May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Religious Ethics for A2 OCR

Free Will and Determinism:
There are three main approaches to freedom:
1. Hard Determinism: Humans cannot be morally blameworthy because their actions are
determined.
2. Soft Determinism: Some human actions are determined but we still have moral
responsibility.
3. Libertarians: Humans are free to act and as such are morally responsible for their actions.
Hard Determinism:
Baruch Spinoza: In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is
determined to will this or that by a cause, which has been determined by another
cause and so on to infinity.
Hard determinism holds that everything in the universe has a cause. This includes all
human activity.
If we know all the events that lead to an action then we theoretically should be able to
predict the action. Freedom is an illusion.
It is incompatible with both free will and moral responsibility.
Hard Determinism poses a real problem for morality what we ought and ought not
to do.
The problem is what if they could not have done anything else? Does it make sense
to punish people for their crimes?
Philosophers:
John Hospers: believed that we cannot be held morally blameworthy for our actions.
We recognise a kleptomaniac as having a powerful compulsion to steel, but it is unfair
on the person because we do not fully understand what motivates them. He is quoted
saying morality is a victim of circumstances and it is all a matter of luck.
Clarence Darrow: was an American defence lawyer who defended to boys (Leopold
and Lobe) who murdered a 14 year old boy. He convinced the court that the boys
should have a life sentence as opposed to the suggested death sentence, as they were
a product of their upbringing. Darrow believed people should be sent to prison for
their actions but it shouldnt be assumed they are responsible. I know nothing
happens in this world without a cause.
John. B. Watson: behaviour can be predicted and controlled as people live and act in
a determined universe so that all human behaviour including ethical decisions is
controlled by prior causes which are knowable (in principle).
John Locke: Freedom is an illusion. We only think we chose freely because we
dont know the causes that lie behind the choices. Illustrates this with the analogy of a
sleeping man who wakes up in a locked room. On awakening he decides to stay where
he is, not realising the door was locked. He believes hes making the decision but in
reality he has no choice.
Ted Honderich: everything is determined, no choice or responsibility, not even any
self within us that is the origin of our actions. No room for moral blame, therefore
no point for punishment, no room for freewill.
Critical Evaluation:
Promotes the idea of rehabilitation over punishment. This will mean those who do
wrong will be fixed and can then be forgiven.
It is wrong to punish people if they are not responsible so if youre fixing them then
you avoid an injustice.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Evidence for it is presented by Derren Brown He convinces Simon Peg that he

wanted a BMX bike by using outside influences to convince him he wanted
something else.
People would not be morally responsible, and so do not deserve blame for even the
most cold blooded and calmly performed evil actions.
Means we cannot blame or praise people for their actions, very hard to accept if a
child has been murdered and the murderer cannot be blames.
Classical Physics is indeed deterministic, but modern quantum physics is not
deterministic and so it makes no sense to worry about determinism in the 21st century,
modern physics maintains that the most basic laws of nature are NOT deterministic
but POBABILISTIC.
If hard determinism is true then all the horrible things in the world had to happen
this is a very pessimistic view of the world.
Incompatible with the God of Classical Theism Free Will.
Removes all responsibility, control and arguably meaning from our lives. How are
you meant to do your best or be motivated if life is determined?
Soft Determinism (compatibilist):
Some of our actions are determined but we are still morally responsible for our
actions.
They argue that there is confusion between determinism and fatalism (all things
happen by inevitable necessity) about what we mean by freedom of choice. Freedom
of choice is not compatible with fatalism, what ever will be will be, which says that
nobody can change the course of events, but is compatible with determinism, a theory
of universal causation if we include our own values, choices and desires among the
choices determine our actions.
Determinism is compatible with whatever sort of freedom is necessary for moral
responsibility.
NOT a position that combines deterministic and libertarian, NOT a compromise,
doesnt limit free will, BUT is a position taken due to the need to have some
accountability and responsibility for human behaviour.
We are not free to fly just by using our own bodies to propel us through the air this
misuses the word free. Soft Determinism changes being free from being able to
choose, to being physically able to do.
We are morally responsible for, and can reasonably be punished and praised for those
actions which are caused by our own desires and decisions.
Philosophers:
Immanuel Kant: Determinism applies to everything which is the object of
knowledge; but NOT to acts of the will. People work from two different & seemingly
incompatible standpoints: the theoretical (pure reason) and the practical (practical
reason.)
- Pure reason = knowledge, the mind, and the way we see the scientifically explicable
world.
- Practical reason = actions, the will, and the way we see ourselves as free.
- Kants argument is that our won self-awareness, without which the world would not
make sense to us, forces on us the idea that we are free so we cannot get rid of the
idea we are free without ceasing to see ourselves as the originator of our actions.
Steven Pinker: looked at it from another angle. We Looked at Darwins ideas that
emotions such as guilt/love/anger etc. have a biological basis. He developed a theory

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

that our moral reasoning is a result of natural selection, but claims this didnt the end
of moral responsibility. E.g. evolution might predispose men to violence, but this
doesnt excuse it as our moral sense is innate, within us and so is as real for us as if it
were decreed by the almighty or written in the Cosmos.
Richard Dawkins: Completely agrees with Pinker. However, if our reasoning is a
result of natural selection, then how can we be held morally responsible?
Critical Evaluation:
There is no proof (had unquestionable evidence) for either hard determinism or
libertarianism. Theoretically it makes sense to try and find a balance between the two.
Makes the two compatible a determined world with responsibility.
It is okay that its vague because it is a very difficult line to draw and explain.
It allows for creativity in our choices, so not all our choices are the result of existing
desires or habits.
Soft Determinism agrees that moral responsibility is important in our society, but it is
not reasonable to hold a person responsible for actions caused by his emotions,
beliefs, desires, and decisions if he has no choice about having them makes logical
sense.
However, it is hard for Soft Determinists do decide what exactly is determined and
what can be freely chosen. The complex nature of people and the roles of physics,
genetics, and psychology make deciding what exactly is, or is not, a determining
factor very hard.
Doesnt give specific guidelines as to what is/isnt determined.
If everything can be influenced by so many factors which ones are deterministic?
Struggles to decide which actions are determined as psychology, social conditioning,
and genetics make decision making far more complex than it can possibly be, not
practical.
Arguably misses the point not arguing or justifying anything.
At the same time it denies both libertarianism and Hard Determinism, but also doesnt
with Hard Determinism it fails to realise freedom is limited but with Libertarianism it
fails to realise the true extent of human freedom.
Libertarianism:
Rejects determinism because it rejects moral responsibility; and it argues that we have
a sense of freedom to act.
Also called incompatibilist because they maintain that free will is incompatible with
determinism.
They dont however reject determinism all together. They agree that the innate world
is determined but they deny that causation applies to human action.
(Link to Hard Determinism) Hospers: It may well be that the Kleptomaniac left on his
own in a shop will steel, but no one can ever be certain of this.
They make the distinction between your personality and moral self. Your personality
is determined by causal laws and influences, but your moral self CAN COUNTER
those tendencies.
Main Arguments for Libertarianism:
1. Most common argument is that we see ourselves as free agents, not robots. We
commonly have the experience of a self- determining creature. We blame ourselves
when we do wrong and we have the experience in deciding between tea and coffee,
which book to read etc. we consciously know that we are making that final decision.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

