hi everyone welcome to my lockdown specials uh we are going to start our ethics we're just going to continue um as uh best as we can uh in the current situation so this is the the first time that i know that my first years have had to encounter learning online so the plan that we will follow is that i will do online videos pre-recorded videos and this means that you can access them when the time suits you when you can do them you can then go back to them you can pause them you can make your notes you can check up your notes you can then uh complete the activities with the different padlets and i will send you activities via email to complete i'll ask you to send me things etc and then we'll meet once a week on friday where we can then go over questions problems and just have a general catch up and chat it's the easiest way of covering the material and the amount of material we still need to get through and cover and so this was the the way that worked very very well in the last lockdown uh last last year so um this is what we will do for now and see how well it works for you guys so let's make a start i'm gonna go through the natural law powerpoint now it is fairly hefty it is fairly long however it's quite easy it is not difficult at all it's names you're familiar with aristotle comes back up aquinas comes up so these are names you are familiar with but now we are doing ethics this is about behavior this is about morals it's about how you should uh should behave so let's make me a bit smaller there we go let's get the powerpoint up and wonderful so you've already done an activity where you've had a little bit of research about aristotle and aquinas and uh done the cut and stick as far as do the statements linked to aquinas sort of they linked to aristotle and done a little bit of research so let's have a look at this together the questions that you need to consider in your mind first of all are why do you think this theory is called natural law what you think it's going to be about what do you think it's going to do and it also originated with uh from some of the philosophy of aerosol this is not aristotle's theory this is aquinas's theory but obviously as we know aquinas with his cosmological argument with the ideas of moses and uh change and purpose etc we know he was very very influenced by aristotle so think about all the ways that aristotle might have influenced acquired certain things to do with nature so if you remember all of the actuality to potentiality etc so all of these things are very very prominent in aquinas's mind and he come through in this natural law theory so here's some clues now these are the clues that you would have used uh to complete the cut and stick um however using the online uh or using the internet etc you should have been able to find uh ways of working it out if you haven't use this now to check your answers so use this now to check your answers for the activity that i sent you for aristotle he is an empiricist the scientist and the father of former logic we already know that we know that he was a scientist everything has a purpose and a new bit that this is something that you probably don't know is aquinas sorry apologies aristotle focused on what is called eudaimonia this is the human telos of the human purpose that is human flourishing where you flourish you achieve you die money that's your purpose as a human reason is the way to work this out so on your activity anything to do with reason purpose is all aristotle anything with eudaimonia flourishing is all aristotle aquinas then takes these ideas he's inspired by aristotle's ideas of purpose but he takes it to that next step aquinas then says that our purpose is to become godlike to become perfect so to be very clear at this point aquinas does not believe in eudaimonia he does not take on the views of eudaimonia eudaimonia is aristotle only aquinas says that our purpose is god become god like god like perfection so on your activity on your cut and stick anything to do with god is aquinas aristotle does not believe in the christian concept of god don't forget aristotle's your prime mover fella so aquinas is ended with god this is done by the god-given gift of reason so god gave us reason as a gift reason can be used to work out and find out what god wants through nature so god has given us this gift of reason to work out what we should and should not do so when uh i'm going to create a padlock board label for you to answer these questions so i can see your um initial thoughts etc with these because it's very interesting to know what you see as natural and unnatural what is your understanding of those terms what is natural what is unnatural can you give examples how did you distinguish between the two you need to do this in order to be able to establish our evaluation because obviously aquinas is going to say what he thinks is natural and not natural you need to be able to then say actually i think that isn't natural all that is natural and give your reasons why so this is an important discussion thing that we need to do so i will create a padlet board in order to facilitate that discussion so the religious developments from saint thomas aquinas the main principle around aquinas's time it promoted the divine command theory divine is god command law and rule so basically when aquinas was alive there was a theory that everybody followed that was the divine command theory god tells you what you do so god tells you what you do and do not do but aquinas had a bit of a problem with that view one of the problems might be that god could say anything god could say anything about what is right or wrong and you would then have to do it so for example god said you can't wear certain fabrics together or eat meat and milk together so when you follow only what god says god could have said anything also what about new rules what about new laws what about new developments if we're still working with the divine command theory today for example what about things like ivf where does that fall into it where does that come into it or for example if