Ethics Essay Plans
Whether morality is what God commands.
Initial
- Morality is completely directed by Gods commands – Theological voluntarism
- ‘what God commands is the same as that which is good’
Counter
- Euthyphro dilemma
- Good is either commanded by god because it is good – therefore God is not the
highest being as he is living up to the standards of something else (good)
- Good is commanded by God therefore it is good – this leads to the arbitrariness
problem – god could command murder
Mini conclusion
- The Euthyphro dilemma highlights too many problems with DCT
Initial
- Morality cannot be whatever god commands because scripture shows evidence of
God commanding people to do sinful things
- Abraham sacrificing Isaac for example
Counter
- God is omnibenevolent and whatever he commands can therefore never be evil
- Thomas Aquinas denies that any command god gives will ever be evil
- Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac is justified as God is the creator of everyone
and can decide where a person is to go as a result of the original sin
- Isaacs death is what he is due by the command of God
Mini conclusion
- Gods omnibenevolence is shown when he spares Isaac and replaces him with a lamb
– this shows how God is omnibenevolent and that morality should resign with God.
All evil is only done for a purpose
Initial
- Morality is not decided by God due to the pluralism objection
- There are many different religions have different beliefs about God and Gods
characteristics and what is good and what is not
- As a result how can all of them be right
Counter
- Different moral commands does not mean that morality is subjective.
- Moral principles are objective and cannot be changed
- Moral principles are grounded in Gods character
- Misunderstanding Gods commands is the fault of the person
Mini conclusion
- However there is no way for a religious believer to know what morals are objective
and is left to their own devices – just as a non religious person were to be –
therefore God is not the source of morality
,Whether being a good person is better than just doing good deeds.
Initial
- Virtue theory would state that it is more important to be virtuous and to develop
and build ones character to a point where they can easily do virtuous things without
the need of any moral guidance
- A good person can focus on human flourishing – Eudemonia
- Good Samaritan example
Counter
- However we should just focus on the consequences of our actions instead as this will
lead to a better society – utilitarianism
- Our actions should maximise good – it does not matter what our own individual
opinions are
Mini conclusion
- Virtue theory helps us by providing a moral framework to our actions
- It is better to be a better person
Initial
- There is uncertainty and question about what being a good person means
- Virtue theory leads to disagreements and arguments about what may be good
- Different cultures and societies see different people as good
Counter
- Intuitionism would state that all moral values self-evident and shouldn’t require any
discussion
- By trying to codify ethics to make some deeds good or bad will lead to immoral acts
- Force people to follow basic laws that lack basic compassion
- People should develop a strong moral character through their self-evident moral
values and become better people
Mini conclusion
- Being a good person using our self eident moral values is better than just blindly
following laws
Initial
- Virtue theory puts forward the idea that moral people will make mistakes and that to
become a moral person someone might need to make mistakes
- A person doing a wrong act in a situation thinking that it was the right option does
not make someone a immoral person
Counter
- Robert Louden states that we cannot just go off the assumption that everyone has
the ability to follow the right thing and do the correct thing at the right time
- Virtue theory allows some mistakes to be justified but there are certain actions such
as rape and torture that must be governed by rules
Mini conclusion
- virtue theory fails to address this and therefore doing good acts is better than being
a good person
,Whether Virtue Theory is useful when faced with a moral dilemma.
Initial
- Ethics is complex and virtue theory allows us to recognise the usefulness of practical
reason in situations
- Virtue theory says that it is more useful to look at virtuous people as an example to
behave than to look at a set regulation of laws
Counter
- There is no guidance to help us know who is virtuous and who is not
- We cannot look inside someone to see if they are virtuous we can only look at their
actions
Mini conclusion
- Virtue theory fails as even if we look at people actions, virtue theory does not tell us
what is right and wrong
Initial
- Consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism are more useful when dealing with
moral actions as they look at the consequences of an action to see if pleasure of pain
has been maximised.
- Virtue theory does not help us know what is right and wrong – it is too inflexible – it
may not be always possible to act in the way that ensures that a persons virtues and
values are upheld
Counter
- However consequentialist theories may often sacrifice a persons individual rights or
virtues for the greater good
- Virtue theory is a theory that emphasises the importance of courage, honesty and
compassion and someone that upholds these characteristics would be better off in
making moral decisions than someone that just concentrates on the consequences
of a action
Mini conclusion
- Virtues theories emphasis on building ones character and flourishing can help moral
agents
Initial
- Law and morality are not the same thing – law tells us what to do and morality
concerns itself with personal inner qualities that cannot be governed
- Morality encourages reason and self-improvement.
