AO2

Question 1

4x reasons it does provide helpful moral judgement

Answer 1

1. as its a relativistic theory its flexible, and can deal with exceptional situations, avoiding legalism. it enables people to keep the spirit of law without being obsessed with the letter of it and yet without abandoning all absolutes.
2. enables a decision to be made in every situation, unlike absolutist theories which struggle when conflicting duties arise, here we can choose the lesser of two evils.
3. person centred and seems closer to the teachings of Jesus, who consistently put people above rules. e.g. healing people on the sabbath.
4. love as a principle is hard to object to, if we love others we will want what’s best for them, which is more compassionate than theories such as utilitarianism which focus on pleasure and pain.

Question 2

4x reasons it doesn’t provide helpful moral judgement

Answer 2

1. as a relativist theory it’s vague, doing the most loving thing isn’t objective or clear, it’s subjective.
2. no moral boundaries, everything could be permitted in the name of love, this doesn’t seem right (things like rape are inherently wrong and no circumstances could ever make them right).
3. teleological, requires us to make predictions about the outcome of our actions, yet we don’t always know whether what we’ve done will produce the most loving outcome
4. difficult to decide where a situation begins and ends, consequences may be good short term but may set in motion a chain of events that are bad. how much am i responsible for at the moment of decision?

Question 3

3x reasons ethical judgements can be based on agape
/3x reasons love is the only thing intrinsically good

Answer 3

1. for a religious thinker agape is an excellent principle, and according to Jesus, sums up the most important commandments (‘love thy neighbour’). it helps us to act the way God willed and act in the way Jesus did in the bible.
2. principle of agape is useful in helping us know when to accept the general rules (sophia) and when to break them, its flexible.
3. agape is a relativist principle and doesn’t seem easy to manipulate (unlike the utility principle). e.g. it’s harder to argue murder or racism can be loving acts, even though in extreme circumstances i may bring pleasure to an evil majority.

Question 4

3x reasons ethical judgements can’t be based on agape
/3x reasons love is not the only thing intrinsically good

Answer 4

1. concept of love represented by agape can be interpreted in various ways, for some it may conjure up charity and compassion, but for others represent a dispassionate wanting of good for others. both the concept and the application to individual situation can produce different results.
2. agape and situation ethics seem set up to deal with exceptional or difficult cases, but lawyers often argue that hard cases make bad laws. agape may be the right approach at times, but most cases require us to follow conventional rules.
3. there may be better principles to base ethics on: pleasure, duty, purpose. a religious believer may argue that God directly reveals commands and stress on agape may lead a believer away from revelation. as a follower of natural law would believe.

Question 5

3x reasons fletchers understanding of agape is religious

Answer 5

1. ethic is very clearly located in the words of Jesus, who, when asked to sum up the whole of the Jewish law, suggested that only two commands are needed: ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ it’s clearly compatible with other Christian approach that see love as the centre of Christianity.
2. Jesus’ attitudes to the Pharisees (religious scholars) in the new testament shows a clear opposition to the legalism of his day. a good religious ethic doesn’t have to be based on hard and fast rules. He himself broke the Sabbath law in favour of a person centred approach, picking ‘heads of grain to eat’ when he and his disciples were hungry.
3. the idea that love is the key evidence of genuine religious faith is found in the words of Jesus ‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’.

Question 6

3x reasons fletchers understanding of agape isn’t religious, just wanting the best for someone

Answer 6

1. SE has been rejected by the established church, it was condemned at the time of writing by Pope Pius XII (who claimed it was ‘in opposition to the Natural Law or God’s revealed will’, NML Roman Catholics follow) on a number of key issues. many religious believers may argue that God directly reveals commands and stress on agape may lead a believer away from revelation, as they break the laws of Christianity to do ‘the most loving thing’.
2. fletchers reading of the words of Jesus is highly selective. Jesus quite clearly condemns divorce and adultery (thou shall not cheat, and ‘what God has joined together let man not separate’), and speak about hell far more than heaven. there are clear fundamental absolutes in the bible to adhere to, if these result in bad consequences, God will make it fair in heaven.
3. Fletcher’s interpretation of agape as an unconditional wishing the best for our neighbour is not explicitly Christian. in reality, there is little difference between SE and act utilitarianism (non Christian theory). there’s suggestions SE is a Christian utilitarianism.