god tells you what is right and wrong what happens if you don't believe in god that then implies that you're not moral if you don't follow what god says then and if god says what is moral and not moral then it implies that you are therefore not moral so aquinas had all these thoughts in his head and so he did not agree with the divine command theory this is why he created the natural law theory he created a theory open to everybody he did not like the divine command theory so it was because of his dislike for the divine command theory that he moved and created his own theory called the natural law theory this proposed nature decides what is right and wrong so anybody can follow this god made nature but it works on its own so that's the link to god ethics come not from god but nature so atheists agnostics hindus buddhists christians anybody can look at nature and know what to do christians believe god made that nature but you learn right or wrong through what is natural this means that aquinas combines science of nature so of aristotle with god so this is why we know that aristotle did not create natural law the big giveaway is this has to involve god natural law is the combination of science with god this is why it's aquinas's theory and not aristotle's move then into the four tiers of law you have to know this this is very very important um so the forties of law are very very straightforward this is very much like your hierarchy of forms remember hierarchy forms of player to this idea it all flows down etc so right at the top is the eternal law this is the mind of god you will never ever get there this is way beyond our understanding of knowledge this is god himself this is how he controls the universe we get little glimpses through science in the world but then glimpses are the the reflections that flow down divine law underneath is the word of god the church the scriptures things like the sermon on the mount the deck that's the divine law uh the pope et cetera you then have natural law so interesting this is his theory and it actually comes near to the bottom the natural law is the moral law of god within nature so everyone has a natural sense that good is to be done and evil avoided that is called the syndaresis rule that good is to be done and evil avoided so this directs our conscience and if applied with reason uh can lead to the right action now that bit there is very very important so just take your time to write that down and process it so what natural law is saying is that you are to do good avoid evil and so your conscience and god-given gift of reason to work out what you should and should not do human laws at the bottom things like everyday laws national laws family laws household laws whatever it is don't walk on the grassy college laws etc so these are just laws made by humans so this is your hierarchy but what happens if i'm an atheist aquinas believed that god made it possible for all human beings even dawkins to achieve their ultimate purpose in life by the power of reason alone no religious faith needed so you're sat at home now questioning thinking well why bring god in at all then if everybody can do it regardless of religious faith or no faith they can all work out what is right and wrong by nature then what's the point of god you're all asking well because using reason and the word of god so combining your natural law and your divine loss from your previous slide that natural law and the divine law of your hierarchy it's easier to reach god because don't forget for requiredness your ultimate purpose in life is to reach god-like perfection why an atheist would want to achieve god-like perfection not sure but that's our ultimate purpose in life is to achieve that so if you just do natural law you can still achieve the eternal law at the top the god-like perfection become god-like but if you had natural law and divine law you're two steps so you're you're it's easier you're closer to that eternal law it makes it easier when you have the word of god as well those who do not believe will find it more difficult to achieve their tea loss but not impossible so once again reason is given by god reason works out your purpose or your t loss and reason helps us work out good from gap bad if you don't believe number one that's given by god you can still do two and three so you can still achieve it even if you don't believe the god part don't forget this isn't justifying god's existence or anything like that this is just saying how we know how to be ethical so don't forget we're not doing philosophy here this is just we're not questioning whether god's given us the reason or not we're just saying that reason is how we work out good from bad and obviously bad doesn't reach t loss so the cindereces rule as already mentioned and a very glamorous picture there of saint thomas aquinas i'm thinking that is the lockdown haircut coming in good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided we know through our ratio right reason of basic moral principles basically we all have right reason we all have rector ratio the thought process behind these small decisions is known as cinderesis so when you think hmm what should i do that is the process of cinderesis the technique used to work out the rt loss of an action so don't forget our main aim and main end goal is god-like perfection but lots of situations have little end goals in themselves you have to use what is called kashua stray to work out whether an action is good or bad so you have a situation in front of you and should i um have ivf should i have ivf um i am the thought process of synderesis if i'm thinking hmm is this ethically good or ethically bad that's kashua straight and then when i apply it that is known as conscientia so i always learn it as conscience in action so conscientious ends in the ia so it's conscience in action it's actual act so then i've thought process should i use ivf is it ethically good or not well ivf can help procreate life but then it's doing it maybe outside of marriage which requires wouldn't agree with and it could