Compare and contrast the ethical theories of natural law and situation ethics.
Compare and contrast the ethical theories of natural law and situation ethics.
There are two main approaches to ethics which are held by Christians today. Over the years it has proved to be a very controversial and widely debated issue. Catholics and certain other 'strict' denominations of the Christian church hold the view that natural law should be the means of making ethical decisions, whereas more liberal Christians consider situation ethics as a more suitable ethical system to go by.
Natural law was advocated by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. It states that all ethical decisions should be made by looking at the absolute moral laws which have been laid down for us by God. For Christians these stem from The Ten Commandments. Believers in this are known as Ethical Deontologists. They maintain that an action is intrinsically good, bad, right or wrong. When faced with a moral dilemma, one should refer to the Law, irrespectively of what the outcome will be. It is suggested that the human purpose of life is to live and reproduce, to live harmoniously, to learn and to worship God.
Problems can arise when the consequence of the decision causes more harm than good. An example of this can be found in Catholic moral theology - abortion is immoral and can never be permitted. A loophole in this law means that a surgical procedure may be acceptable even if the result of it leads to the death of a foetus. In this case abortion isn't the primary intention, but is a by-product of the primary objective. This makes it permissible, but can lead to further problems if there are more biological complications. It is at points such as this that the basic natural law approach begins to fall apart. In this day and age it is becoming increasingly difficult to apply absolute moral laws to every situation that arises. On the basis of the principle, it could be argued that it is acceptable to kill thousands of Afghans so as to avoid the deaths of a few Americans. Evil 'effects' can be easily justified by claiming that they are by-products of one's actions.
There are two main approaches to ethics which are held by Christians today. Over the years it has proved to be a very controversial and widely debated issue. Catholics and certain other 'strict' denominations of the Christian church hold the view that natural law should be the means of making ethical decisions, whereas more liberal Christians consider situation ethics as a more suitable ethical system to go by.
Natural law was advocated by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. It states that all ethical decisions should be made by looking at the absolute moral laws which have been laid down for us by God. For Christians these stem from The Ten Commandments. Believers in this are known as Ethical Deontologists. They maintain that an action is intrinsically good, bad, right or wrong. When faced with a moral dilemma, one should refer to the Law, irrespectively of what the outcome will be. It is suggested that the human purpose of life is to live and reproduce, to live harmoniously, to learn and to worship God.
Problems can arise when the consequence of the decision causes more harm than good. An example of this can be found in Catholic moral theology - abortion is immoral and can never be permitted. A loophole in this law means that a surgical procedure may be acceptable even if the result of it leads to the death of a foetus. In this case abortion isn't the primary intention, but is a by-product of the primary objective. This makes it permissible, but can lead to further problems if there are more biological complications. It is at points such as this that the basic natural law approach begins to fall apart. In this day and age it is becoming increasingly difficult to apply absolute moral laws to every situation that arises. On the basis of the principle, it could be argued that it is acceptable to kill thousands of Afghans so as to avoid the deaths of a few Americans. Evil 'effects' can be easily justified by claiming that they are by-products of one's actions.
