EVALUATE ETHICS

Practical + flexible~ flexibility in most democracies + relationshipsso why not an ethical theory

Accounts for complexities of human life

Alternative Christian Ethic consistent with Gospel- more tonnes heal on sabbath

corrective for taking natural law too literal

choose lesser of 2 evils unlike legalistic approaches

can lay aside roles in the outcome provide more loving outcome

theory responds to the character and needs of the time

E. Live by spirit not letter of love - those fight for homosexuality to be ordained

keep welfare of individual central to the situation
~

Not applicable ~ lead to burred lines -accept antinausea OK in certain .circumstances

Christian love ~ responsible love - take in all accounts without bias

subjective

limited to individuals perceptions

serological - may end up justifying unloving action on the basis of loving results that may never immerge

teleological justify anything - end justify s the means

e.g genocide wrong under any accompanies

IMPORTANT._ by suggesting certain moral laws are dependant on situations - making them mere suggestions for life

not consider most loving action for ALL only the individual

True ethics consider best overall result

Idealistic~ Barclay too much trust in judgement of ppl ~ need structure

situation - response very different if family VS stranger

selfishness disguised as love

STRENGTHS

straightforward

sensible to take into account casual laws

Hedonic calculus _ applicable to all real life situations

J. S Mills - rule utilitarianism

e. no one should lie

Easy apply + understood

weaknesses

leaves no grey area

STRENGTHS

Benefits mainly the majority and their needs

most pleasure fer largest number

collective society

WEAKNesses

discrimination against minority

e.g 10ppl want to torture one - give more pleasure to majority

NHS cater to majority illnesses

minority ones not bc drugs too expensive

not beneficial enough to majority for price

STRENGTHS

balanced democratic morality

promotes general pleasure + happiness

impartial

each^persons welfare cavally as important

egalitarian society

WEAK

what about those unable to vote

based on qualitative pleasure ~ justice for minority

deem-support individuals persuits at the expensed the majority

STRENGTHS

set-answers

no grey areas

prioritised majority

WEAK

cant + often inaccurate predictions of future 

STRENGTHS

-applicable to all regardless of faith

• universal theory
• not reliant of people having specific beliefs

WEAK

• less guiding foundations
• excardinations people detered from participating

STRENGTHS

WEAK

difficult to ignore plight of loved one 

STRENGTHS

• flexible
• takes into account induvial situations

WEAK

• complicated
• no Instrinsic rights or wrongs
• too flexible needs absolutes
• humans need legality + absolutes

STREN GTHS

• addresses the minority

WEAK

• not qUantative based
• pleasure matter of opinion
• which pleasure better matter of opinion (higher mills)
• one could gain pleasure at the expense of others (killing)