be this or it could be that so that process so chances are requirements would say that it's not ethically right and so i am not going to do it that is then the applying it the conscientious so all of this will make more sense as we get a little bit further down but you've just got a number of words to remember and again these words are to get the a grades this is the a grade standard there is nothing beyond this if you can use these words properly with examples that's the a grade aquinas believes that you never purposefully or deliberately pursue evil you never deliberately do something wrong you never deliberately do evil however sometimes evil happens well as evil in the world so it has to happen somehow aquinas believes that's through apparent and not real goods apparent goods is where it appears good in reality but doesn't fit with your perfect human ideal a reason is why humans do things wrong and cause evil so your reason is gonna be off whereas real goods is when the reason is used correctly and your telos is achieved so for example we obviously know aquarius coming from a christian perspective very traditional christian perspective so he believed only in sex within marriage and sex is only to procreate and have children so if you are married and having sex and you do not procreate but you keep continuing um that's an apparent good because your your peers what you're doing is the right thing but you're not having children you then go to the doctors and find out actually i'm if you then continue to have sex knowing you're infertile that is then just wrong it's not even an apparent god so in a paragraph is when you think you are doing the right thing but you're not so you think because you're having sex in marriage doing the right thing but actually you're in fair time you just didn't know it because sex is only to procreate you do not have sex for any other reason according to acquire as a celibate monk so he knew lords about it but you don't do anything sex is only to procreate whereas a real good would be sex in marriage babies that would be a real good so it's a silly example but it gives you a an idea of what he's meaning right we now bring in our first ethical term so you know like in philosophy we add a priori and a posteriori in ethics we don't have them in ethics we have d ontological and teleological so this theory is deontological the dion is very important and this ethical framework is deontological deontological means that it focuses on actions and intentions not outcomes it's about the doing the thought process the intentions the reasons behind why you're doing something not the outcome it does not care about the outcome as long as what you're doing is the right thing dion um means duty it's about the action itself not the outcome so uh the study of or the act of duty if actions conscientious and intention syndricis are both good then a real good is met your purpose is achieve your tillage is achieved etc so it focuses on the intention not the outcome so just a little question to get you thinking do you think it is true that humans are naturally inclined to do good do you think humans want to do good if your answer is yes then you are supposed to acquire us the same if your answer is no and you think actually some humans are just bad and they just want to do bad and they choose to do bad then that's going to go against what aquinas is saying here let's continue primary secondary precepts this is now your past fail territory you have to know these very very straightforward but you have to learn them and you have to know them and you have to apply them in your essay primary precepts so a precept is a law built into nature these precepts can be understood using reason in order for people to be able to concentrate on natural law you need to live in a civilized society where you are free to survive and flourish again that statement there is very aristotelian this idea of surviving flourish flourishes obviously eudaimonia and if you remember aristotle as well he taught very much about the civilized society etc so this very much is aristotelian this led acquires to creating five primary precepts these the five laws built into nature now so i just need to go back if we were together in class we would have a discussion about why you think they're called primary and what you think these priorities might include and so again you need to write down now in your notes why you think they're called primary what words have you used primary for before what examples do you talk for about primary just have a quick think when do you use the word primary what does the word primary [Music] mean hopefully words like primary school are come to mind primary colors primary sources hopefully words like this have come to your mind you may have thought of other things as well and that's brilliant and so why primary what does the word primary actually mean well words the students often say is things like foundation are first or most important and all those words are very very relevant here there is a reason he calls them primary laws or primary precepts they are the foundation they are the most important they are the key they are also the ones that come first primary always becomes before secondary primary school second school the primaries the foundation the secondary school builds onto this this is exactly the same with his precepts so let's have a look at what his precepts are he has five that are true to everyone without exception they are reflections of god's eternal law top of the hierarchy reflections down this is the primary precepts they are as follows so the first and most important is preservation of innocent life preservation of life you must preserve life second is reproduction you must reproduce have babies you must educate the young you must live peacefully in society and finally worship god now you're all going ding ding ding didn't think you had to worship god worshiping god or number five is again the one that makes it easier as long as you do one to four number five makes it easier but he says that one to