Exploring WJEC Ethics: Theme 1 Insights

Ethics Revision Overview

You're diving into one of philosophy's biggest questions: how do we decide what's morally right? The theories you'll study here have shaped legal systems, personal beliefs, and social movements throughout history.

This guide covers the major ethical frameworks that have dominated philosophical thinking for centuries. Each theory offers a different lens for examining moral dilemmas, and understanding them will help you analyse real-world ethical issues more effectively.

Quick tip: Think of these theories as different tools in a toolkit - each one helps you approach moral problems from a unique angle.

Divine Command Theory

Ever wondered why religious people seem so certain about right and wrong? Divine command theory argues that morality comes directly from God's commands - what's good is good because God says so.

Robert Adams' modified version tackles a major problem: he argues God is omnibenevolent (all-good), so God literally cannot command evil. This means morality flows from God's perfect nature rather than arbitrary whims. The theory comes in two forms: weak (God's rules as guidance) and strong (God's rules as absolute commands).

But here's where it gets tricky - the Euthyphro problem creates a philosophical dilemma. Either God could theoretically command something we'd consider evil (like the destruction of Jericho), or morality exists independently of God, which challenges God's omnipotence. Julian Baggins summed this up perfectly: "Is God good because he is God, or because he is good?"

The arbitrariness problem suggests that if morals depend on God's will alone, they could change without logical reasoning - think of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son. Plus, religious pluralism creates conflicts: Muslims can't eat certain meats that Christians can, and even within Christianity, people disagree about issues like abortion.

Remember this: The Euthyphro problem is crucial for exam questions - make sure you can explain both horns of the dilemma clearly.

Virtue Theory

Forget about following rules - virtue theory asks a completely different question: what kind of person should you be? Aristotle believed the goal isn't just doing good things, but becoming a good person who naturally acts virtuously.

The ultimate aim is eudaimonia (human flourishing) - basically living your best life. You develop virtues through intellectual virtues (learned through education) and moral virtues (learned through experience). Aristotle's golden mean suggests virtue lies between extremes - courage sits between cowardice and recklessness.

Christianity embraced this through the beatitudes - Jesus's "blessed attitudes" like meekness and patience. These align with virtue theory by promising access to the Kingdom of God, Christianity's version of eudaimonia.

However, virtue theory faces serious criticisms. It's not action-guiding - knowing you should be courageous doesn't tell you exactly what to do in a crisis. Cultural relativism means virtues that worked in ancient Greece might not suit modern Britain. Most problematically, virtues can enable immoral acts - successful criminals need patience, courage, and determination too.

Think about it: A truly virtuous person has developed their character so well that good actions come naturally - but this takes years of practice.

Ethical Egoism

What if the most moral thing you could do is... look out for yourself? Ethical egoism argues that you should always act in your own self-interest - not just because you naturally do (that's psychological egoism), but because you ought to.

Epicurus claimed pleasure motivates all human behaviour. This doesn't mean being selfish in petty ways - ethical egoists think long-term. Skipping college because you're tired isn't in your self-interest, even if it feels good right now.

Max Stirner took this further, arguing humans should become completely free from external influences like religion. His three stages (childhood, youth, adulthood) lead to "uniqueness" where you treat yourself as the highest being. He suggested unions of egoists - groups people join only while they benefit.

The theory faces major criticisms. It could lead to the death of community ethos - why have laws against smoking indoors if only self-interest matters? Social injustice becomes irrelevant when everyone only cares about themselves. Critics argue ethical egoists are bigots by definition, viewing themselves as superior to others.

Defenders counter that self-interest often includes caring for others - donating to charity might benefit you long-term through reputation or personal satisfaction. Not everyone would turn to crime just because they prioritise themselves.

Key insight: Ethical egoism isn't about being nasty to others - it's about making yourself your top priority in all decisions.

Naturalism

Can morality be as objective as science? Naturalism argues yes - goodness is a real property of the natural world that we can study and verify, just like temperature or gravity.

Bradley developed this in "My Station and Its Duties," arguing that moral behaviour means understanding your station (role) in society and fulfilling its duties. A king has the station of monarch and duties of constitutional leadership. He believed ethical statements are cognitive (can be true or false), empirical (testable through experience), and objective (based on external facts).

Naturalists see moral statements as meaningful propositions that declare facts about ethics. Murder being wrong isn't just opinion - it's an objective truth about reality. This makes morality realist because it depends on relationships with the real world.

But Moore's naturalistic fallacy challenges this - he argued moral language is indefinable and can't be reduced to natural properties. His open question argument suggests we can always meaningfully ask "but is that good?" about any natural property. Hume's is-ought problem points out that just because something exists doesn't mean it should - sex producing children doesn't mean it ought to.

Exam tip: Make sure you can explain why naturalists think ethics can be objective like science, and why critics disagree.

Intuitionism

What if you just know when something's wrong? Intuitionism argues that moral facts exist objectively and we can know them through intuition - a special moral sense that doesn't need reasoning or evidence.

Intuitionists believe goodness is indefinable - like the colour yellow, you know it when you see it but can't explain it. Moral facts are known a priori (before experience) and apply universally. When you think stealing is wrong, you're having a moral intuition about an objective truth.

Prichard distinguished between two types of thinking: general (collecting empirical evidence) and moral (using intuition to decide duty). He argued people disagree about morality due to different levels of moral development - someone who doesn't see genocide as immoral simply has less developed moral thinking.

This translates into normative ethics two ways: consequentialism (use intuition to identify good, then calculate how to maximise it) or deontology (use intuition to establish universal duties).

Major problems emerge though. Intuitive truths vary widely between people and cultures - during slavery, white people claimed intuition supported slavery, but this was likely self-interest, not genuine moral insight. There's no proof moral intuition exists as a real faculty, and no obvious way to resolve conflicting intuitions when people's moral senses disagree.

Consider this: If moral truths are self-evident, why do equally intelligent, sincere people reach opposite conclusions about the same ethical dilemmas?

Emotivism

What if moral statements aren't really about truth at all, but just expressions of how you feel? Emotivism argues that when you say "murder is wrong," you're not stating a fact - you're expressing disapproval, like saying "murder - boo!"

This stems from Hume's fork - statements must be either analytic (true by definition) or synthetic (verifiable through the senses) to be meaningful. Since moral statements are neither, emotivists conclude they express attitudes, not propositions.

Ayer argued ethical language isn't meaningless because it serves important functions. Moral statements express joy or pain and are persuasive - they aim to influence others' emotional responses. When a Catholic says contraception is wrong, this is meaningful to them as an expression of their feelings, even if it's not objectively true.

Stevenson saw moral disagreements as disagreements in attitude - attempts to change someone's emotional response rather than debates about facts. This differs from subjectivism because emotivists don't claim their feelings create obligations for others.

Critics argue emotivism means no basic morals can be established since emotions change constantly. There can be no universal agreement about right and wrong if everything depends on individual feelings. Most damaging, ethical debate becomes meaningless - reducing morality to "hurrah" and "boo" removes rational judgment and serious moral discussion.

Reality check: Emotivism suggests your strongest moral convictions might just be emotional reactions - does this match your experience of making ethical decisions?