Essay plans for philosophy and ethics

1: plato v locke

Response by leibniz: alternative dualism

2. Causally complete universe(huxly and ryle) v Descartes

3. Descartes assessed by chomsky and eliminative materialism

Aka is situation ethics a suitable theory when discussing the subject of euthanasia

Mark scheme notes:

Ao1 Checklist

• description and explanation of euthanasia as an issue m outlining the distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary, passive and active forms of euthanasia.

• Key principles of situation ethics:

  • The works of joseph fletcher

  • The concept of agape

  • Aspects of the six propositions

• Supporters and critics of situation ethics

• Alternatives to SA

AO2 Checklist

• Learners might argue on one hand that decisions about euthanasia should be made according to the principles of situation ethics by using some of the following arguments

  • Situation ethics looks at each situation distinctly and differently, allowing for a considered approach in different circumstances

  • The principles of agape can be extended to everyone involved and in the sphere of influence- such as family members, nurses and friends. It is not just the individual.

  • Situation ethics allows patients autonomy over their own lives

• Situation ethics might be compared with other ethical systems that the learner finds less persuasive:

• Legalistic approaches such as natural law appear at first to be compassionate, but are useless with regards to bodily autonomy. If the body is a gift thereof, only a jealous god would require you to act according to vague rules you may only circumstantially come across in order to please him and endure pain and preserve a gift, freely given, that by right belongs autonomously to one’s self.

• The christian argument for euthanasia is awkward most of the time, as in the liturgy and in scriputre there are many encouraged examples of self-sacrifice, in which the agents are aware of the mortal peril they place themselves in and yet are commended in their deaths. Namely there is Jesus (although the argument that he was okay with being brutally killed is somewhat murky and probably entered the christian thought bubble around the time that paul and luke made magic jesus a reality)

• Learners may alternatively argue that decisions about authanasia should not be made according to the principles of situation ethics by using some of the following arguments:

  • Situation ethics does not give a high priority to the principle of the sanctity of life

  • Treating each individual situation according to its own circumstances makes legislation very difficult

  • With SE, there is the possibility of vulnerable patients being exploited if euthanasia is an option.

  • It is not always easy to know what the most loving course of action will be, and euthanasia does not allow for a change of mind if the decision turned out to be the wrong one

Viewpoint - Euthanasia should not be a point of contention in modern society, as the arguments against it have been thoroughly discredited, disproved and refuted easily and with considerable evidence to the contrary.

Thus it is certainly a justified conclusion to make that the instatement of euthanasia for those who are in situations of extremely depleted and negative qualities of life should be ocnsidered. The right to personal autonomy in life ought to extend to the dignity of choosing to end it- to argue for the contrary proposes that life is possessed and given precedence by individuals extraneous to the self.

Rachels- no distinction between active abd passive euthanasia (due to his teleological perspective tht both have the same consequence). He argues that passive is worse as it is cruel and inconsistent . The process of dying may be long, painful and unnecessarily drawn out, possibly introducing dysteleological suffering into the dying process despite having the same end result of death.

One could argue against passive euthanasia as the only means through an analogy of luddite farming revolution; the farming revolution introduced more effective, more actualising results than the previous means of farming- in which everything was done by hand in a long and strenuous process. It is not morally reprehensible to introduce revolutionary techniques which produce the same result but with better efficiency.

The same can be said about medicine- which acts as the reflective counterpart of euthanasia. While a patient may recover if not given any aid, it will be painful and uncomfortable- perhaps simply prolonging the sickness without much of a view for any recovery at all. Comparatively - medicine supplies a new end to the suffering and conversely introduces a means to improve the health of the individual rapidly. In both cases the patient will recover- but one is more dignified and less painful.

Specifically compare euthanasia to a large cut in your leg- if you leave it, it may recover, but slowly, grossly and potentially open to infection. It incapacitates you , and is painful for others to see and to help you move around- but it will eventually get better(with a small chance of the leg needing amputating if it actually gets worse)

Likewise, if one is suffering, for example, with advanced MS- one may continue to get sicker and sicker, without relief, life may regress in quality - and eventually you will die (there is, in this situation, little to no chance of survival past 10 years).

A leg may be stitched, cleaned and dressed- it will reach the status of recovery faster.

A person with MS could hypothetically ask to be euthanised- which would reach the status of deceased faster and without the need for suffering.

In both cases, a cure is suggested. However for the former situation it is legal in the uk, but illegal to medicinally prov

Shleiermacher : 

religious experience should be at the heart of faith- all people have a consciousness of the divine.

Given the significance of these experiences, all religious practice ought to be seen as ‘self-authenticating’-requiring no further testing to see if it is genuine.

The creeds were attempts by individuals to understand their experiences. Experience has precedence over doctrine- as opposed to the catholic route of judging the experiences of mystics comparatively to see if they are genuine.

