Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Applied ethics, Buddhism - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Rejects this as they aren't the normal methods of procreation through loving relationships so goes against the primary precept of reproduction and worship as you are not worshipping God the creator. This could also do harm on the family as it may break down a marriage so goes against living in an ordered society.
    - - Through the research, it could save so many lives leading to the most loving thing. It doesn't fully fit his four working principles as it's not relative due to not everything being loved because you are killing the embryo. Designer babies only bring out more selfishness rather than love.
    - - The focus is on the people already alive so if it saves their life they should do it. It can help with the unnecessary suffering of humans. Designer babies is not okay, lead society down the wrong virtuous path. The motivation behind the virtue is important as that can make it morally permissible or not. Don't want to be in excess or deficiency of the virtue as that wouldn't bring you to EUDIAMONIA. You need to find the mean.
- - - - Whoever causes the death of a foetus in which the rational soul is present is guilty of murder. It fails all the tests as it violates the primary precepts of defending innocent life as well as worshipping God. The act is not proportionate if the interior motive is selfish as it's all bad compared to any good there is.
    - - Always choose the most loving thing to do. If it's life and death for the mother and baby choose the mother to save. Woman wanted to abort baby as it was ill, this was a brave, loving and right decision as the lady was right in her belief that the embryo would be damaged. Sometimes fills the four working principles. Not very Christian.
    - - The termination should happen before there are signs of a human being established. It is better to abort potential babies rather than actual ones. Depends on the reason for it. Then has to agree with eudiamonia you would get at the end. Do it for trivial reasons then it is morally evil. Both parents take accountability. Seen as excess/ deficiency of the motives aren't right.
- - - - Rejects any form of suicide or euthanasia. The most fearsome evil is death itself. It is contrary to the natural inclination of any life form to stay alive. Go against the primary precepts of preserving life and worshipping God. Nature- good act. Means- bad act. Proportionality- good effect is to relieve the pain but they die sooner. Preserves life and not kill it.
    - - The relief from demoralising pain where there is no possibility of serving others is sufficient conditions to justify. The most loving thing to do is die. Have the right to die as well as the right to live. More loving to help someone. You are putting others at the centre however killing is going against the 10 Commandments, not having good faith.
    - - If you can't achieve eudiamonia then further living is pointless. Enduring pain is also courageous depending on occupation or disposition. It can be seen as courage and cowardice. Can be both excess and deficiency. Aren't showing justice when euthanising someone.
- - - - No rules in which you compel you to respond in one way you would have to decide in the light of your own views. Not loving as you're killing someone but protecting the rest of society. Innocent killed no loving outcome.
    - - Legitimate but not done by individuals due to revenge, the state should appoint someone for it. Doesn't mean that the executioner becomes a murderer. Exterior motives trying to get someone killed due to their own actions. Double Effect- not support bad acts for good effects. Get rid of those who disrupt society. Executing the criminal wouldn't be preservation of innocent life as they are criminals.
    - - No excess or deficiency for justice. Ultra realistic, about the good of others. If the victim is dead the only way to rectify this is to kill the murderer. Other ways to go about providing justice. Has to be in line with temperance and must not result in the cultivation of vices.
- - - - Animals are lower than humans and are used for human use. Justifies using animals as food, not much of a moral issue. Animals having rights isn't relevant. Justified in the Bible. Animals won't get to heaven. Everything okay but don't take things for granted.
    - - Concern with people and not animals. Not too loving for animals as you are exploiting them for food, as families grow they need to be feed if this is the only way it's the loving.
    - - Animals are for human use like plants are for animals. No ethical problem with eating meat. Animals exist for the sake of humans. Compassion is not being used as much for excellence so makes a person less virtuous.
- - - - Can help for the better of humans as it't the most loving thing to do for humans. The agapeic end of human welfare is achieved by the means if animal testing as the end justifies the means. Animals get hurt so not so loving. Conscious would way up the good and the bad with the idea of cloning.
    - - Highest thing in us is reason/ intelligence using animals extends our intellect and increases our knowledge and so on that level is virtuous. Can be cruel and lead to the cultivation of vices. Should look at alternatives when it comes to research and that would be cultivating compassion.
    - - Status of the animal is no greater than being human property, use of them is not immoral particularly especially when it helps cure humans. Would fulfil the primary precept to preserve life. Most of the time it's proportionate. May be condemned as you aren't worshipping God's creations.
- - - - Shouldn't put the interests of humans before those animal species in cases where human pleasures are gained at the expense of animal pain and suffering. Hateful for humans to take part. Hard to justify. Killing a fox may be seen as agapeic if it has killed animals.
    - - Human's can use animals as they see fit. The pain and suffering is acceptable. If animal dies in sport that is also acceptable. Have the responsibility to look after our space. Little to no objection from this approach
    - - Participating in any type of blood sport would show a lack of compassion to the animals and could be a danger of that progressing to humans. Shows lack of self control. To cultivate temperance you should think about the suffering caused.
- - - - Humans helped so it is loving. Can be moral or not will depend on the situation on what the individual thinks about the status of animals. Should pursue other ways as that is the most loving for every one and everything.
    - - Would approve. Humans have every right to use animals as they are superior. Ban on any attempt to modify the human genome as that is going against God's blueprint, not worshipping God.
    - - Approval of scientific techniques would mean that it is approved of transplants. Show the virtue of compassion. Hierarchy of souls means that we can use animals for our own means. Compassion to save the human life outweighs the animal life that is taken as it gives the potential for thousands of people to live healthy lives. Animal should die as pain free as possible. Result in good character development.