Ethics and religion: Normative ethical theories — AQA A-Level Religious Studies
Ethics and religion: Normative ethical theories explained
Ethics and religion: Normative ethical theories covers 6 specification points, including Natural moral law and the principle of double… and Situation ethics with reference to Fletcher..
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Deontological: natural moral law and the principle of double effect with reference to Aquinas; proportionalism.
This topic covers deontological approaches that judge acts by rules or duties rather than by consequences alone. Natural moral law, associated with Aquinas, holds that reason can discern basic goods and that actions should follow the order of nature and its purposes. The principle of double effect addresses acts with both a good intended effect and a foreseen harmful side effect: the act itself must be morally good or neutral, the bad effect must not be the means to the good, and the intention must be the good effect, with the harm proportionate. Proportionalism, often linked with later Catholic moral theologians, weighs the pre-moral goods and evils in a situation while still holding some acts as morally wrong. Candidates should explain each and compare how they treat a hard case.
Teleological: situation ethics with reference to Fletcher.
Situation ethics is a teleological, consequentialist theory because it judges an act by the end it produces, namely the most loving outcome in the particular situation. Joseph Fletcher, in Situation Ethics (1966), sets this against legalism, which applies fixed rules, and antinomianism, which abandons all guidance. He offers four working principles: pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism. He also gives six fundamental principles, the first being that love is the only intrinsically good thing. The ruling norm is agape, self-giving love that seeks the neighbour's good rather than the agent's own. Fletcher's six propositions include that love is the only norm, that love and justice are the same, and that love justifies its means. A learner should be able to explain why the theory is teleological and how Fletcher's principles guide a moral decision.
Character based: virtue ethics with reference to Aristotle.
Virtue ethics is character-based because it asks what kind of person one should become rather than which act is right. Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, argues that the good life is eudaimonia, flourishing achieved by living in accordance with reason and exercising the virtues. A virtue is a settled disposition lying between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency; courage, for example, sits between recklessness and cowardice. Aristotle calls this the doctrine of the mean. Virtues are acquired through habituation and practice, so character is developed rather than given. Practical wisdom, or phronesis, enables a person to judge the mean in a particular situation. A learner should explain why the theory is character-based and how Aristotle's concepts of eudaimonia, the mean and phronesis fit together.
The differing approaches taken to moral decision making by these ethical theories.
This criterion asks you to compare how the three normative theories in this section reach moral decisions: natural moral law, situation ethics and virtue ethics. Natural moral law reasons from an ordered human nature towards primary precepts and then to secondary precepts worked out by reason, so a decision is tested against whether it fits the purpose of human flourishing. Situation ethics starts from agape and treats rules as flexible, weighing the particular situation and choosing the most loving outcome. Virtue ethics asks what a virtuous person would do, focusing on character, practical wisdom and the mean between extremes rather than on rules or consequences. Compare them by asking where moral authority sits, whether rules bind, and what counts as the basis for judging an act.
Their application to the issues of theft and lying.
This criterion asks you to apply natural moral law, situation ethics and virtue ethics to two issues: theft and lying. For natural moral law, consider how primary precepts such as preserving life and living in an ordered society generate secondary precepts against stealing and lying, and whether reason allows exceptions. For situation ethics, weigh whether a particular theft or lie could be the most loving act in that situation, since agape rather than a fixed rule decides. For virtue ethics, ask what a virtuous person would do, considering honesty and justice as virtues and the mean between extremes such as reckless deception and blunt truth-telling. Apply each theory concretely, then assess how convincing each application is.
The strengths and weaknesses of these ways of making moral decisions.
This criterion asks you to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the normative ethical theories studied in this section as ways of making moral decisions. In practice you take each theory in turn, state what it claims to do when a person faces a decision, and then test that claim. For natural moral law, ask whether a fixed rational order of primary precepts gives clear, universal guidance, and whether its secondary precepts and applications to hard cases are genuinely derivable or depend on contestable judgements. For situation ethics, ask whether agape-centred freedom to respond to each situation avoids legalism, and whether it risks inconsistency or arbitrariness. For virtue ethics, ask whether focusing on character and flourishing gives a richer account of moral life, and whether it gives determinate enough guidance when a decision must be made.
Your focus
- Explain natural moral law and the principle of double effect with reference to Aquinas
- Explain proportionalism as a normative theory
- Compare how the theories judge an action with mixed effects
Show all 18 objectives
- Explain why situation ethics counts as a teleological theory.
- Describe Fletcher's ruling norm of agape and at least one working principle.
- Distinguish situation ethics from legalism and antinomianism.
- Explain why virtue ethics is described as character-based.
- Describe Aristotle's doctrine of the mean with an example.
- Explain how eudaimonia, habituation and phronesis relate to virtuous character.
- Explain how natural moral law, situation ethics and virtue ethics each reach a moral decision.
- Compare the three theories by identifying where each locates moral authority.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to moral decision making.
- Apply natural moral law, situation ethics and virtue ethics to the issue of theft.
- Apply the same three theories to the issue of lying.
- Evaluate how convincing each theory's application to theft and lying is.
- Explain what each normative theory claims to offer as a way of making moral decisions.
- Assess at least one strength and one weakness of each theory using a concrete decision case.
- Reach and justify an overall judgement comparing the theories as guides to moral decision-making.