- Virtue theory helps us know weather to follow laws blindly or abandon them in
situation
Counter
- Robert Louden claims that what is being advocated is not being spelled out
- Its great that people may become virtuous but people require moral ought’s – we
need to know what we ought to do – virtue theory does not tell us this
Mini conclusion
- Virtue theory fails
, The extent to which Ethical Egoism inevitably leads to moral evil
Initial
- Ethical egoism states that people should act in their own self interest and has no
obligation to put someone’s needs before them
- This doesn’t lead to moral evil as long as no actively evil acts are committed a person
is upholding their self worth
Counter
- Ethical egoism can destroy communities which can be seen as evil
- Stirner does not see the benefits of the community and without trust from the
community we may fail and there may be evil
- Utilitarianism argues that actions should be judged off their overall consequences for
all individuals affected
Mini conclusion
- The destruction of communities in the long term can lead to evil for a large amount
of people
Initial
- Ethical egoism is not the same as being selfish
- Often acting in the interests of ourselves will help create a better society
- Harming others and performing immoral acts is not in our self interest as then we
would not be tolerated by society
- Often wanting what’s best for ourselves includes trust and kindness amongst others
- Ethical egoism does not lead to immoral behaviour
Counter
- Although most people acting in their own self interest doesn’t mean complete
destruction for others – as they would like to uphold their reputation and be
tolerated in society – some people may not be the same
- Ethical egoism does not prevent someone from doing anything they want
- There is nothing preventing someone from carrying out murder if it benefits them
Mini conclusion
- Even though there is nothing preventing a person from doing this, ethical egoism will
not inevitably lead to moral evil as most of the time people would act in a way that
will benefit them in the long term
- Stirner states that we should concentrate on long term interests – and harming
others will not help us in the long term
Initial
- Law can operate at the same time as ethical egoism
- Someone is not going to complete evil acts if it will put them in prison as this is
against their self interest
- Ethical egoism will not inevitably lead to moral evil
Counter
- Despite laws ethical egoism can still lead to bigotry
- It’s the similar idea of segregation where “I” is before “everyone else”
- It can lead to harm in society and evil – even if not illegal
- Selfishness
Whether morality is what God commands.
Initial
- Morality is completely directed by Gods commands – Theological voluntarism
- ‘what God commands is the same as that which is good’
Counter
- Euthyphro dilemma
- Good is either commanded by god because it is good – therefore God is not the
highest being as he is living up to the standards of something else (good)
- Good is commanded by God therefore it is good – this leads to the arbitrariness
problem – god could command murder
Mini conclusion
- The Euthyphro dilemma highlights too many problems with DCT
Initial
- Morality cannot be whatever god commands because scripture shows evidence of
God commanding people to do sinful things
- Abraham sacrificing Isaac for example
Counter
- God is omnibenevolent and whatever he commands can therefore never be evil
- Thomas Aquinas denies that any command god gives will ever be evil
- Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac is justified as God is the creator of everyone
and can decide where a person is to go as a result of the original sin
- Isaacs death is what he is due by the command of God
Mini conclusion
- Gods omnibenevolence is shown when he spares Isaac and replaces him with a lamb
– this shows how God is omnibenevolent and that morality should resign with God.
All evil is only done for a purpose
Initial
- Morality is not decided by God due to the pluralism objection
- There are many different religions have different beliefs about God and Gods
characteristics and what is good and what is not
- As a result how can all of them be right
Counter
- Different moral commands does not mean that morality is subjective.
- Moral principles are objective and cannot be changed
- Moral principles are grounded in Gods character
- Misunderstanding Gods commands is the fault of the person
Mini conclusion
- However there is no way for a religious believer to know what morals are objective
and is left to their own devices – just as a non religious person were to be –
therefore God is not the source of morality
,Whether being a good person is better than just doing good deeds.