2. The second argument analyses the way in which we make decisions. When we make a
choice we acknowledge that: a) we do not already know what we are going to do; and
b) it is in our power to do what we are thinking of doing. When we make decisions we
believe that we are free to make them.
3. A 3rd argument disputes the case that all events have a cause. Modern physics
currently upholds the belief that something can come from nothing. Human choice
could be the first cause. However, you could argue that this misses the point the
opposite of causation is randomness and you cannot be morally responsible in a truly
random world either.
Philosophers:
Peter Van Inwagen: Analogy of the Road, determinism only has the one road, but
libertarianism has many branches of choice off of it. + We can relate to this in terms
of the debate and life but These branches could be an illusion, he doesnt explain the
illusion.
Werner Heisenberg: We cannot know both the location and momentum of subatomic
particles at the same time. Better to refer to statistical possibilities rather than general
laws. Science shows things dont NEED a cause = random & undetermined. This
would mean there would be no order.
Jean-Paul Satre: Man is not free not to be free we are 100% responsible for our
actions this is the purpose/meaning to our lives and life is meaningless without free
will. There is no evidence; he is just pointing to the point.
Critical Evaluation:
Recognises that people have a sense of decision-making, a sense of freedom, a sense
of deliberating over their choices of life.
Gives us purpose and responsibility in our lives which underpins our whole system of
ethics and law.
We see ourselves as free agents.
Fact we see ourselves as free agents could just be an illusion. There is no proof of it.
Also, doesnt explain human actions.
How does a person decide what to do?
Doesnt account for human motive which is always caused by something.
Must be actions we cant control/alter e.g. genetics/psychology.
Almost un-doubtable that our background and past experiences determine our actions.
The Influences of Psychology or Moral Choices:
Psychology is the systematic study of behaviour and the psychological and cognitive
processes that underlie it. It aims to describe, explain and predict and modify human
behaviour. 4 main approaches:
Learning Approach:
Also known as the behavioural approach.
Its all due to experience.
John Watson said behaviour can be predicted and controlled and that we learn from
observing our environment and the people in it.
Physiological Approach:
Also known as the biological approach.
Looks into the physical influences on our behaviour.
Our genetics and our endocrine system (hormones).
Our nervous system including the brain.
Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Psychodynamic Approach:
It is all in our subconscious.
It all stems from Freud.
The way we behave as adults is rooted in our childhood experiences.
Our behaviour is affected & shaped by the unconscious mind.
Cognitive Approach:
Looks at the mental process in determining how we process information, develop
language, solve problems and think.
How we receive our information determines how we interpret/respond to events.
Influence of Social Conditioning:
People think/act in line with their social conditioning, rather than through genetically
determined factors or real freedom of choice, has a distinct social cause.
Therefore all our actions are caused by something within society.
Thomas Sowell: Social conditioning is the idea that human self is infinitely plastic,
allowing humanity to be changed and ultimately perfected.
Our social learning and placement is what determines our actions and we can do
nothing else but follow the sociologically determined path.
Influence of Genetics:
Almost all physical and behavioural aspects of humanity are controlled by genetics.
Other influences play a part, but difficult to escape our genes. Evolved through being
determined by our genes. Pinker Reasoning is a result of natural selection. Humans
have moral responsibility, yet an innate sense of morality.
The Influence of the Environment:
Environmental determinism suggests that geography and climate influences
individuals much more than social conditioning does.
Historically our climate contributes to our actions as it affects the behaviour of our
society. E.g. tropical climates = laziness and promiscuity; Europe = Hard working.
The Role of the Conscience
Conscience is our moral sense of right and wrong.
4 key questions to keep in mind when considering the nature and function:
What is conscience?; Where does it come from?; Innate or acquired?; What is its
function in ethical decision making?
There are two main views that influence the stance people have:
1. Religious Views: Biblical teaching, Divine Command Theory (Augustine, Butler
etc.).
2. Secular Views: Psychological, sociological, humanitarian and authoritarian.
St. Augustine of Hippo:
Believed that divine love binds all the aspects of virtue to the one virtue which is God,
and that conscience emerges from the outflow of divine love.
The conscience is Gods love poured forth to human beings: it is when God speaks to
the individual and it reveals itself in solitary moments.
To be identified with the voice of God speaking to us. When we listen to it we are
really listening to God whispering to us about what is right and wrong.
Return to your conscience question it see God as your witness.
Critical Evaluation:

