life
  • Not obsessive: Should not feel the obsessive need for revenge (Jimmy Mizen’s parents do not feel that need)
  • Be good: Goes against b.g. of ‘life’
  • Don’t harm: Breaking b.g. of ‘life’
12
Q

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] Give a conclusion to the application of Finnis’ Natural Law to capital punishment.

A

• If a law supports it, accept the law
- But, diff. outcome in UK & USA
- What about corrupt regimes? Anti-Semitism = legal in Nazi G.)
• In 2016, imprisoned criminals cost £1.8 billion (£17,000-61,000 per prisoner
- Is this not against the common good?

13
Q

[Hoose] What is one way that proportionalists consider a situation?

A
  • To split up all the reasons why breaking the deontological moral rule is theologically justified and why it is not (the value and the disvalue)
  • Value = all reasons why an evil act can be justified
  • Disvalue = opposite
14
Q

[Hoose, Immigration] What did Pope Francis say in 2017 about immigration?

A

• “every stranger who knocks at our door is an opportunity for an encounter with Jesus Christ, who identifies with the welcomed and rejected strangers of every age”

15
Q

[Hoose, Immigration] What is the default position of proportionalists regarding immigration?

A

• To accept imm. ∵ accept the theo., deo., mor. rule regarding imm. - i.e. to help
- However, due to the moral ambiguity that exists in thw world, there are occasions when rejecting imm. may be justified as a ‘right act’

16
Q

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. What is the Christian teaching on morality in this situation?

A

• C. theology believes helping imm.s = a good act

17
Q

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. What is the value (reason for allowing an evil act) in this situation?

A
  • The intention of some imm.s may be to bring the war to the new country (breaking the prim. prec. of ‘ordered society’ in the case of Aquinas’ Natural Law)
  • This would allow for the potential consequence of violent deaths (breaking 6th Comm. ‘Do not murder’)
  • Leader of country may stop immigrants ∵ of agape for their own ppl, who are already poor and cannot support influx
18
Q

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. What is the disvalue (reason for not allowing an evil act) in this situation?

A
  • C. theo. would say that not helping the imm.s is a bad act
  • Intention of helping = to uphold NL precept of ‘pres. of life’
  • Higher chance of reproducing, rather than dying of poverty, famine, disease
  • Agape: most loving thing to do = support them
19
Q

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. Give a conclusion.

A

• Disvalue outweighs value ∴ not a proportionate reason to break the theo., moral rule of helping imm.s ∴ not a ‘right’ act
∴ if the country did not help, it is a ‘bad act’

20
Q

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] What did Pope Francis say in 2015 about capital punishment?

A

• “Today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.” (although this has not always been the view of the church)

21
Q

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] What is the default position for proportionalists regarding capital punishment?

A

• To follow Pope Francis’ teaching ∵ it is a theo. ‘bad act’
- However, due to the moral ambiguity that exists in the world, there are occasions when a pre-moral evil could be considered a right act

22
Q

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. What is the Christian teaching on morality in this situation?

A

• C. theo. believes CP is a bad act

23
Q

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. What is the value (reason for allowing an evil act) in this situation?

A
  • Intention of CP is to stop the prisoner committing more murders, upholding prim. prec. of life + 6th Comm. of ‘Do not murder’
  • Consequence = some of the saved lives may reproduce ∴ supporting prim. prec. of reproduction
24
Q

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. What is the disvalue (reason for not allowing an evil act) in this situation?

A

• Breaking ‘life’ and 6th Comm. - maybe the executioner enjoys killing ppl ∴ satisfying his non-agape intention

25
Q

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. Give a conclusion.

A

• Value outweighs disvalue in this unique situation