𝔢𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔰 🎀

• Hedonism – right and wrong is decided by evaluating what gives me the most pleasure and the least pain
• Natural law – right and wrong is decided by working out what is natural for as human beings, for example, natural occurrences being right, and unnatural being wrong.
• Utilitarianism – right and wrong is determined by calculating the greatest pleasure (and the least pain) for the greatest number of people
• Situation ethics – right and wrong, is determined by which action is the most loving thing to do, there are no absolute rights or wrongs
• Cultural relativism – right and wrong is decided by looking at the way others in your culture are behaving, and fitting in with the situation
• Theism – right and wrong is determined by what God would like us to do, or depending on God‘s teachings
• Atheism – right and wrong is determined by our own conscience, without any influence from religion
• Definition of ethics – the branch of knowledge that deals with morality: the principles that govern how person should behave. What is the right way to live?
• Our ethical views can be influenced by:

  1. The way we were raised (as children we are taught and influenced by our parents on ethical theories)
  2. From our religion, religious teachings - e.g., the Bible (God teaches us to love our neighbour, and not to steal from, hurt or insult anyone.
  3. Culture (we can be influenced by surrounding cultural beliefs)
• Hedonists views on driverless cars: -they believe that if a driverless car was proposed with a dangerous situation, which could potentially harm others, the car would be programmed to save the people in the vehicle rather than those around them.
• A Utilitarian approach to driverless cars would be, if the car is faced with a dangerous situation, the car would be programmed to benefit the most people, for example, analysing however many people are in each vehicle in the situation, so making a decision based upon it.
• A Theist’s belief on driverless cars would be; in a dangerous situation, the car should be programmed to take action depending on God’s will and teachings. Since God teaches us to value others, the car would risk it’s passengers and save the other people
• An Atheist’s view on driverless cars would be; since there is no god, the car would be programmed to prioritise its passengers over others as they have their own free will and choice to make decisions about life and death.
• A cultural relativist approach to genetic engineering would be to consider the ethical issues of genetic engineering from the perspective of your surrounding community.
• A theist approach on genetic engineering would be that God created humans with the ability to reproduce naturally, so engineering our own ‘designer babies’ would be going against God’s will.
• A hedonist view on genetic engineering is that they will do what gives them the most pleasure, so in theory they would engineer their own children to become superior and have benefits with no downsides
• A situational ethics perspective on genetic engineering would be to do the loving thing in this situation: for example, they would use genetic engineering to cure diseases and genetic issues.
• A utilitarian approach to genetic engineering would be to use it to improve the quality of life for humans, like curing genetic diseases, which benefit the most people.
• A natural lawist perspective on genetic engineering would be to work out what is natural for us as human beings. Since genetically engineering is based in a lab using chemicals and unnatural material (i.e CRISPR) in genetic engineering, they would be against the is.
• A cultural relativist‘s viewpoint on the use of animals is to do what everyone else is doing. So, in theory this would mean that if everyone else is using animals, like consuming animal product, then it is acceptable to use animals.
• A theist approach to use of animals, would be to decide depending on Gods will. Since in the bible God explains how humans claim dominion over his creation, using animals would be acceptable.
• A hedonist approach to the use of animals would be to use them for their own uttermost pleasure. Because meat and animal product supplies rich nutrients healthy for the body, Hedonists in theory would be in favour of this.
• A situation ethics approach to the use of animals would be to do the most loving thing in the situation. For example, eating meat or produce like leather is harming the animal that supplies it. In summary, situation ethicists would be against this issue.
• A utilitarian approach to the use of animals would be to calculate what gives the most people pleasure. This would be to accept others eating animal produce and using animal product because it pleases them.
• A natural lawist approach to the use of animals would be to do whatever comes naturally. So, in theory since other animals eat others to survive, therefore it is natural for us humans to eat animal produce.
• Ahisma (central principle) means non violence and harmlessness.
• Karma doctrine describes how bad acts in your current or previous life will affect the quality of your next.
• Judaism viewpoint is similar to Jainism, they will only eat meat in the approved way, which is shechita, the traditional acceptable slaughter of animals.
• Buddhists viewpoint = It is wrong to hurt and kill animals.
• Jains viewpoint is that they are strict vegetarians and are not allowed to enroll in jobs that harm animals.
• Christian viewpoints include the belief that humans were created to claim dominion from God over the rest of his creation, however some view this as stewardship.