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

1st problem is that it cannot be questioned. It is the infallible voice of God, which is
hard for some that it cannot be contradicted, especially when it goes against the
teachings of God.
Not possible to verify whether it is the voice of God, or self-delusion.
Some have an issue with a God who contradicts himself. If the conscience of one
individual lead them to do precisely the opposite to someone-else.
E.g. 1551, protestant citizens of Toulouse rose in revolt against their Catholic rulers.
They were lead by their consciences to do so. Several weeks later they were
butchered by Catholics, whose consciences told them Protestantism was a cancer to
the French state that must be destroyed. You could argue neither side demonstrated
Agape nor the love of God.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Reason seeking understanding
Centred on Natural Law, and is part of an intellectual, rational approach to derive
from basic laws which ought to be done in a particular situation.
It is linked to the moral virtues and the Golden Mean. (see virtue ethics)
- Application of knowledge to activity.
Aquinas distinguishes between Synderesis (Greek conscience) and Concienta (Latin).
Synderesis: identified with right reason, an intellectual process of gaining
knowledge and sifting through evidence logically. It is not a command.
Concienta: the process of applying right reason to a specific issue.
Conscience for Aquinas comprises these two elements: the application of right reason
to life issues.
Critical Evaluation:
Aquinas view has certain weaknesses:
1. The same natural yet ethical laws guide all human beings. Different societies may
have different moral laws and as a result their consciences may vary.
2. The conscience of each human-being points to the Telos of goodness, which is not
variable from person to person. How is sense to be made of the fact that people can
reach totally different conclusions on important ethical issues? Aquinass counter
argument would be that this wouldnt be the case if right reason were employed.
3. The conscience is grounded in natural Law. It is argued that the fundamental
understanding of nature that this theory is based on is no longer consistent with a
modern understanding of how nature works.
4. Principles can be linked to reality\: theory to application. Something precedes its
existence .moral principles examined in the conscience lead to practical, material
decisions. Butler argues this is an impossible step from moral principle to an action.
Some Christians would say Aquinas rationalistic approach doesnt consider that
revelation comes directly from God. Aquinas could respond by arguing conscience is
reasoning used correctly to find out what God sees as good.
Judith Butler: Conscience comes from God.
Like Aquinas, he believed conscience could determine and judge the
rightness/wrongness of an action and thoughts.
Conscience holds a powerful position within human decision making because, it
magisterially exerts itself spontaneously without being consulted.
He gave to conscience the final say in moral decision making.
He believed the conscience came from God. God-given guide that must always be
followed.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

He says conscience obviously exists; it comes from God and must be obeyed if a
person is to be happy. He didnt see mistakes as a problem as he believed that in any
moral dilemma most people will see intuitively what is the right thing to do.
Critical Evaluation:
Self-esteem should not be the basis of conscience that doesnt exist to make humans
think they are good but to convict them when they are wrong.
It could be argued that criminals are not wrongdoers though lack of self-respect but
not too much self-regard.
The optimism of this view of human nature has been undermined by the atrocities of
the twentieth century. Tragedies such as the holocaust shows that nature is in fact
brutal, undermining this view.
Freud: Conscience is guilt:
For Freud the conscience is most clearly connected with the sense of guilt we feel
when we go against it. It is a simple construct of the mind.
Didnt believe in any absolute moral laws, and held that all our moral codes are
shaped by our experiences. Culturally dependent, explaining the varieties of moral
codes in different societies.
1. The Super-Ego: Set of moral controls given to us by outside influences. It is our moral
code or conscience and is often in conflict with the id.
2. The Ego: The conscious self; the part seen by the outside world.
3. The Id: the part of the mind containing the basic drives and repressed memories. It is
amoral, and has no concerns about right and wrong, only concerned with itself.
Critical Evaluation:
Being relativist in nature weakens this psychological approach no meaning to it.
Human beings share many things in common but also have minds that are
individually unique. Conscience will vary from person to person, making obeying
your conscience a meaningless concept.
Your conscience is merely obeying what your mind tells you to do. This is hardly an
objective source of moral truth.
The conscience has become the inner voice rather than the voice of God.
All these criticisms are only valid if Freud was a theist, however he is an atheist and
these just cement his argument.
Fromm: Authoritarian and Humanistic:
Authoritarian Conscience:
All humans are influenced by external authorities, parents, teachers, church leaders,
who apply rules and punishments for breaking them, and that these rules are then
internalised by the individual.
Our sense of moral right and wrong is formed in us by authority figures that we have
a desire to obey.
Disobedience results in guilt, weakening of our power and making us more
submissive to authority.
Fromm escaped Nazi Germany in 1934 he was a Marxist.
A guilty conscience is a result of displeasing authority, and if that authority is God
then the fear of being reprimanded will have a powerful influence on an individual.
Humanistic Conscience: (Fromms view changed over time)
He saw the humanistic conscience as much healthier, as it assesses/evaluates
behaviour.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

We use our own discoveries in life and the teachings/examples of others to give us
personal integrity and moral honesty, quite the opposite of the slavish obedience and
conformity of the authoritarian conscience.
May conflict with Aquinas, Butler and Newman but doesnt rule out God having a
role in our conscience.
Critical Evaluation:
Fromm argues that humans are predetermined creatures, which sits uncomfortably
with his view that life offers hope.
How is it possible to rise above alienation if we are determined to be alienated?
Fromm argued that to be set free it is necessary to be conscious/a person of
conscience.
Critics argue Fromm analysed the situation but didnt establish the cause.
They also question whether the conscience works to give hope, love and joy.
Michael Foucault argued the conscience acts to condemn, not liberate, the individual.
How is a conscience based on the love of and love for life to be used?
Fromm argued it is to enhance the quality of life, and designed to empower every
individual.
Piaget: Not everyone has the same conscience
Moral character is a train journey. You start at situation A and end at C. There are
broardly two types of people.
The first type gets off at station B and do not complete their moral journey:
development stunted.
The rest reach station C and whilst en route their character and moral sense has been
allowed to develop fully.
He described two types of conscience:
1. Heteronomous Morality: Early years until 9 or 10 and the child doesnt decide their
own moral stance. Decided by authority (parents etc.). Based on observation of rules,
and punishment when rules have been disobeyed, some never develop beyond this
stage. They may have God as their authority figure.
2. Autonomous Morality: Those who continue become mature enough to decide what
is morally good for them. Morality is self-disciplined, not external.
Critical Evaluation:
Simplicity of the theory regarded as a major weakness.
Another weakness is the dependence on empirical and questionable studies on
children.
Some question the claims that Piaget to have found a rout through which all humans
travel in their discovery of a moral conscience.
Many modern philosophers/psychologists question the importance given to human
nature.
Innate or Acquired?
Conscience needs two things to work successfully freedom; and a knowledge of the
Good.
Unless you are free, your conscience is pointless.
Conscience implies an innate knowledge of what is good. if it is innate then
everyone should have one and they should all be almost identical.
However, people have different ideas of what is right when faced with a moral
situation and hold different moral principles.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Freud and other psychologists challenge the traditional idea of conscience but the
question is whether it is the conscience itself that is acquired, or the moral skills.
The skill may be innate, but the moral principles that guide it seem to be
acquired.
Meta Ethics
Meta Ethics is centred on what we mean by Good and bad; Right and wrong
etc.
It is the analysis of ethical language. It goes beyond the ethical theories to look at
what is meant by the terms we use in ethics.
Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about
what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false,
as they may be expressions of points of view that are not shared by everyone.
Words such as: Good, bad, right, wrong, ought, mean, are used in everyday life and
most the time are used as ways of expressing opinions.
There are 4 main areas in Meta Ethics:
1. Naturalism Statements of fact
2. Intuitionism We intuitively know what god, bad etc. are but we cant describe it.
3. Emotivism All (moral) statements are emotions
4. Prescriptivism Ethical terms are emotive, but we also prescribe these to others.
Naturalism F. H. Bradley (1846-1924):
You can empirically prove right and wrong.
All ethical statements are the same as non-ethical (natural) ones.
They are all factual and can, therefore, be verified or falsified.
There are two types of naturalism: Theological Naturalism: Goodness is linked to the
will of God as seen in nature. Gods will defines morality (murder is wrong because
God commands against murder). The alternative is Hedonic Naturalism: Goodness is
a fact of pleasure or happiness.
Critical Evaluation: (The Naturalistic Fallacy)
G. E. Moore COMPLETELY disagreed with naturalism. He based his argument on
Hume, who thinks that to derive an ought from an is is logically invalid.
We cannot infer from a description of how the world is to how the world ought to
be.
Moore said goodness is indefinable. The naturalistic fallacy says Naturalism has it
wrong. Agreed with Hume, you cant make an ought into an is.
You can always ask after a physical property, is it good? because it is an open
question that can be asked after anything obviously not a physical property.
Open Question Argument: You cant make goodness a natural property e.g.
Naturalism says happiness is Good. This cant be true because then you could say
god is good if it were a physical property, but it isnt. You cant ask that because you
could make anything good.
Intuitionism G. E. Moore (1873-1958):
We know what is good, but we just cant define it.
All of us know what is good but we just cannot explain it.
G. E. Moore said: Goodness is indefinable as yellow is indefinable, because yellow
is already in its SIMPLEST FORM. Good is good.
Good is a simple, analysable property, just as a primary colour is.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