Initial
- Virtue theory would state that it is more important to be virtuous and to develop
and build ones character to a point where they can easily do virtuous things without
the need of any moral guidance
- A good person can focus on human flourishing – Eudemonia
- Good Samaritan example
Counter
- However we should just focus on the consequences of our actions instead as this will
lead to a better society – utilitarianism
- Our actions should maximise good – it does not matter what our own individual
opinions are
Mini conclusion
- Virtue theory helps us by providing a moral framework to our actions
- It is better to be a better person
Initial
- There is uncertainty and question about what being a good person means
- Virtue theory leads to disagreements and arguments about what may be good
- Different cultures and societies see different people as good
Counter
- Intuitionism would state that all moral values self-evident and shouldn’t require any
discussion
- By trying to codify ethics to make some deeds good or bad will lead to immoral acts
- Force people to follow basic laws that lack basic compassion
- People should develop a strong moral character through their self-evident moral
values and become better people
Mini conclusion
- Being a good person using our self eident moral values is better than just blindly
following laws
Initial
- Virtue theory puts forward the idea that moral people will make mistakes and that to
become a moral person someone might need to make mistakes
- A person doing a wrong act in a situation thinking that it was the right option does
not make someone a immoral person
Counter
- Robert Louden states that we cannot just go off the assumption that everyone has
the ability to follow the right thing and do the correct thing at the right time
- Virtue theory allows some mistakes to be justified but there are certain actions such
as rape and torture that must be governed by rules
Mini conclusion
- virtue theory fails to address this and therefore doing good acts is better than being
a good person
,Whether Virtue Theory is useful when faced with a moral dilemma.
Initial
- Ethics is complex and virtue theory allows us to recognise the usefulness of practical
reason in situations
- Virtue theory says that it is more useful to look at virtuous people as an example to
behave than to look at a set regulation of laws
Counter
- There is no guidance to help us know who is virtuous and who is not
- We cannot look inside someone to see if they are virtuous we can only look at their
actions
Mini conclusion
- Virtue theory fails as even if we look at people actions, virtue theory does not tell us
what is right and wrong
Initial
- Consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism are more useful when dealing with
moral actions as they look at the consequences of an action to see if pleasure of pain
has been maximised.
- Virtue theory does not help us know what is right and wrong – it is too inflexible – it
may not be always possible to act in the way that ensures that a persons virtues and
values are upheld
Counter
- However consequentialist theories may often sacrifice a persons individual rights or
virtues for the greater good
- Virtue theory is a theory that emphasises the importance of courage, honesty and
compassion and someone that upholds these characteristics would be better off in
making moral decisions than someone that just concentrates on the consequences
of a action
Mini conclusion
- Virtues theories emphasis on building ones character and flourishing can help moral
agents
Initial
- Law and morality are not the same thing – law tells us what to do and morality
concerns itself with personal inner qualities that cannot be governed
- Morality encourages reason and self-improvement.
- Virtue theory helps us know weather to follow laws blindly or abandon them in
situation
Counter
- Robert Louden claims that what is being advocated is not being spelled out
- Its great that people may become virtuous but people require moral ought’s – we
need to know what we ought to do – virtue theory does not tell us this
Mini conclusion
- Virtue theory fails
, The extent to which Ethical Egoism inevitably leads to moral evil
Initial
- Ethical egoism states that people should act in their own self interest and has no
obligation to put someone’s needs before them
- This doesn’t lead to moral evil as long as no actively evil acts are committed a person
is upholding their self worth
Counter
- Ethical egoism can destroy communities which can be seen as evil
- Stirner does not see the benefits of the community and without trust from the
community we may fail and there may be evil
- Utilitarianism argues that actions should be judged off their overall consequences for
all individuals affected
Mini conclusion
- The destruction of communities in the long term can lead to evil for a large amount
of people
Initial
- Ethical egoism is not the same as being selfish
- Often acting in the interests of ourselves will help create a better society
- Harming others and performing immoral acts is not in our self interest as then we
would not be tolerated by society
- Often wanting what’s best for ourselves includes trust and kindness amongst others
- Ethical egoism does not lead to immoral behaviour
Counter
- Although most people acting in their own self interest doesn’t mean complete
destruction for others – as they would like to uphold their reputation and be
tolerated in society – some people may not be the same
- Ethical egoism does not prevent someone from doing anything they want
- There is nothing preventing someone from carrying out murder if it benefits them
Mini conclusion
- Even though there is nothing preventing a person from doing this, ethical egoism will
not inevitably lead to moral evil as most of the time people would act in a way that
will benefit them in the long term
- Stirner states that we should concentrate on long term interests – and harming
others will not help us in the long term
Initial
- Law can operate at the same time as ethical egoism
- Someone is not going to complete evil acts if it will put them in prison as this is
against their self interest
- Ethical egoism will not inevitably lead to moral evil
Counter
- Despite laws ethical egoism can still lead to bigotry
- It’s the similar idea of segregation where “I” is before “everyone else”
- It can lead to harm in society and evil – even if not illegal
- Selfishness