Shlieremacher = reason is king, religion is a ‘sense and taste for the infinite’

He believed that experiences are versatile and can take many forms - which explains why there are so many religions in the world. However he saw christianity as the highest, because jesus had the highest level of ‘god consciousness’

Against: TOO SUBJECTIVE: religion is reduced to emotion and is given more  power than reason. If religious claims cannot be declared as true by virtue of analytical thinking and providing a basis for which could conclude it to be inexorably accurate.

Without testing against experiences, any experience could be counted as totally true and accurate of the church’s teachings    

Rudolph Otto :

It is fundamental to religion that individuals would encounter a personal experience with supernatural forces: mysterium tremendum et fascinans

Richard swinburne: religious experience should be taken seriously and should be taken as evidence of the existence of god. Principles of credulity and testimony. We should accept that people are in the best position to understand what really happened, even if other people try to adulterate what they say.However he is not saying that the human understanding is infallible - but rather more as if to say that if we experience something that we identify only as god, it isnotlaughable or unusual to believe that it really is god.

Issue:

Swinburne uses the testimony of religion experience comparatively to normal experience- which is illogical given the extreme dichotomy between the two. For example

I would find it believable if someone told me that they saw a bird because I,too, have seen a bird before. If they tell me on the other hand that they saw the body of jesus flying through the sky and felt compelled to jump in the river it would be a little less believable, as I myself cannot compare my personal experience.

Ludwig Freyrbach: people think that they are worshipping `God but they are just worshipping and exonerating their own human nature. They take the best aspects of themselves and of society and ‘project’ theseaspcts outside of themselves, standing in relation to these ideals.

A god, a sky father who loves and values his ‘children                         

What are the forms of religious experience?: 

1. Conversion experience

2. Corporate religious experience

3. Mystical experience\

Argument: If we are to take the view that the measure of genuine-ness matters, then conversion experience (being the most impactful and emotionally demanding of experiences) is perhaps the most convincing of them all. However it is more convincing to argue that even though conversion experiences can be convincing due to their evident and palpable impact upon those who undergo them, it does not necessitate that the likelihood of conversion being influenced by a genuine and actual mystical event is true. Therefore to say that conversion experience is most convincing is akin to saying that conversion experience supplies the most convincingly supporting evidence for religious experiences as veridical and authentically having occurred.

Agree:

William James:

Took an objective stance, said that religious experiences outside of christianity can be authentic, finding four commonalities between religious experiences. He argued that religious experiences are verifiable through the change that they make in an individual

• Issues arise from James’ assertion that religious experience must be ineffable, and conversion experience cannot be described in everyday language. This invalidates many instances of documented experiences- for if an experience were truly ineffable, those who experience them should be completely at a loss of where to begin. Saul of damascus’ conversion experience is one of the most famous in history, however James (even though he was an evangelical christian) inadvertently invalidates this experience by virtue of the fact that Saul describes it in great detail.

AGREE:

Swinburn

Principle of credulity and testimony argues that - unless the circumstance is mitigated by the presence of mind-altering substances such as alcohol, psilocybin, narcotics or medication  - we should trust that people are telling the truth about what they see and of what they have experienced. In the case of a conversion experience, then it is not too much to assert that the instance of the extreme emotional and drastic personal change induced by the experience denotes itself as a credulous source of evidence for the validity of the experience.

However, just because someone believes that they have seen something does not make that experience or that event actual. For example, many have argued that the basis for credulity comes from experience and likelihood as perceived by society and laws instigated by this experience. If my friend were to approach me and tell me that they saw a bird land on their window, I would be inclined to believe them, as I can personally conceive of experiencing such an event due to my own personal understanding of the world. However, If they told me that the bird started talking to them about the second coming of god, the likelihood is that I would immediately be incredulous to this event, which would probably turn very rapidly into concern for my friend’s mental health. Not because I believe my friend is lying, per se, but that this event is so far removed from normal experience that it requires more than trust for it to be validated. 

If my friend was converted to a bird cult subsequently this may just increase my concern, rather than indicate that this experience should be measured in terms of personal impact rather than actual genuine truth or believability of the matter..

Schleiermacher

• Religious experiences are ‘self authenticating’

It is argued that the purpose of Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument is To provide understanding to those that have faith (credo ut intelligam) .However many argue that his aim is disputable- thus there is often some conflict that arises. Some argue that his argument appears as more of a personal plea to god as a petition to understand his nature. Some argue that his theology is a means of proving the existence of god to anyone- even non-believers. However his argument for ‘necessary existence’ is founded upon a preliminary belief in the existence of a higher and greater being. If one were to approach his argument from an atheist mindset, it would be concerningly weak given  that a protest atheist argues that in opposition to the teachings of the church and Anselm's beliefs, God necessarily does not exist. Anselm may have responded that such a mindset is a result of ignorance or corruption, inspired by the biblical passage ;  ‘the fool says in his heart there is not god’- from this he extrapolates the ideas that the existence of god being a necessary fact is a characteristic that is both inextricable and indisputable evidence.