four is what you have to do five makes it easier so one activity that we will do at some point and i will probably do this backing in the classroom and we're together is you need to write down why each of these is so important to aquinas and society so you can easily do that now why is preserving life important and you're going well obviously if we don't preserve life then life won't continue brilliant write it down state the obvious reproduction if we don't reproduce the human race will die out brilliant write it down write down why these things are so important okay because again that's your analysis of what he is saying this is the start of your evaluation if you can see the importance of them that means it's a strength of the argument so again have a look at why these are important and write down your thoughts for that please now we need to bring a pulpit at this point this is very very important uh we cannot do natural law without the mention of hip hop and natural law is heavily influenced by the doctrines the catholic church and sorry i will say that one again natural law heavily influences the duchess of the catholic church not the way around so this is immensely important so much of the catholic church's teachings today is based on the natural law of thomas aquinas so for me that is absolutely astounding one little monk guy hundreds of years ago oh to be continued let me just make sure we are still recording yes we're still recording that's fine didn't want to continue and not have you here with me that would be very upsetting hopefully god liked what i was just about to say there and that wasn't a sign from god um one little monk guy influences the most powerful institution in the whole world the catholic church the catholic church seating are still based on aquinas's natural law that's pretty impressive in my book so we have a quote here from pope paul six he says the church in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law teaches as absolutely required that any use whatsoever of marriage must retain its natural potential to procreate human life now the reason why that is such a it's not an important question you have to learn the whole quote but he specifically name drops natural law he specifically says that this is linked to the natural law teachings and natural law is said thomas aquinas theory um if any of you are going on to study um nursing or becoming a doctor you will study the natural law theory natural law theory of ethics and how we approach things is something that you will look at as well and so these theories really are still talked about which is so interesting for a theory that is from such a long time ago so always be very careful one of the easiest criticisms that students use is oh it's outdated well it says many things but you don't always use that as a criticism think about what you're saying just because it's old doesn't mean it is outdated and in this case the natural law teachings have been taken by the catholic church the catholic church is is current it's now yes some of their teachings might be traditional but it's still something that we're talking about today so for me that's very very important we then move on to secondary precepts you can't have primary without secondary each primary precept can be developed into secondary precepts which are practical human rules that govern our daily behavior whilst primary is set in stone those five do not change they have not changed from aquinas's time they have not changed to our times they do not change secondary precepts vary from laws of the land to accepted codes of family behavior so again this is brilliant what aquinas is saying here is the second the primary precepts are set in stone but the secondary precepts is how you want to adapt it based on your culture your time your background your understanding your opinions your beliefs your behaviors etc so this is actually a very very flexible argument as long as you follow the five primary precepts so for example the the first primary precept of preserving innocent life a secondary precept of that would be do not euthanize because euthanasia is obviously ending of innocent life not preserving it so a secondary piece of like euthanasia that's a modern day issue you know hundreds of hundreds of years ago didn't have euthanasia so this is a modern day issue but it still means his theory is relevant today you might not like what the theory argues you might like the conclusions the theory actually makes but as far as a theory itself it still can be used today which is pretty clever in my book this makes the secondary precepts realistic and quite flexible so when it comes to the exam oops apologies i use the word exam loosely of course because we currently don't know anything about what's going to happen for you guys but we know that there'll be some exam in some way whatever it may be so we'll still crack on regardless and uh we need to still write our essays to an exam standard because that's what we do and that's important and so when you are writing it in an essay you can't just say aquinas created five primary precepts these are this links the secondary piece oh how boring no the primary and secondary precepts could potentially be a whole page of an essay they are they are the central focus of this argument so you need to take your time and really break down the different parts so step one you need to say what primary and secondary mean then what they imply so what does primary imply what does secondary imply and then what the meaning of precept is so you know primary and secondary are first and then second and then so for example so they imply that one is the foundation most important etc you then link it to the five primary precepts one and two are in order and number five three and four you can interchange and you then need to explain why each of them are important so don't just say what they are but why they're important and then why you think aquinas has selected those five primary precepts and then finally link your prior precepts to a secondary example now what a lot