Question 7

4x reasons rejection of absolute rules makes decision making TOO individualistic and subjective

Answer 7

1. emphasis on individual decision making means this could never be an ethic that could be applied in society, as views of love differ. it makes ethics subjective. William Barclay points out ‘man has not yet come of age’, he felt ignoring God’s grace is wrong, and we need some kind of guidance to keep society safe.
2. other thinkers who have used love as the basis of decision making have continued to recognise the importance of community for ethical decision making. (e.g. Bonhoeffer’s community made decisions based on communal bible reading and conversation, recognising the importance of other people in discerning the right course of action).
3. SE may be overly optimistic about our capacity to reason clearly and reach moral decisions. psychologists refer to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, which makes it difficult to accept evidence against a deeply held belief. theologians such as Aquinas would be cautious of our ability to reach good decisions as humans are fallen creatures, and this affects our reasoning. acting on love can involve bias. William Barclay criticises situation ethics, arguing it gives people a dangerous amount of autonomy because people are not saints.
4. fletchers view on the conscience as being a key process in decision making is a little vague in terms of detail, he arguably misinterprets Aquinas’ views (whose may be closer to fletchers than he realises).

Question 8

4x reasons rejection of absolute rules does not makes decision making TOO individualistic and subjective

Answer 8

1. rather than relying on external authorities, SE gives responsibility and autonomy in moral decision making. thus SE treats individuals as adults. (4/6 Ps are guidance)
2. situations and contexts do differ greatly and it’s important that flexibility is retained. SE recognises that what’s right for one person in a specific situation may not suit other people who are faced with a slightly different situation. can deal with exceptional situations, unlike legalism.
3. principle of agape is useful in helping us know when to accept the general rules (sophia) and when to break them, its flexible.
4. agape is a relativist principle and doesn’t seem easy to manipulate (unlike the utility principle). e.g. it’s harder to argue murder or racism can be loving acts, even though in extreme circumstances i may bring pleasure to an evil majority.

Question 9

4x reasons the 6ps are helpful

Answer 9

1. first, ‘only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love: nothing else at all. love as a principle is hard to object to, if we love others we will want what’s best for them, which is more compassionate than theories such as utilitarianism which focus on pleasure and pain. love is a fundamental human need (as essential as food), making it intrinsically good.
2. the second proposition. for a religious thinker love is an excellent principle, and according to Jesus, sums up the most important commandments (‘love thy neighbour’). it helps us to act the way God willed and act in the way Jesus did in the bible. Jesus replaces law with love, and the propositions guide us to do the same.
3. fifth. enables a decision to be made in every situation, unlike absolutist theories which struggle when conflicting duties arise, here we can choose the lesser of two evils.
4. sixth. principle of agape is useful in helping us know when to accept the general rules (sophia) and when to break them. its flexible, and can deal with exceptional situations, avoiding legalism. it enables people to keep the spirit of law without being obsessed with the letter of it and yet without abandoning all absolutes. and such guidance prevents subjectivity.

Question 10

4x reasons the 6ps aren’t helpful

Answer 10

1. first, ‘only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love: nothing else at all’. concept of love represented by agape can be interpreted in various ways, for some it may conjure up charity and compassion, but for others represent a dispassionate wanting of good for others. both the concept and the application to individual situation can produce different results. the fact that love can be a source of pain means it isn’t intrinsically good.
2. second, ‘the ruling norm of Christian decision is loving, nothing else’. there may be better principles to base ethics on: pleasure, duty, purpose. a religious believer may argue that God directly reveals commands and stress on agape may lead a believer away from revelation. as a follower of natural law would believe.
3. fifth, ‘only the end justifies the means, nothing else’. no moral boundaries, everything could be permitted in the name of love, this doesn’t seem right (things like rape are inherently wrong and no circumstances could ever make them right). wedge argument: if we allow rules to be broken, the rule becomes meaningless. St Paul rejects the idea we may ‘do evil so that good may come.’
4. sixth, ‘love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively’. emphasis on individual decision making means this could never be an ethic that could be applied in society, as views of love differ. it makes ethics subjective.