The only things that are indefinable are things at their simplest form. Goodness exists
out there, we all know what it is, but cannot define it.
W. D. Ross: (1877-1971)
Agreed with intuitionism, We intuitively know we have the duty to fulfil certain
duties, similar to Kant. He called these the Prima Facy Duties:
1. Duties of Fidelity; 2. Duties of beneficence (helping others); 3. Duties of
gratitude; 4. Duties of justice; 5. Duties of reparations; 6. Duties of selfimprovement; 7. Duties of non-maleficence (not harming others).
Prima Facy Duties are right. Judgement must be used to decide what to do in any
situation. One duty can be rejected in favour of another.
H. A. Prichard: 1871-1947:
You can link Prichard with Aquinass reason and intuitive obligation.
We use our reason to work out what is right or wrong.
No definition can be given to ought but we recognise its properties.
Pritchard felt there were two types of thinking: Reason and Intuition:
Reason: Looks at the facts of a situation. Intuition: Decides what to do.
Thought that in any situation, intuition would show which particular action as right
and where moral obligations lay.
Recognised the problem that peoples morals are different, but said this was because
some people had developed their moral thinking further than others (on different
levels).
Critical Evaluation:
The Idea of knowing what is good by intuition and not by any empiracle evidence is
not proved conclusively by Moore who says you either agree with him or have
never thought about it properly.
If the naturalistic fallacy shows you can infer value judgements from natural facts by
means of evidence obtained through the senses then the introduction of non-natural
facts & a special intuition simply shrouds the whole issue in misery.
P. 168 doesnt account for different people. Good and bad a reflection of our social
upbringing.
Emotivism: A. J. Ayer:
Non-Cognitivism: Ethical statements reflect emotions, not being proved true or false.
Ethical language is not telling you factually what is true or false, it is in fact trying to
express an emotion and also inspire an emotional response from the other reason.
A. J. Ayer set up the Vienna Circle and the Verification Principle. He argued that there
are two meaningful types of ethical statements:
- Analytic: Statements which are true by definition.
- Synthetic: can be true or false and be tested using experience or senses.
Ayer is proving ethical language is meaningless because there are neither analytic or
synthetic (the only meaningful types of statements) and in the end all were doing is
expressing a feeling.
Because you cannot verify ethical statements they are simply, Boo/Hurrah.
When we say, Murder is wrong, we are really saying Boo to murder.
When we say, Charity is good, we are really saying Hurrah to charity.
C. L. Stevenson:
Ethical statements are attitudes based on beliefs about the world.
Ethical statements are attempts to influence the views of others.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Ethical statements are subjective opinions.

When an individual is making a moral judgement es not only giving vent to his
feelings, but also trying to influence others attitudes.
Connects caring, approving, disapproving, with the very meaning of the ethical
words.
This means ethical statements can be based on emotions; however, these are not
merely arbitrary, but rather are based on our experience of the world and how we want
it to be.
Stevenson saw ethical statements as not only expressions of emotions, but also the
result of attitudes based on fundamental beliefs, ethical disagreements between people
are disagreements about fundamental principles.
Critical Evaluation:
When criticising emotivism it is important to remember it does not purport to be an
ethical theory, but is simply an analysis of the nature and content of ethical language.
However, Rachels does point out moral judgements appeal to reason; they arent just
expressions of feelings, so whereas the statement I like orange smarties needs no
reason, moral judgements do or else they are arbitrary.
Ayer does suggest that ethical statements are more than simply expressions of
feeling, but have the intention to stimulate others to act in the way people feel
is right.
Stevenson addresses this further by asking: Why should one persons feeling about a
matter be better than those of another? However, all emotivism can do is draw
attention to the reasons people have different views. History shows us stimulating
people to act through powerful and emotional speeches and have undesirable results
(e.g. Hitler).
Can be seen as allowing a complete freedom on grounds that everyones opinion is
equally valid.
Prescriptivism: R. M. Hare):
Ethical statements have an intrinsic sense so other people should agree with the
statements and follow it.
The role of ethical statements is to say what ought to be done and such prescriptions
are moral because they are universal.
Simplified summary of Hares Prescriptivism:
1. Ethical statements are universal.
2. Ethical statements are expressions of opinion.
3. Theyre not just expressing our views, but prescribing (ordering) them to others.
4. Hares Golden Rule was Do unto others what you would want done unto you.
Jesus.
E.g. I believe this shouldnt happen, so therefore neither should you.
Prescriptivism is similar to emotivism but is much stronger when
ordering/prescribing.
If we use the word good in a a moral sense, we are using a set of standards that
apply to a person or an action and we commend hat person or that action.
Argument attempted to show ethical language is prescriptive: to say what ought to be
done and are universal.
Hare argues that however we use the word good, we always do so in relation to a set
of standards, meaning the word good always has a descriptive meaning. But it can
Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