On the other hand, many have disputed Anselm's proposition that his defence for the existence of a perfect being is that which nothing greater can be conceived

• God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’.

• If God existed only in the mind (in intellectu), then a greater being could be imagined to exist in the mind and in reality (in re).]

• Anything that exists in reality is indisputably better than anything in the mind- and since this is the case, as god is nothing greater than which can be conceived, God must be perfect.

• Gaunilo’s criticism

• ‘Perfect island analogy’

• Anselm’s response; god is a necessary being

• Issues:

  • Adding new propositions to your argument gives new issues and ultimately way weaken your argument by adding specifications

  • Kant argued that ‘existence is not a predicate’

• Kant was a christian and believed in a universal and necessary god - but he still considered anselm’s argument to be weak

• ‘It would be self contradictory to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles, but there is no contradiction in rejecting the angle altogether with it’s three angles’

• “If we take the subject (God) with all its predicates (eg. all knowledge), and say ‘God is’ or ‘There is a God’, we attach no new predicate to the concept of God…merely posit it as being an object that stands in relation to my concept. The content of both must be one and the same… The real contains no more than the merely possible. A hundred real thalers (German coins) do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers.”

• Norman malcolm argued that anselm’s argument was weak for the same reason;

Malcolm

Why did Macolm agree with Kant that Anslem's first ontological argument failed?

Anselm's first argument uses existence as predicate, but existence is not a predicate.

Argument : the assertion is neither correct nor incorrect, as a viewpoint , no matter the view (when it is subject to circumstance and specifics) will always be split in the broadest spectrum of the world.

Christianity cannot be definitively shown to be ;’a source of unhappiness’ in any more fervency than one could argue of democracy

1: freud: religion is a source of unhappinesS MUch people are not wrongs in general . it is a ‘universal obsessional neurosis’

COUNTER: Freud makes gross generalisations , not all religious can be seen to be perfect, and not all secular ideas exist departed from his scathing remarks.

• For instance,David F Ford  argued and proposed that atheist ideologies such as communism, fascism and capitalism have sought to write out re;igion from civilisation and have used brutal methods to eradicate religious populations. 

• One prime example is the ever infamous nazi party, who, as reported by goebbels, Afolf Hitler (barf) "expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity’

Thus it could be argued thta situationally, the argument for the emotional power of christianity 

2. Dawkins - god is damaging to society

• Human life is meaningful without the need to reference religions ideas

• Argues that religious belief discouriages scientific enquiry by allowing a lazy mindset that says ‘it a divine mystery

• Dawkins : child abuse within the church and early indocrinatyion.

• Theramintrees: infantilization of the church, in which one is kept in a constant childlike state. Even the names of the priest as ‘father’ is derivative of this dissonant means of keeping early indoctrinated persons trapped under the influence of the church

Jo Marchant, science journalist

• SHe does not try to prove religions are true but, in a tone remeniscent of the investigations of William James, utilises data to question the view of whether religion is actually psychologically harmful

• Rps such as meditation and community are good

• Lets people be happier

f

(full mark essay babyyy)

The christian faith appears to most, both historically and essentially, a proselytising religion (for the most part- while there are some sects such as the agnostics and certain orthodox groups who reject this). The desire to convert and introduce the whole world to their faith and the ‘truth’ of the bible ad Fides ex auditu (though the words of the bible) is driven by the literary urge to ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I [Jesus Christ] have commanded you.’(matthew). In early christianity, the urge and conflicts within the chrsitian empires resulted in extreme tension within even the same denominations of the christian faith, which called for re-assessment of how the christian faith itself ought to engage with other religions- whichis once more called to attention by religious extremeism and terrorism which has perhaps taken a more unique tone in the age of globalisation. Thus, instead of the ‘mission’ of christians to be one of immediate conversion, they should instead focus upon creating interfaith dialogues so that as a pluralistic society, all may benefit from the ability to learn and develop from one another’s viewpoints, as well as giving christians the opportunity to properly analyse their own faith. Good definitions, discussion & decision.

However, from an RAE (Restrictive Access Exclusivist)standpoint, One may argue that missionary conversion is an essential duty not only to one’s own religion, but also as a principle of morality and good will to one’s fellow man - this owing to the notion that ‘Ther Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation’ - as it is proclaimed in the papal encyclical Redemptoris Missio , written by Pope John Paul II concerning interreligious dialogue . In this document the Catholic Church reinforces the need and importance of engaging in such communication with the purpose of personal faith enrichment. However, while the encyclical hymns God’s eternal ability to ‘make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression’, JOhn Paul II argues that Sola Christus (through christ’s unique teaching) can one attain the knowledge to achieve full salvation, and that even through discussion or rejection they should seek to evangelise and spread the gospel (see Matthew).Some find this stance somewhat aggressive, and perhaps an abuse of open discussion.