Question 11

4x reasons the 4ps are helpful

Answer 11

1. pragmatism is a good principle to use as a base, in following it SE enables a decision to be made in every situation, unlike absolutist theories which struggle when conflicting duties arise, here we can choose the lesser of two evils.
2. using relativism as a foundation makes the theory flexible, and so we can deal with exceptional situations, avoiding legalism. it enables people to keep the spirit of law without being obsessed with the letter of it and yet without abandoning all absolutes.
3. positivism, and acting in the way of God’s will and intrinsic goodness of love is good. Jesus, when asked to sum up the whole of the Jewish law, suggested that only two commands are needed: ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’
4. personalism is beneficial as an ethic being person centred seems closer to the teachings of Jesus, who consistently put people above rules. e.g. healing people on the sabbath.

Question 12

4x reasons the 4ps aren’t helpful

Answer 12

1. pragmatism and practical solutions are not guaranteed, we cannot be sure that when following a teleological theory, our results will be as we predicted. pragmatism and teleological theories don’t seem to align.
2. relativism may cause SE to be overly optimistic about our capacity to reason clearly and reach moral decisions. psychologists refer to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, which makes it difficult to accept evidence against a deeply held belief. theologians such as Aquinas would be cautious of our ability to reach good decisions as humans are fallen creatures, and this affects our reasoning. acting on love can involve bias. William Barclay criticises situation ethics, arguing it gives people a dangerous amount of autonomy because people are not saints.
3. there may be better principles to base ethics on than the love focus brought about by positivism: pleasure, duty, purpose. a religious believer may argue that God directly reveals commands and stress on agape may lead a believer away from revelation. as a follower of natural law would believe.
4. consideration of personalism leaves it difficult to decide where a situation begins and ends, and how many people we should focus on, consequences may be good short term but may set in motion a chain of events that are bad. how much am i responsible for at the moment of decision? legalism doesn’t cause such problems as the focus is on law.

Question 13

x reasons conscience is a verb

Question 14

x reasons conscience is a noun

Question 15

3x reasons the laws of Christian ethics can’t be relativised (adjusted)

Answer 15

1. relativism may cause Christian ethics to be overly optimistic about our capacity to reason clearly and reach moral decisions. psychologists refer to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, which makes it difficult to accept evidence against a deeply held belief. theologians such as Aquinas would be cautious of our ability to reach good decisions as humans are fallen creatures, and this affects our reasoning. acting on love can involve bias. William Barclay criticises situation ethics, arguing it gives people a dangerous amount of autonomy because people are not saints.
2. the concept of legalism. emphasis on individual decision making means this could never be an ethic that could be applied in society, as views of love differ. it makes ethics subjective.
3. there may be better principles to base ethics on: pleasure, duty, purpose. a religious believer may argue that God directly reveals commands and stress on agape may lead a believer away from revelation. as a follower of natural law would believe. adjusting Christian ethics and the priorities shifts the focus of the religion.

Question 16

3x reasons the laws of Christian ethics can be relativised

Answer 16

1. Jesus’ attitudes to the Pharisees (religious scholars) in the new testament shows a clear opposition to the legalism of his day. Jesus himself appeared to relativise Christian ethics, showing that a good religious ethic doesn’t have to be based on hard and fast rules.
2. for a religious thinker agape is an excellent principle, and according to Jesus, sums up the most important commandments (‘love thy neighbour’). it helps us to act the way God willed and act in the way Jesus did in the bible. to act in such a way, laws must be adjusted, as not all Christian ethic laws prioritise love. (use proposition 2).
3. agape is a Christian and relativist principle and doesn’t seem easy to manipulate (unlike the utility principle). e.g. it’s harder to argue murder or racism can be loving acts, even though in extreme circumstances i may bring pleasure to an evil majority. relativising Christian ethics can be a positive.