of students do is they say things like um the first primary present of preservation of life means you do not euthanize wrong preservation of life does primary precept does not then go immediately into this an example of this is no you have to deal with preservation of life on its own first preservation of life this is important because this has been selected by aquinas because this then links to secondary precepts an example of a secondary piece of full preservation of life is euthanasia so you see how you cannot miss out step three you can't go from straight from step two to step four and because you are missing out the whole importance of the prior precepts on their own many many students go straight from the primary precepts preservation of life or reproduction means do not use contraception they without actually explaining that no contraception is not a primary precept contraception is a secondary interpretation of the primary etcetera this is where you take your time right doing very very well folks we've only got directional double effect and then strengths and weaknesses and this is done so you've covered the crooks and the main parts of this argument hopefully not too hard either folks hopefully you've not found this too hard so far um other than the words obviously there's lots of new words for you but to be honest with you i think you're dealing quite well with your words now and obviously i'll send you over the glossaries and things like that so you can write a little note of your words as you're going along right the doctrine of double effect is where students get confused every year students get confused with doctoral double effect and i really don't know why because it's not very complicated so i'll go through it and we'll see if we follow it there are times when you cannot do good without bad consequences in other words you know that what you are doing is the right thing you know what you're doing is good but you know that something bad is going to happen and obviously because it's deontological as long as you're doing a good thing even if the bad outcome is going to happen you can still do it so to solve this dilemma the doctrine of double effect was created this was created after aquinas using his theory it is always wrong to do bad on purpose it's always wrong to do bad intentionally to bring out good so killing hitler to stop him killing the nazis is just wrong you cannot do it you're doing wrong intentionally even if it's to bring out good the ending of killing of the jews no you still can't do it but sometimes it is right to do good actions so it's right to do the right thing but sometimes bad things then happen so a good action with a bad outcome this will make sense in a second i'm going to give you an example however these two bits here are very important the bad is only unintended it's not intended you don't intend the outcome you don't intend the bad thing to happen it is only an it's an unintended side effect but it is foreseen you do predict it's going to happen again this will become very very clear in a second so this is kind of like the um flow chart that you go through so let me give you an example you are pregnant um but you have found out that you're uh you have an ectopic pregnancy so your egg is in a fallopian tube so you need an abortion in order to save your life obviously abortion is wrong because it does not uh follow the second of the prior priesthood reproduction so let's have a look at the doctrine of double effect is the actual intention good if i have an abortion to save my own life yes that actually intention is good is there a possible bad outcome yes if i have an abortion to save my life i will lose the fetus is the outcome intended no if the if the fetus was growing in the womb and not the fallopian tube then i would not be doing this so the outcome is not intended because i don't want it to happen can they out can be avoided no i have to get the egg because obviously if you have gone into a pregnancy and the the as the baby grows the fallopian tube ruptures and it would kill their fetus and the mother so you would have to have an abortion otherwise both lives would end rather than just one life and so and that is how you meet the doctrine double effect oh let me give you another example you have extremely uh painful menstrual cycle should be painful periods or you have very very bad skin or um or something to you know something like that and you need to go on the contraceptive pill is the action tension good yes i am genuinely trying to either sort my skin out i am genuinely trying to help very very painful periods my intention is good is there a possible bad outcome yes i'm using the contraceptive pill so it means i can't get pregnant is the outcome intended no if i didn't have painful periods then i wouldn't use contraception and therefore i would get pregnant so the outcome of using the contraception is not intended can the outcome be avoided well no if i'm using contraception to help skin or painful periods then you can't avoid the fact that you're not going to get pregnant but it's all about being genuine in your intentions my intention is to save my life even though it means aborting the fetus my intention is to help with painful periods not to use it as an actual contraception against pregnancy your intention has to be genuine you can't use this as a get out clause so the roman catholic church on this the roman catholic church is the pause to euthanasia euthanasia is the example you're going to use because it's the topic that we'll do after situation ethics which is next so you are going to talk about euthanasia so don't give the abortion example of the um painful menstrual cycle contraceptionist example you will give the euthanasia as your example the catholic church is opposed to euthanasia as its murder you are ending somebody's life the pope said to cause death in this way was a grave violation of the law of god eternal law divine law law of god however if a doctor gives a large dosage of morphine to eliminate the patient's pain and this results in death