Conversely It may be more appropriate and useful to take the UAE approach (Universal access Exclusivism) in which dialogue acts not only as beneficial in comparison to unwarranted conversion, but also with the underlying understanding that God’s teaching is not limited to christianity- but that his wisdom is apparent for all to gain- that god ‘desires everyone to be saved’ (Timothy 2:4)

A crucial issue of evangelising those who belong to other faith communities is that of christian imperialism- the notion that the forcible evangelisation of other faiths can create unnecessary tension and hatred. This can be seen throughout the entire history of Christianity in its many, many externalised and internalised bloody conflicts and eras of repression. For example, one of the most well respected and cited early theologians who has been irrefutably integral to the development of the Christian faith as it stands now, argued in favour of forced conversion; St Augustine of Hippo wrote in his Treatise concerning the correction of the Donatists,a scripture supporting government enforcement to coerce people into faith with the argument that short term suffering is mediocre comparatively to eternal suffering- citing the example of Jesus Striking paul in his vision on the road to Demascus in Romans. More contemporary theologians have taken the word of the ancient sacred texts with a great respect towards the ethical and moralistic teaching they convey; thus ultimately to seek to convert others may adversely cause pain or detriment to the subject. Professor Paul Knitter, a 20th century Roman Catholic theologian developed the theory of ethical theological pluralism (ETP), which is based around the primary assertion that all major religions ultimately share the soteriological aim of liberating humans from suffering and injustice - inspired by Latin American liberation theology . Karl Rahner, Roman Catholic Jesuit theologian, similarly argued for the compassion that Christianity often utilises to set itself apart; he argues that ‘somehow all men must be capable of being members of the church’, owing to the fact that it would be illogical (in his view) that God would not allow all people the reasonable opportunity to be saved. Thus he argues that even by wanting grace by following a religion that is non-christian, one can still receive God’s grace. It is more convincing to argue in favour of Rahner’s inclusivist view in the discussion of evangelisation, due to the fact that it has a higher empathetic message of finding a common ground within religions and communities. It is also, controversially, one of the most ancient approved manners of approaching ‘anonymous christianity’. For example, the early theologian Justin Martyr . He notably recognised that pagan philosophers (especially Plato and Socrates) had a sense of truth and Logos- this being similar to Aquinas’ notion of the Votum ecclesia; “And they who lived with the logos are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists”. Such an approach would have been contextually pertinent given the religiously pluralistic and colourful society of the early centuries, but also in the manner in which it neither shows aggression or belittlement towards other beliefs. Thus the mission of christian faith should be to create constructive interfaith dialogues- to further the insight into the wider nature of humanity and of their own religion without causing harm or disrespect.

Engaging in dialogue may be interpreted as a show of weakness or lack of verve in the context of one’s own strength of faith. Thus groups such as the Scriptural Reasoning Movement aim to highlight the manner in which interfaith discussion may be mutually beneficial without the worry of evangelisation or disrespect. It was founded in the 1990s by David Ford and Peter Ochs- specifically with the understanding that the abrahamic faiths could use their shared foundational similarities to open up reasoning ‘internally’ within the text itself, and ‘externally’, in which the individual can relay and discuss their personal understanding or interpretation of what they see occurring within their tradition. The Unitary theological pluralistic approach- as detailed by John Hick- argues however that emphasis ought not to be upon revelation but upon that natural realisation of religion as emanating solely from god, Theocentrically - that all ‘true’ religion upholds Kant’s categorical; imperative to will the neighbour’s good. Thus, he concludes that ancient doctrines should be rejected in the modern world and instead be recognised as ‘myth’ rather than absolute truths. While this view could uphold some aspects of the idea that this would encourage the incorporation of ‘christian’ values in a more open and universal manner (as the essay statement implies), it somewhat loses its’ strength argumentatively owing to the fact that in so losing the deification and trinitarian view of Jesus, most christians would argue that the fabric of spreading the christian belief at all is completely lost

Looking back across these investigations, it appears to me that the manner in which the christian church ought to progress constructively and respectfully into the modern and humanitarian age is through an open, more liberal approach to discussing religion. Not only does this approach reflect the theological beliefs of the christian faith, but also of the moral and ethical beats upon which Jesus Christ argued for ; those of tolerance and respect. Thus the notion to convert those of other religions is wrought with issues of devotion- and each christian must therefore recognise boundaries and cultural implications before engaging.

aaa