ocr A2 how to structure applied ethics essay?

can someone please give me some tips on how to answer a question on applied ethics? like how should it be structure and what do i include?

for example if the questions "utilitarianism is the best approach to environmental issues" Discuss, do u focus on the principles of utilitarianism and then just about how this affects environmental issues or do u focus more on what the issues are etc. it sounds like a stupid question cus there is so much you can write about so it should be easy, but thats why i get confused cus i dont know which bits to pick out so i dont just randomly ramble.

any help would be much appretiated like a suggested essay plan or something, doesnt have to be on this question just any similar type questions??

Reply 1

brown

Hi, I did Ethics with AQA last year and so will offer my advice.

When evaluating the theories it is useful to have some knowledge of their general strengths and weaknesses:

Christian Ethics
- Recognises importance of deontology (intrinsic rights and wrongs) BUT might not be relevant to non-believers or other faiths
- Clear guidance on some issues, e.g. murder BUT Bible does not address many contemporary ethical issues, e.g. embryo research
Utilitarianism
- Making people happy is important to most people BUT sometimes we value pain
- Consequences are important in decision making BUT we cannot see into the future and may be wrong
- Pleasing the majority is democratic BUT can be unjust to the few/minority
Kant
- Appeals to all not just religious BUT too complicated to work out for every little moral situation
- Recognises importance of deontology BUT sometimes consequences do count
- Goodness ought to be a matter of duty rather than self-interest BUT no advice when duties conflict

In response to your question, I would apply Utilitarianism to a hypothetical situation and then compare it with all the other theories, assessing which provides the most practical approach for people today. Always refer back to the question, making sure that you weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Here is an essay I wrote last year:

'Religious views should replace Utilitarianism when applied to voluntary euthanasia'. Explain and assess this statement.

This statement implies that the view of religion (Christianity) is preferable or more helpful than the application of utilitarian theory in deciding whether it is right to allow assisted suicide. Religious believers might agree with this statement as Christianity offers clear and definite guidance to those who may consider asking another to help them die. Religion gives absolute answers: euthanasia is always wrong. The Bible clearly condemns killing. It goes against the Ten Commandments and the principle of the sanctity of life. As God gave life, only He can take it away. Human life has intrinsic value because it has been made in God’s image: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made them’ (Genesis 9:6). Utilitarianism, on the other hand, will sanction any action: voluntary euthanasia may be right or wrong depending on whether the consequences lead to more pleasure (or relief of pain) for the majority involved. Killing may be seen as a good thing to do.

Christianity can thus be seen to be a good ethical theory to apply as it protects life and never makes the taking of life easy to do. There is a clear authority and Christians will find it easy to obey God’s commands. Utilitarianism, however, is autonomous, which means that each individual can decide for themselves whether euthanasia is right or wrong. This may be seen as good, as it allows the dying patient to decide for himself when to die and thus preserves dignity. Christians would argue that this is playing God as humans have no right to take life into their own hands.

Furthermore, application of Utilitarian views may lead to a slippery slope where all kinds of evils may follow: non-voluntary euthanasia, for example, or to keep the health service economically viable, the killing off of all old people. Utilitarianism may advocate euthanasia on the grounds that it is more compassionate to relieve suffering and protect the dignity of the individual, however Christians may point out that this is best achieved by caring for the dying in hospices, not by killing them.

However, there are problems in the application of Christian views. Although all churches condemn voluntary euthanasia, many individuals argue that it is more compassionate to relieve pain and that quality of life should take precedence over sanctity of life. Others may point out that there is inconsistency in the Bible teaching: it never mentions voluntary euthanasia as this is a modern dilemma caused often by technology which keeps people alive unnaturally, and also there is teaching such as Jesus’ 'the greatest command is to love one another', which might be used by a relative to relieve the pain of a dying patient by causing death. Some may see the biblical teaching as harsh and going against the autonomy of the patient. Indeed modern Utilitarians like Peter Singer argue that the old ‘Western Ethic’ is collapsing and the old commandment ‘do not kill’ should be replaced by a rule which states that we should appreciate that the quality of human life varies. Utilitarians would argue that Christian teaching is far from compassionate as it is not loving to watch someone dying in great pain and loss of dignity and do nothing to assist.

Christians would respond to these criticisms by drawing attention to Pope Jean Paul’s dictate: ‘do not kill but do not strive unnecessarily to keep alive’ which means that it is not humane to keep someone alive by using extraordinary means: far better to relieve pain and allow death to occur naturally. This is not killing but a compassionate treatment of the dying.

In conclusion, the debate on voluntary euthanasia will continue and whilst some counties have already adopted utilitarian applications in Britain the law follows Christian principles which forbid the taking of life even for good reasons. Those who wish to change the law argue that this is not humane but ultimately any ethical theory which does not value life itself is less humane than those which do put a high value on life. So religious principles ought to replace Utilitarian thinking on voluntary euthanasia.

Hope that helps :smile:

Reply 2

vixi1

Thank you that was a big help. so i need to focus on the ethical theories and comparing them rather than the issue itself. nice one. thats what i would have logically have thought originally but our teacher has given us LOADS of stuff on the issues but i dnt think we need it all just an outline so it confused me.
anyhoo tar muchly

Reply 3

brown

Well obviously the issues are important, but it is an 'evaluative' question so you need to assess the theories. If it were an 'explain' type question, then you would need to talk about the issues in more depth.