also have a prescriptive meaning with words that both commend and describe e.g.
Steal and Murder.
Hare said the difference is that Stealing is wrong really means You ought not to
steal and neither will I.
Prescriptivism holds that, to achieve consistency in moral judgements. When we say
someone else ought to do something, we ought to as well.
Prescriptions happen one at a time, and only apply to that situation, but that situation
it applies universally.
Critical Evaluation:
If moral judgements are founded on prescriptions, it still doesnt mean there is a valid
reason for following one persons prescriptions rather than anothers.
It doesnt necessarily mean morals are universal preferences are different.
However, Hare recognised this by saying the only constraint is that one should put
oneself in anothers shoes before making the judgement.
Despite this, this doesnt stop lunatics or fanatics.
Prescriptivism holds ought judgements are universalisable prescriptives and not
truth claims, this goes against the way people approach ethics in everyday lives.
People generally do think that it is wrong to steal or kill etc. but according to Hare we
could just as easily chose the opposite if we wished and we could change our moral
principles as we choose or as our circumstances alter.
Meta-ethics differs from normative ethics (Natural Moral Law, Kant, Utilitarianism etc.)
because it is about trying to make sense of all the terms and concepts used within it. Not
about observable facts, but there is often confusion around the meaning behind the word
Good, bad, right and wrong.
Ethical Naturalism/Cognitivism: A theory that moral values can be derived from sense
experience.
Ethical Non-Naturalism/Cognitivism: Ethical statements cannot be derived from senseexperiences.
Virtue Ethics
The simplest way to understand virtue ethics is to split it into the 3 sections it concerns itself
with: Who am I?
Who ought I to become?
How do I get there?
Mini-Glossary: Eudemonia = the final goal of all human activity, wellbeing, happiness, &
human flourishing; Virtue = Habitually doing what is right being good requires the practice
of certain kinds of behaviour; Cardinal Virtues: Originated with Plato Prudence, Justice,
Temperance, Courage 3 Virtues of faith, hope and charity.
Plato and Virtue:
Centres around the achievement of mans highest good, involving inner wellbeing
and his eudemonia or happiness. The Cardinal Virtues:
Temperance
Courage
Prudence
Justice
Not all of the Ancient Greeks agreed with this, and Aristotle is the leading thinker.
Aristotle and Virtue:
Aristotle saw there were two types of virtue:
1. Intellectual Virtues: Which are developed by training and education.
2. Moral Virtues: Which are developed by habit.
Aristotle didnt disagree with Plato but expanded on his cardinal virtues.
He came up with the Golden Mean which is the medium within his virtues and is
key.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

For example, Aristotle expresses the importance of self-love, which means selfrespect. This is good but only within reason. In excess it becomes arrogance and a
deficiency in this would be servility. Therefore it is important to find the Golden
mean.
Reason is practical and involves understanding and responding = 1. Teaching 2.
Reflecting 3. Understanding 4. Reflecting/thinking yourself 5. Practice of
Virtues.
G. E. M. Anscombe:
1958 paper, Modern Moral Philosophy - Modern moral philosophy is misguided by
asking if there can be any moral laws if there is no God what do right and wrong
mean without a lawgiver?
Suggests the answer is the idea of eudemonia and human flourishing which doesnt
depend on any God. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism dont depend on a God but are
both act based.
She says act-based doesnt make sense because it ignores a belief people no longer
hold, and in stressing the principle of autonomy neglects community aspect of
morality.
Philippa Foot:
Attempts to modernise Aristotles virtue ethics. Recognises the importance of own
reasoning, and claims the virtues benefit the individual by leading to flourishing and
the virtuous person does far more than simply conform to the conventions of society.
Virtue doesnt operate as a virtue when turned to a bad end. (You need courage to
murder).
Virtues are good for us, helping to correct harmful human passions and temptations.
Alasdair MacIntyre:
He focuses on moral problems in amking the most of an entire human life.
He emphasises the importance of moral goods rather than ideas such as the obligation
of a moral agent or the consequences of a particular moral act.
(see meta-ethics) Most peoples attitudes today are based on emotivism.
Morality should be seen in terms of human purpose, but felt it wouldnt be possible to
restore Aristotles theory of unction, so he attempts to make human function (and
therefore virtue) depend on community.
The virtues evolve and improve through time and there is a difference between the
Homeric Virtues (e.g. Strength, courage, honour) and Aristotelian Virtues (e.g.
justice, temperance).
Rosalind Hurthouse:
Very Aristotelian framework, but she doesnt agree with all his conclusions.
Defends that virtues are virtues because they helpa person achieve eudemonia and
therefore living a virtuous life is a good thing.
Being virtuous is the most reliable path to flourishing no other path is reliable.
Addresses the criticism: Provides us with no guidance, by showing how a virtuous
person will think about a moral dilemma.
Michael Slote:
Virtue ethics is mostly based on common-sense ideas and intuitions in categorising
virtues.
Uses the word admirable rather than good or excellent which require explaining.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Describes virtue as an inner trait or disposition of the individual so virtue is a kind of

