The first one is legalism. This is where someone obeys the law, always sticks to what the rules say. The second is antinomianism, when people ignore or go against the law or rules. This theory lies in-between the two, this is known as Situationism. Each situation should be dealt with individually, you should remember the rules but be prepared to put them aside, it allows people to think for themselves. He believed that if one was to always to stick to the rules, it produces the 'immorality of morality'. This means that in some situations, if you go by what the law says, the outcome will be immoral.
Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
Do they use key words from the title or question?
Do they answer the question directly?
Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
"In conclusion I think that a religious ethic is by no means the only acceptable basis for medical ethics. Although some Christian ethics will provide a stable answer for every situation, an answer that will never change and therefore will have clear-cut boundaries, not every person in the world will ever be of the same religion, and therefore it cannot be universal. Therefore a non-religious ethic which everyone could agree on seems more acceptable, such as one that allows situations to be considered, because therefore a religious ethic could be used in certain circumstances if the people involved would like to do so, as that happens to be their own "situation"; similarly if someone does not want to apply a religious ethical theory then they are not obliged to do so, because again this option would apply to their situation. Therefore situationist ethics that are not based on religion can be made universal, allowing religious ethics to be applied or not according to the wishes of the people involved and this seems to me to be the only acceptable basis for medical ethics, an ethic that will allow for everyone's personal beliefs."
"To conclude, I do not firmly believe that conscience is the voice of God.
Mainly because of the difficulties which arise with conflicting consciences. There are a number of religions with competing claims about truth, making people sincerely believe different things on a wide variety of ethical and religious issues. Also, atheists say that conscience is very important to them and if they do not believe in God then how can conscience be the voice of God? Surely if conscience was the voice of God then atheists would find it hard to have conscience in their lives."
"In trying to decide then, if natural moral law can be held as a definitive ethical theory one has to realise that although the theory isn't as rigid as it first appears it is still faced with problems, which may well, be insurmountable. The conclusions of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the prohibition of activities such as artificial contraception and homosexual acts, as already shown, can be subject to convincing challenge. It is also important to note that in the absence of clear guidelines it is impossible to know definitively what is and what is not natural and so therefore rendering the issue wholly subjective. Once an issue becomes subjective, and it is difficult to produce an instance when subjectivity would be absent, natural moral law has to fail as a definitive ethical theory."
Marked by a teacher
This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read
the full teachers notes when you download the document.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay
reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document
reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.