this is seen as the doctrine of double effect not euthanasia why because the doctor's intention was to relieve pain not end the life this was a foreseen possibility because you know if you give large amounts of morphine it might kill them but it's unavoidable because obviously if you do give those large amounts of morphine not to ease the pain the outcome might be that they die which is unavoidable but it has to be a genuine intention obviously god knows if you're genuine or not uh this can't be a you know you've got married you don't want um children though yet so you know you go on on the contraceptive pill and then you say oh yeah don't worry we'll tell the priests because i have painful menstrual cycle no you cannot fib you cannot tell porky she cannot lie because god knows the truth so this is about being genuine but if a doctor genuinely has the intention of relieving pain with the foreseen possibility that it might end your life this is the doctrine of double effect not euthanasia this is not a loophole this is not a way around the rules this is not a way of getting around precepts such as reproduction this is based on your intentions being true and we're not going to do those don't worry so at this stage now i'm going to give you a few examples on the slides to come but for a number of you now you really really need to start working on your evaluation you need to get off the fence you need to decide do you like this theory you need to basically go through every statement everything i've just said and work out is this a good point or a bad point do i agree or do i disagree if you don't start going down that path you're going to find your essays become increasingly more difficult you have to evaluate you have to say whether you agree or disagree with what's being said and so what are the strengths of natural law what are the weaknesses strengths are what makes it good and strong convincing weaknesses what makes it illogical bad not convincing and is it fair to say that anything that reaches t loss is good and is it fair to say that anything that doesn't reach telos is bad so for example homosexuality homosexuality contra natural law is bad why because you're never reproducing that in that um partnership but is that fair to say that just because they will not reach the god-given gift of reproduction does that mean that that's not good so is that fair is it fair to say that anything doesn't reach t loss is bad anything that does reach t loss is good so for example um raping marriage this theory would imply that raping marriage because marriage is about reproduction too and about procreation is about sex in order to have children does this theory then imply that that is good because you would reach your t loss within marriage so think about what this theory implies and i'll give you some strengths and witnesses to help now but please as i've said you need to work out some of your own these are not enough okay so the strengths are it is based on reason so technically it's open to anyone who can use reason it's focused on the search of happiness and fulfillment children seem to have an innate sense of rw right and wrong and natural law can appeal to this so we do seem to have an understanding of writing our like something natural within us the christian version so the one created by thomas aquinas unites faith with reason now for me that's a massive massive strength why because in aquinas's time it was all about faith in our time now it's all about reason and science and philosophy and science and faith there are locker heads together um but this is the idea that actually aquinas brings a theory that unites them together that they go together this is quite unique very very few theories that we look at ever combine the two or combine the two even remotely successfully so he is linking the ideas of god but with reason with nature with atheism without the need of actually having a faith system it just makes it easier for me that's a huge strength of the argument primary process provide an absolute framework you know what you know where you stand you know how to use them those five primary precepts make sense they're not difficult concepts educate the young what does that mean it's obvious you know what it means so these apply to everyone you you think um you know should i loot this shop should i go and rob from this shop well actually if everyone robbed from the shops then it would disrupt society and won't be a peaceful society so your answers are clear so many ethical questions fall under those five primary precepts so you always have an answer clear cut and straight forward accessible to anyone everyone establishes common universal rules everyone uses the same five primary precepts should be simple to find answers to ethical dilemmas as based on something more concrete than personal opinion somebody comes to you and says um should i have an abortion you then say well number one preservation of life does it preserve life no reproduction does it promote reproduction no if everyone in society had abortions would society remain peaceful probably not and so again you can work down the precepts and it gives you concrete answers rather than your personal opinion they're also timeless what that means is acquirers created these a thousand years ago they are still relevant today they still make sense today again that is pretty impressive in my book and secondary precepts allow for flexibility weaknesses how do you decide what's natural is it natural for a doctor to prolong someone's life who is ill but then the natural consequence of illness is that they die so yes we're preserving life for the first primary precept so things like um heart transplants vaccinations all of these things are to help prolong life so uh preservation of life for the first prime period but you're actually doing something that's unnatural giving people pacemakers it's unnatural because it's not something you're born with it's not something it's something man-made you know an operation that's then to give you something that you isn't naturally there