Applied Ethics – Theft and Lying

Natural Law applied to any issue Absolute and deontological Primary precept – which affect the issue? Which secondary precepts have produced a ruling on the issue Does double effect apply? Does the situation require an unusual response? The view of the Catholic Church Reference to the virtues What a proportionalism response might be – value/disvalue of the act and intention of the moral agent

Situation Ethics applied to any issue What will work in a particular situation How love is affirmed by the action taken Whether what you propose to do puts people before law What end is aimed at – understanding the nature of agape love What means we use to obtain the end Motive What the foreseeable consequences are How we then calculate love’s demands and act accordingly

Virtue Ethics applied to any issue Character based Which virtues are to be taken account of/developed in the situation (the virtues that are relevant) Which vices are being demonstrated How the possible actions will encourage good habits/good character for individuals and society as a whole Motive Whether there are factors in the situation that we cannot account for using virtue theory Are there any virtues/vice that are appropriate but not on Aristotle’s list (his is not an exhaustive list) The mean is not a hard and fast rule – there will always be exceptions and usual situations so you have to develop skills of practical wisdom

Theft Motive – personal gain or desperation? Where/who are you stealing from? (e.g. stealing on small/large scales) Is the act of stealing wrong? What if the consequences are good?

Lying Motive – why are you telling a lie? Is the act of lying wrong? What if the consequences are good? Who are you lying to? What is the difference between lying and admission of truth?

Natural Law - theft Relevant precepts – ordered society. Secondary precept – do not steal, which is also reflected in the Ten Commandments. Cardinal virtue of justice would condemn stealing. However, proportionality – Aquinas discussed the situation of stealing if you are starving, and concludes it would be lawful if a man was starving to death to steal from another who had enough for themselves. Value = preserving life; disvalue = injustice. On balance (proportionality) the theft here produces more value than disvalue. The man’s intention is also good (interior and exterior acts). He also suggests it would be lawful for a man to take someone else’s property in order to help a neighbour in dire need.

Situation Ethics - theft Fletcher gives an example of possible theft: a student wants to buy a book and the means he uses to obtain it might be stealing, borrowing or buying, and to get the money he might steal, save or beg or borrow or gamble. Relativistic so too many possibilities to include. What is the end? Is it loving? Is it to pass a test – pragmatic? Person before law – are you trying to achieve a loving end? ‘love wills the neighbour’s good’ – how does stealing from someone will their good? ‘love is justice distributed’ – how just is stealing in different situations?

Virtue Ethics - theft Theft for Aristotle is a base action – like adultery (in his opinion) there is no way you can steal well or not well, with the victim one ought. Always in error. Aristotle does not consider cases such as stealing when starving. He talks about justice in two senses – broadly the whole system of law and secondly in a narrower sense where justice is about fairness. Perhaps theft is a base action in this second sense of justice. Surely there is a difference between someone who steals if they are starving and stealing for personal gain. CONTEXT – Aristotle’s audience was adult, educated males who were governing Greek society. Theft between the members of this particular class would have been considered base.

Natural Law - lying Violates the primary precept of ordered society Secondary precept ‘do not lie’ is also reflected in the commandment forbidding false witness. Someone who says one thing and thinks another in effect lies to himself, and breaks Aquinas’ virtues of courage and justice. Lying is wrong because it is an unnatural failure to represent what is in one’s mind – interior and exterior acts. You can’t do anything as a means to an end Although you could steal to save a life, it is not lawful to lie to save a life. It is lawful to hide the truth by keeping it back – misleading truths.

Situation Ethics - lying Fletcher refers to examples of lying by withholding information (such as a leglistic principle in American medical ethics at the time which prohibited the disclosure of a person’s medical details to someone else, even his/her fiancée – e.g. someone with syphilis. This prejudges a situation without reference to consequences so could not be taken by a situationist. Love for neighbour Pragmatic – sending females agents back to Germany to certain death to hide the fact that British Intelligence had broken their code - serves love in the end and it worked. Agapeic calculus takes into account the amount of risk, distribution of love in the best interests of the majority and the love brought about in the long term. Also uses example of a lie by reassurance – nurses lie to schizophrenics to keep them calm for treatment. This affirms Christian love. No intrinsic right or wrong.

Virtue Ethics - lying Virtues of honesty and truthfulness forbid lying. The situation could also require the courage to tell the truth and the justice of admitting a fault. Lying can become habitual and the aim is to have a society where people habitually tell the truth. Lying is an issue which concerns how we interact socially with each other. Truthfulness is about how you present yourself in the context of socialising with others. The ‘mean’ is not to exaggerate or underrate yourself. Within society, once a person acquires a disposition for presenting themselves truthfully, then they are liekly to be honest and tell the truth in all situation. Practical wisdom shows you cannot separate truthfulness from other virtues.