balanced caring between those close to us and people in general.
Feminism and Virtue: (Annette Baier)
Men often think morally in terms of justice and autonomy, which could be seen as
masculine traits, whereas women think in terms of caring, nurturing and selfsacrifices.
Advocates taking account of our natural biases.
Critical Evaluation:
Strengths:
Avoids having to use a formula e.g. greatest good for the greatest number, to work out
what we ought to do, focusing on the kind of person we ought to be.
Understands the need to distinguish good people from legalists just because one
obeys the laws/rules, doesnt make one a good person.
Stresses the importance of: motivating people to want to be good; the importance of
education in showing good actions are their own reward and whos how we acquire
and learn virtues by imitating others.
Tells us how we learn moral principles and involves our entire life every moment
even the most mundane, is an opportunity for developing a virtue.
Enables us to integrate many aspects of life into our ethical reflection; looks at what is
right or wrong in a particular situation or moment in our lives. Doesnt reject
emotions but includes them, and is more in tune with how we react to ethical
dilemmas. Relates ethical choices to the bigger picture.
Considered good to be biased in favour of family and friends, unlike Kant or
Utilitarianism.
Doesnt pretend to be able to tell us what to do in every situation, but encourages us to
be more like a person who doesnt need decisions made for us.
Weaknesses:
One major difficulty is identifying the virtues. Are they culturally relative?
Robert Louden: how do you apply it to moral dilemmas? Doesnt help us as it doesnt
give clear rules for action. No concrete answers so is it any use?
Seems to praise some virtues that we might see as immoral (e.g. courage in war).
Louden also points out it is difficult to decide who is virtuous many appear virtuous
on the outside but might not have good virtues, and vice versa.
No room for basic concepts such as rights and obligations, so incapable od dealing
with big issues doesnt always have a view on what makes an act right or wrong.
Depends on some final end which gives shape to our lives there may not be one and
being virtuous may not affect it anyway.
Applied Ethics Ethical Recap
Natural Moral Law:
1. Preservation of Life Dont commit suicide; dont switch off life support machines.
2. Reproduction Permits IVF and surrogacy; contraception is wrong.
3. Educating the Young Education is free; schooling is compulsory.
4. Living in a Society Build more homes; encourage communal activities.
5. Worshiping God Set one day a week aside for worship; whole school chapel
services.
Kantian Ethics:

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

The Categorical Imperative: Moral commands, dont begin with an if. Tells
everyone what to do and doesnt depend on anything. According to Kant, they apply
to everyone because theyre based on objective a priori laws of reason.
Maxims:
1. Universalization: Do not act on any principle that cannot be universalised. If it is
wrong for one person then it is wrong for all people.
2. Treat Humans as ends in themselves: No use of an individual for the sake of many.
We should not promote one persons happiness if it prevents anothers.
3. Act as if you live in a Kingdom of Ends: Act as if somebody is always going to be
obeying a rule. You cannot act on a rule that assumes others do not treat people as
send. Make your decisions based on assuming everyone will be acting morally.
Utilitarianism:
Act:
Jeremy Bentham Principle of utility: Greatest good for the greatest number.
An action is right if it delivers more pleasure than pain.
Calculated using the Hedonic Calculus:
1. Intensity of the pleasure; 2. Duration of the pleasure (how long); 3. Certainty of the
pleasure; 4. Remoteness of the pleasure (near/far); 5. Chance of succession; 6. Purity
of pleasure; 7. The extent of the pleasure (universal).
Rule:
John Stuart Mill Quality of the pleasure, rather than quantity. Also a hedonist.
Modifies Benthams approach to which is more quantitative. Some pleasures are
greater than others which make Mills more qualitative.
Absurd not to consider quality with quantity:
- Each person desires their own happiness Each person ought to aim at their
happiness therefore ought to aim for the happiness of everyone.
We should promote common good in search of greatest happiness.
Preference:
Judges morality according to whether they fit in with the preferences of the
individuals involved. What would I prefer?
The greatest good for the greatest number but consider preference of others to achieve
this.
Equal consideration of preferences everyone is weighed equally.
Sexual Ethics
Utilitarianism:
The consequentialist nature of utilitarianism and its focus on the pleasure/ pain which
arises from an action, leads us to analyse sex in a way of merely considering how
pleasurable it is. For example, traditional utilitarianism, Benthams quantitative
outlook, may say it is good for one to masturbate over a picture of a rape victim if it
brings about pleasure as the victim will never know therefore she cannot feel any
pain.
However, developments in the utilitarian movement have accounted for this flaw in
the theory. For example, Hares focus on preferences in utilitarianism now considers
what the victim's preferences would have been, thus forbidding the action which we
clearly feel is bad anyway.
When considering the issue of homosexuality the failings of Hares preference theory
become evident. For example, in the deep south of America where conservative,
Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

prejudiced opinions are dominant, homosexuality would almost certainly be declared

wrong if a cross section of beliefs were considered. However, if an opinion poll was
taken in New York then the more liberal population would conclude that same sex
marriage is acceptable or good. This is a fault in Hares theory as we view some
peoples opinions as simply wrong, for example, should a paedophiles preference be
taken into account just as a heterosexual who was attracted to people his/her own age.
[Some people would disagree with this analysis. I might feel that my views are more
important than those of less-educated people, racist or homophobic people, but the
idea of democracy is that everyone has a right to their own opinion. It may in fact be
strength of Hare's theory that it considers all preferences. What results is a relativist
theory - homosexuality was unacceptable 50 years ago but is now acceptable.
On the issue of consent, whether a person consents to sex does not seem relevant to a
utilitarian. If one was to be involved in a sexual act without their consent but they got
pleasure from this act, then consent was not necessary or good. However, this view
is induced from Benthams theory and by using an act utilitarian stand point. For
example, if one asked a utilitarian whether it was good to have sex with someone who
has not consented then the overwhelming opinion would be that it was not. This is
because utilitarianism has evolved and most utilitarianists are what we call rule
utilitarianists as they support the formation of rules which bring about the greatest
good for the greatest number.
In general utilitarians consider issues surrounding sex in a way which examines
outcomes not moral imperatives. Although differences arise (in act v. rule
utilitarianism, quantitative v. qualitative utilitarianism, preference v. traditional
utilitarianism) the general principle of utility remains and we do not look at acts but
their outcomes.
Kant's Ethical Theory:
Kant believed that masturbation was satisfying an animal urge, and in doing so one
would be using one's self merely as a means to an end. Similarly, having promiscuous
sex would be using one's self and another person merely as a means to an end.
Kant would look for a universal law that could be applied to all instances of sex.
Possibilities may include: Only have sex with someone if you are prepared to have a
child with them.
This may run contrary to the will. Some people may be unable to have children, and
yet would want to have sex as it deepens a relationship, bringing two people closer
together.
Other Kantians may suggest: Only have sex in a committed relationship by mutual
consent and not merely to satisfy lust.
We're acknowledging here that people can have meaningless sex which can leave
them feeling cheapened and used. However, some people have sex in a way that
fulfils them and involves them on a spiritual level that is not merely using themselves
as a means to an end.
Natural Law:
The popular Catholic response to masturbation using natural law is that it is blunting
Gods purpose and is using the penis or vagina in a way that God did not intend.
This position can be maintained by Catholics as that every sexual act should have the
possibility of ending in pregnancy (NB the churchs position on contraception).
However, progressive Catholic theologians may point to the need for a structured
society as a way of permitting masturbation and even contraception, as sex can be
unitive as well as used merely for reproduction.
Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