you know this doesn't happen within nature so it's actually natural for doctors to prolong life that again is a weakness because it's unclear some principles of natural law when applied can lead to absurd conclusions so for example in fertile couples cannot have sex or vegetarianism is unnatural so this is the idea again of our teeth we have meat eating teeth um it implies then that someone that's a vegetarian or vegan is not natural because we have um digestive systems to digest meat we have teeth to eat meat and again therefore at least absurd conclusions quite general not very adaptable or simple to apply to individual situations nature changes so evolution so if nature changes but natural lore is absolute how does that work and finally we have some philosophical weaknesses a powerpoint is never complete without dawkins of course richard dawkins says in the selfish gene he would argue that there is no god governing creation but everything can be explained in terms of evolution what a surprise g e moore aquinas talks of real and apparent goods but what's the meaning of goodness so and trying to explain goodness is like trying to explain the color yellow so it's indefinable what does the word good actually mean uh and again you could use gemar against anyone that uses the word good so you can use gmail against plato's form of the good for example it's a good criticism against him finally cal bath is a theologian he you says reason is fallible fallible means untrustworthy you cannot trust your reason you should go straight to the divine revelation divine law on your hierarchy uh in scripture to work out what is right and wrong finally kind nielsen says there is not one unified human nature so aquinas says we all want to do good and avoid evil kai nielsen is saying no there is not one nature that all human beings have human nature alters over cultural relativism and moral standards in society humans have changeable natures so for example of a heterosexuality and homosexuality and so for example in this country um homosexuality is legal in other countries it is not legal there is many countries in the world where it is still punishable by death so human nature and our laws etc are based on culture they're not based on one unified rule or five primary precepts finally vadi and grosh say aquinas's view on humanity she's just too simplistic so one activity that i will set you next week because again i just want to take your time making your notes and working through your powerpoint is to decide what team you're on are you team natural law or not do you think this is a helpful method of moral decision making or not and just to pop back as well um i'll go back to the this slide these again are not evaluation these are statements of other people's evaluation this does not class as your evaluation so when you're writing an essay if you write richard dawkins point you're writing richard dawkins point you have to say whether his point works or does not work that's the evaluation i can't give you that i can't tell you whether you think richard dawkins point works or not only you can decide that only you can decide just going back to the only you can decide whether then points work or not only you can decide if there are more strengths than work than weaknesses you have to make that decision weigh it up is there more strength to mystery or more weaknesses so hence why again you need to think of them yourself you need to work through the powerpoint and really decide would you use this as an ethical framework would you use this as a way of making decisions and again don't just say that because you don't like the out answer you're not going to use it because you don't use ethical theories just because you like the answer would you actually use this as a framework to working out what you should and should not do that's how you get off the fence that's how you justify an opinion and i think that was the end yes so oh it's doing all sorts now my advice is to because this that's all it's a long it's a long power point it's a long long power point but again it shouldn't be that hard some of it's harder than others but it's not like philosophy it's not like the ontological argument or something like that you know we're not talking about theories here that uh this is very much something that you just accept you accept what it's saying but you decide whether you agree with it or you disagree that's all you do with ethics so you need to work through the purpose of making notes as you're making you know you decide whether you are far against the argument do you agree or disagree with what's being said and you need to complete the um worksheets etc that i send you and obviously we'll meet once a week on a friday i'll then go over any questions any issues i can recap things and then when we get back together hopefully after february half term we'll do some revisions and a bit more discussion and lesson etc to make sure we're happy so at this point i would like to try and cover as much content as possible while you're at home because then at least if you've covered the material even as best as you can at home it means that i can then recap it and we can cover it a lot quicker when we're back together again and but obviously we wouldn't have time to recap it if we go through the topic slowly so we're going to go through the topics quite quickly so it gives us more time when we get back to go over it again together so that's the plan and so work through this powerpoint work through the activities that i send you we'll have a chat every friday and have a catch up and and then we'll i'll be sending the situation ethics video out at some point next week so that's the next topic so um please get in touch the via email if you have any problems or questions before friday please do let me know and you can contact me at any point and with any difficulties or of caution across the blog because there's lots of extra things on the blog as well to help you otherwise thanks very much everybody i will see you all soon bye for now let's cancel all this down