OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]

•

Fletcher rejects the traditional Chrisian approach to ethics which he calls ‘legalism’ -basing ethics on strict rules that have to always be followed.

•

Fletcher rejects this because it fails to take the situation into account.

•

Fletcher also rejects antinomianism - the view that there are no rules at all - Fletcher rejects this as it leads to moral chaos.

•

Fletcher thinks his situation ethics is the middle ground between these extremes.

•

It focuses on one guiding principle that is applied to all situations - agape.

•

Agape means Christian love - selfless love of your neighbour.

•

An action is good or bad depending on whether it has a loving outcome.

•

Fletcher elaborated on this with the ‘four working principles’:

•

Pragmatism - must take the situation into account

•

Personalism - people are more important than rules

•

Positivism - putting agape at the centre of ethics must be taken on faith

•

Relativism - an action is only right or wrong relative to agape, i.e., depending on whether it has a loving outcome

•

Six fundamental principles: love is the: only intrinsic good, ruling norm of Christian moral decision-making which decides there and then, is what justifies the means, is the same as justice and wills the neighbour’s good whether we like them or not.

•

Conscience - Fletcher doesn’t think conscience is a ‘noun’ - he says it is not a thing that tells you what is good or bad

•

Conscience is a verb - the process of figuring out what the loving thing to do is in a situation.

•

Kant wanted to base morality on reason, because this could create a harmonious society where everyone would at least have the potential to agree about morality. If people base morality on different faith, there’s no way to agree.

•

Kant thinks we can discover a universal moral law through reason and it is our duty to follow it.

•

The good will is one which has the right moral motivation. We must do our duty out of a sense of duty - not because of our own personal feelings or desires. E.g. we should give to charity because it’s our duty - not because we feel sympathy.

•

Hypothetical vs categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are of the forms ‘you should do X if you want Y’. They are therefore dependent on our personal goals/desires/wants.

•

Kant thought that our duty must be to follow the categorical imperative - which is of the forms ‘do X’.Morality cannot be dependent on our personal feelings - so our duty must be categorical, not hypothetical.

•

The first formulation of the CA - only do an action if it is universalizable - if it is possible for everyone to do it.

•

E.g. It’s not actually possible for everyone to steal, since if everyone stole there’d be no property and then no one could steal.

•

E.g. It’s not possible for everyone to lie, since if everyone lied there’s be no honesty/trust, and then no one could lie.

•

If it’s not possible for everyone to do an action, then that action can’t be part of the universal moral law since that must apply to everyone in all situations.

•

The second formulation - always treat persons, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end.

•

Always treat people as if they have their own goals in life.

•

The third formulation - just act as if you were part of a society where everyone was following Kant’s ethics.

1.

Is there a basis for human values without God (i.e., without spiritual values).

2.

Does society do better under modern secular values compared to traditional religious values?