However, there are problems in basing your moral philosophy on God’s will. Plato posed the question
“are the things God commands good because they are commanded by God, or intrinsically good in
themselves?” If we believe that the will of God is there for our own good this infers that morality is
independent of God. There are also problems with theological moral realism for those people who do
not believe in God, or who have different beliefs. The church continues to face moral dilemmas which
cannot be answered categorically by theological moral realism. Differing interpretations of the Bible
result in arguments over issues such as should gay priests be accepted into the church.
The Christian doctrine of the Golden Rule “Love our neighbours as ourselves’ enters into philosophy in
the objective approach of Utilitarianism. However, the Golden Rule is not always a universally
applicable norm because some of us desire things for ourselves which are not necessarily commendable.
Macquarrie and Childress write that this rule is not to provide a guideline for interpersonal relations but
it is meant to get rid of our self-centredness so that we can become aware of others rights and needs
(Macquarrie and Childress 1986 pg. 250). When we look at the action itself or the motive of the person
performing the action we call this deontological eg Rule Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was devised by
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who believed that moral actions are right or wrong depending on
the consequence. Act Utilitarianism, which looks to the consequences of an action in deciding whether
it is right or wrong is a teleographical ethical theory. A Utilitarian would ask the question “What course
of action will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number?” This begs the question “how
can you define or measure ‘greatest happiness’. It can be argued that happiness is not the only end
that people pursue for its own sake because justice is sometimes pursued at the expense of a persons
happiness. Taking drugs or alcohol can be thought to give a great number of people ‘happiness’ but it
is not good for their health. Mill argued that it was only the higher and more intellectual pleasures such
as literature and music which could qualify as giving general happiness. However, these things do not
give happiness to everyone.
It is possible to interpret ‘objectivity’ in such a strong sense that it can be established only by some
form of naturalism - that is, by saying that the meaning of moral words leaves you no doubt as to what
course of action is ‘right’. These general moral principles along with statements of fact can help people
make moral judgements. However G.E Moore argues that moral principles are synthetic and therefore
they cannot be established by studying the words.
To call one act wrong calls for you to call all similar acts wrong - this is called “the universality of moral
judgements”
Ethical subjectivists believe there are no moral facts because a persons moral stance may vary with
circumstances, personal experiences etc. Subjectivists believe that they cannot say another persons
morality is wrong only that it is different from their moral opinion. A persons moral decision may say a
great deal about the person making the decision but not about what is universally right and wrong.
Emotivism is a subjective approach which believes that moral judgements are simply a matter of taste.
A.J Ayer is the main person which we associate with this view. In the same way as it would be
considered alright for a person to express their taste in music as different from another’s. They think
that it is right that individuals should decide whether to believe that abortion is murder or not. This is
dependant upon your personal emotional stance towards this issue. Somebody who is emotive would
express his own emotions or arouse similar emotions or attitudes from his audience. This is why
emotivism has sometimes been called the ‘hurrah-boo’ theory. Emotivism cannot be used to compare
one moral judgement with another because each judgement is simply an expression of that persons likes
and dislikes. A drawback of emotivism is that, because its followers believe that since moral judgements
are just an expression of personal taste then practices such as child abuse cannot be argued against
because we have no right to question others personal taste. According to the emotivist a child abuser
would be punished by law, not because he was morally wrong but because it was against the law and
societies standards of good taste. Emotivism allows people from different cultures to hold onto their
differing values for example in some Muslim countries men are allowed to marry up to four wives.
More recent prescriptivists have continued this argument further by stating that because moral
judgements are action-guided (prescriptive) and they do not come from logical deduction (the use of
terms). If you think that an act is the best in the circumstances you are most likely to choose it for
example if you had to choose between giving birth to a very deformed baby or termination you may
choose termination. However, if you might actually be morally against abortion. Advice would vary
from person to person depending on their life experiences.
Existentialist Ethics especially Jean-Paul Satre who, as an atheist, believed that living by laws is
regarded as ‘bad faith’ as human freedom is most important. Abraham is seen as a good example of
existentialism because of his faith he was willing to obey God even if it meant killing his son . This
openness to the future is thought to be more important than conforming to the past. An objective view
would be that something can be true or false because of faith, will or choice. Both facts and values are
often used when making a moral decision.
Bibliography
References are from the lecture handouts and notes excepting the following:
Macquarrie J and Childress J (1986) A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics SCM Press