The absolute nature of the secondary precepts drawn from the primary precept
seeking reproduction, however, satisfies most Catholics that contraception and
masturbation are evil.
Situation Ethics:
When considering issues surrounding sex, Situation Ethics does not bring the
rigidness of a Natural Law or Kantian approach. It recognises that, whilst rules can
exist they are not deontological or immovable as 'love is the only norm (rule)' and is
good in itself. In other words whilst rules can be broken in certain circumstances to do
the most loving thing, the will to do the most loving thing cannot be.
In the case where a man is locked in jail and his wife comes to visit [Midnight
Express], it would be considered by Situation Ethics absurd to forbid this man to
masturbate and thus share a sexual experience with his wife simply because a rule
would be broken. Clearly the most loving, positive thing to do is to allow
masturbation and to break the rule forbidding it. This decision can be justified also by
the pragmatic nature of the theory.
When considering homosexuality, situation ethics also provides a satisfactory answer
as, for example, although it may be held that heterosexual relationships should usually
be encouraged because of the reproductive possibility, to deny homosexual couples
the right to build relationships, get married and have sex is wrong as in a situation
where a man is gay, the possibility of him having a reproductive relationship is not
great nor is it desirable. Personalism, which tells us you need to put the people first,
Positivism, which means to do the most loving thing and the Pragmatism of the facts,
which are Relative to the case, show us that love, not the rule, is absolute.
Virtue Ethics:
Virtue theory focuses on our telos, purpose and how we should act to be useful and
potent in society. For example, when considering masturbation we do not look out our
telos in the same way in which natural law would. Instead of viewing that it is
unnatural or against Gods will and our purpose, we view masturbation in terms of its
virtue.
A person who does not masturbate is likely to become sexually frustrated and
therefore may leap into a relationship with another when they are not ready or
committed to this relationship; or alternatively frustration can lead to an uncontrolled
desire, rape.
However, someone who masturbates too frequently and does not lead a normal life or
pursue a relationship because of this also contributes negatively to society, or does not
contribute at all.
What we may look for using virtue theory is a golden mean, one may use
masturbation when ones sexual needs are not being fulfilled in a relationship,
however, masturbation should never be used as a substitute for the seeking of a
committed, sexually fulfilling and child bearing relationship.
When considering the issue of homosexuality the parallels between Natural Law and
Virtue theory become evident. As both ethical systems were founded by Aristotle they
have a focus on the telos of human beings, although this may seem to suggest that a
conservative line may be taken to topic of homosexuality this is not necessarily the
case. If a person is gay then they will not have children, taking this into account it
seems that both theories would prefer it here for relationships between two men or
two women to be allowed as this way the couples can play a role in society which is
structured and similar to straight couples.
Christian Ethics:
Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Contraception:
A Christians approach to sex is that it unites a couple and expresses one anothers love
towards each other. When looking at natural laws view they would feel that the
purpose of sex is to reproduce, this causes issues with contraception.
If contraception is used then it may cheapen a person as sex is merely being used for
pleasure not reproduction. Therefore contraception will be going against gods
purpose for us.
Any sexual activity, which isnt open to reproduction, is also viewed as unnatural.
They view that acts such as masturbation are wrong and a sinful act to do.
Homosexuality:
When looking at the issue of homosexuality a traditional Christians response would
be that it is morally wrong, as there will be no possibility of a life from the act.
Any sex outside marriage is impermissible. It can also be viewed as an un-natural
thing to do. As it states in the bible same-sex acts are dishonoring their bodies
therefore you are merely using yourself.
It also states that you shall not lie with a man as with women: that is an
abomination.
Consent:
A Christian would view that sex should only be permissible if a person is in a
committed relationship (married) as it unites the couple. This brings in the issue of
consent. It is not right to have sex with a person who cannot consent.
However it is hard to decide when both people in the relationship have matured.
Many countries view differently upon this in the U.K the age of consent is 16 and in
Peru the man must be over the age of 14 and the female must be over the age of 12.
Masturbation:
When looking at masturbation the Christian church teaches that sex should only be
used as a practice for those who are in a committed relationship. Acts such as
masturbation are wrong as there will be no possibility of a life from the act as a result
and it is seen as a sinful act to do. This view is also shared with the Roman Catholics.
Ethical Responses to the Environment
Utilitarianism:
The original theory was based on pleasure and pain, so Peter Singer extended its
bounds to non-human animals who were sentient (capable of experience) and could
therefore feel pleasure and pain. We should give the same respect to the lives of
animals as we do to the lives of humans. It is unclear whether the theory can be
extended to include non-animal entities. It would need either a redefinition of
pleasure and pain, or a change to the central principle of utilitarianism. Singer sees a
problem in trying to imagine the interests of a plant if we put ourselves in the place
of a plant, we wouldnt mind what happened to us as plants cannot experience
positive or negative effects.
Once we have decided which aspects of nature to include in our calculation, and
whether to weigh up pleasure/pain or preferences or interests, we can do a calculation.
This could give us general rules to live(rule utilitarianism) by e.g.: Development must
be sustainable; Farming should be organic etc.
Alternatively, utilitarianism allows for a flexible approach, carefully weighing up the
consequences in each situation. For some people in the developing world,
development will save many lives. The same development in Europe or America
would merely be a convenience.

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Kant's Ethical Theory:

For Kant, the environment has no intrinsic value. Even non-human animals lack
inherent worth. Kant sees human beings as inherently valuable because of their
rationality.
However, Kants ethics are largely based on the idea of doing good for its own sake
and rejecting self-interest. The categorical imperative would not allow us to damage
the environment, as it would mean that all people were morally required to act in this
way. Kant would support conservation and preservation.
Kants theories could be stretched to include not treating animals or the environment
solely as a means to an end, but Kant himself would have resisted this.
Natural Law:
Natural Law thinking can be applied a number of ways here. The central principle is
to do good and resist evil, so it would encourage conservation and reject the abuse of
the environment.
However, humans as conscious beings have a higher purpose than the environment,
and observing human nature could lead us to agree with humans taking control over
the environment.
Some Natural Law thinkers would focus on the purpose or telos of the natural world,
giving the environment intrinsic worth.
Situation Ethics:
Situation Ethics is built on the principle of agape self-less love to all mankind.
Although this principle could be extended to include the love of animals and of
nature, in reality we are faced with choices that might involve helping people or
helping nature.
Situation Ethics would support cutting down a forest to build a hospital as it teaches
compassion for people who are suffering.

Virtue Ethics:
Aristotle believed in a hierarchy in nature, with humans at the top. This suggests he
would support a conservationist approach to environmental ethics - looking after the
environment because it benefits humans.
Put another way, environmental damage, pollution, global warming etc. has no place
in a eudemonia state.
The theory itself focuses on the virtues. Moral virtues are developed by habit. In the
same way, we may develop good habits in the way we treat the environment e.g.:
recycling; walking/cycling when possible; car-sharing; conserving energy.
Aristotle also held that the right degree of courage, kindness, temperance etc. was the
'golden mean'. It is important to be kind, but you can be too kind. The answer for the
environment may be to take the middle path - not using too much energy, not overindulging, not consuming an excess of food. This allows us to live happily and be
fulfilled without doing too much damage to the environment.
Business Ethics Applied
Virtue Ethics:
What is it?

Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

Aristotle business cant be separated from society business is part of the overall
community. In business an individual cannot be ethical in a vacuum, but always as
part of the ethical community.
This applies to the employers and employees who must show the virtues of character
such as honesty, prudence, fairness and courage. If there is conflict between virtues
such as honesty and loyalty, you should use your reason to find the most virtuous
thing.
The virtues of co-preparations seem to triumph over competition, meaning a virtuous
businessman would be the good corporate citizen rather than the high flyer.
Manuel Velarquez (American Philosopher) lists the qualities an executive of a firm
should have: courage, compassion, fairness, faithfulness, generosity, honesty,
integrity, prudence & self control. A virtuous management director ought to have
equal regard for those who work for the company as the shareholders and stock
holders.
Critical Evaluation:
Virtue ethics is very flexible and is applied instinctively.
Encourages businesses to think about the bigger picture.
Encourages businesses to be generous and take into account everyone involved.
Doesnt take into account the profit motive underling all businesses in capitalist
economies.
Investors take risks and would prefer profit to virtue as a return on their investment.
Does it work?
If you apply the Golden Mean then virtue ethics is very applicable to business. If it does
things within reason then it works and you can be profitable and moral at the same time.
Natural Moral Law:
What is it?
Examines the nature of business in terms of the telos of virtue and human prospering.
Therefore certain industries will be considered contrary to the achievement of this
telos. Like making money by exploiting others e.g. arms industry/sex industry.
Aquinas was opposed to usury (lending money at high rates of industry).
Goes against living in a harmonious society (precepts), Catholics led to the idea of
natural rights, God Given, to protect workers and consumers.
Critical Evaluation:
Concept of human prospering is focused upon, in terms of economic and moral
betterment.
Concept that work should be uplifting, workplace ought to be a moral environment,
what sort of work is moral and whats not?
Work has no intrinsic moral basis; Natural Moral Law cannot be applied to business
ethics.
It is impossible to create a society where every job is inspiring.
Does it work?
In theory it is a great theory but in practice it is simply not achievable. However, removing
the precept of seeking union with God, the primary precepts provide a very strong basis for
business, such as not hindering the education of the young (Indian Sweatshops), selfpreservation, living in a harmonious society, and using the idea of reproduction: e.g. do not
work for any contraception company, but then there could be conflict as they are preventing
sexually transmitted diseases.
Kantian Ethics:
Page.

May 2011

Religious Ethics

Harry Townsend

What is it?
Categorical imperative which says you have to have universal rules, which means you
should only create rules in business which can be universal. Is it okay for me? Okay
for everyone?
People should not be used as means to an end: Any business decision that exploits
anyone is immoral.
Kants theory implies you have to do your duty, you have to do them for the right
reasons, you have to keep promises, and adhere to rules and trust.
If someone is honest to gain a reputation, then he is not moral because he is doing it
for the wrong reasons. He believes in duty rather than consequence.
Kants universalization in business would abolish bribery and corruption.
Critical Evaluation:
Globalisation is fundamentally different from Kants view of the new world order.
The fundamental problem is that globalisations tarts from a utilitarian premise. It is
grounded on practical economic matters and doesnt start from a priori moral truths.
Conflicting duties: an employer has a duty to the employees, but also to the
shareholders.
When a sense of duty the environment is included, this creates further contradictions.
Utilitarianism:
What is it?
Considers the majority affected by a certain action general welfare is important and
often seen as good business policy: the general good of the organisation is more
important than that of the individual.
However, the best business transactions are the ones in which the best result is
achieved, when everyone involved has benefited. This means when making decisions
all options need considering no one can just act on intuition if they wish to
maximise utility.
Critical Evaluation:
Economically, would seem to be a good ethical approach.
However, it isnt as simple or clear cut as that. E.g. closing a polluting factory may be
good for the environment but bad for the local community who will lose jobs.
Whatever the business does is going to upset one group of people or another.
Utilitarianism doesnt always help here.
Christian:
The Old Testament contains laws and injunctions about the fair treatment of
employees, e.g. Leviticus 19:13; about justice and honesty and fairness in business.
Protestant social teaching pulled in two different directions: first, the individualistic
approach was concerned with the individuals calling and personal integrity, so a
businessman could be praised for his charity; and second was about the competitive
individualism of capitalism and the great social inequalities it brought about.
Catholic thought was never individualistic and centres on workers rights. The idea of
the common good is a Catholic basis and lead to it to criticise both communism and
free market capitalism which acts against the poor and leads to the selfish pursuit of
wealth.

Page.