Ethics and religion: Normative ethical theories exam tips
Marking Points
- Explains natural moral law as a deontological theory grounded in reason and the purposes of human nature
- Outlines the four conditions of the principle of double effect and applies them to a case with a foreseen harmful side effect
- Explains proportionalism as weighing pre-moral goods and evils while retaining moral norms
- Compares how natural moral law and proportionalism would judge the same difficult action
- Identifies the deontological feature that rules or duties constrain what may be done for good consequences
- Identifies situation ethics as teleological because it evaluates an action by its end or outcome rather than by a fixed rule.
- Explains that Fletcher's ruling norm is agape, a self-giving love directed at the neighbour's good.
- States that Fletcher contrasts situation ethics with legalism and antinomianism as the two extremes he rejects.
- Names at least one of Fletcher's working principles, such as pragmatism, relativism, positivism or personalism, and explains its role.
- Explains that the theory is relativist because the loving response depends on the particular situation rather than a universal rule.
- Connects Fletcher's claim that love justifies its means to the teleological focus on outcomes.
- Identifies virtue ethics as character-based because it focuses on the kind of person one should become rather than on isolated acts.
- Explains Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia as flourishing or the good life achieved through virtuous activity.
- Describes the doctrine of the mean, showing that a virtue lies between a vice of excess and a vice of deficiency.
- Explains that virtues are acquired through habituation and practice rather than being innate.
- Explains the role of phronesis, practical wisdom, in judging the mean in a particular situation.
- Gives a concrete example, such as courage lying between recklessness and cowardice, to illustrate the mean.
- Explains that natural moral law derives moral decisions from primary precepts rooted in human nature and reason, then applies secondary precepts to particular cases.
- Explains that situation ethics makes agape the single absolute and treats other rules as situational, so the loving outcome decides the act.
- Explains that virtue ethics locates moral decision making in character and practical wisdom, aiming at the mean between extremes rather than at rule-following.
- Compares the theories by identifying where each places moral authority, whether in reason and nature, in love, or in virtuous character.
- Assesses strengths and weaknesses of each approach to decision making, for example the flexibility of situation ethics against the guidance offered by natural moral law.
- Applies natural moral law to theft and lying by tracing secondary precepts back to primary precepts and judging each act against human flourishing.
- Applies situation ethics to theft and lying by weighing whether the act serves agape in the particular situation rather than by a fixed rule.
- Applies virtue ethics to theft and lying by asking what a virtuous person would do, using virtues such as honesty and justice and the mean between extremes.
- Assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each application, for example whether situation ethics permits too much or natural moral law is too rigid.
- Uses concrete examples of theft and lying to show how each theory would reason to a different conclusion.
- States what each theory claims to do when a person makes a moral decision before evaluating it.
- Supports a claimed strength with a concrete decision case rather than a general assertion.
- Identifies a specific weakness of a theory and explains why it undermines that theory's guidance.
- Weighs strengths against weaknesses to reach a reasoned overall judgement.
- Compares theories on the same decision case to show where their guidance diverges.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Name each condition of double effect separately and apply it to one worked example
- 💡Show the deontological element in both theories before contrasting them
- 💡Use precise terms such as pre-moral good and proportionate reason rather than vague phrases
- 💡Define teleological and consequentialist terms precisely before applying them to Fletcher.
- 💡Use Fletcher's own vocabulary, such as agape, legalism and antinomianism, to show accurate knowledge.
- 💡Link each working principle to a concrete decision so the teleological character of the theory is clear.
- 💡Define eudaimonia, the mean and phronesis precisely before applying them.
- 💡Use a worked example of a virtue and its two opposing vices to demonstrate the doctrine of the mean.
- 💡Show how habituation and practical wisdom connect, so the character-based nature of the theory is clear.
- 💡Use a short worked example, such as a decision about whether to help a stranger, to show how each theory would reason differently.
- 💡Signal comparison explicitly with phrases such as 'whereas' and 'by contrast' so the examiner sees the differing approaches.
- 💡Keep every claim tied to the three theories named in this section and avoid importing theories from outside it.
- 💡Reserve time to evaluate, not just describe, since the question asks about differing approaches and their merits.
- 💡Structure the answer by issue, covering theft and then lying, and apply all three theories within each.
- 💡Use brief realistic examples to show how each theory reaches its conclusion on theft and on lying.
- 💡Evaluate each application rather than only describing it, weighing how convincing the reasoning is.
- 💡Keep the discussion within the three theories named in this section.
- 💡Anchor each evaluative point in a named decision case so the strength or weakness is visible in action.
- 💡Use evaluative connectives such as 'however', 'therefore' and 'this matters because' to build a judgement rather than a list.
- 💡Reserve time to state a clear conclusion that answers the question about making moral decisions, not just about the theories in general.
Common Mistakes
- Treats the principle of double effect as permitting any act with a good outcome; state that the bad effect must not be the means and that intention and proportion must be satisfied
- Describes proportionalism as simple consequentialism; explain that it weighs goods and evils while still holding some acts wrong
- Reduces natural moral law to following rules without reason; show that Aquinas grounds it in rational understanding of human purposes
- Treats situation ethics as deontological because it uses the word love; correct this by stressing that Fletcher judges acts by their loving outcome, which makes the theory teleological.
- Confuses agape with romantic or emotional love; correct this by defining agape as self-giving love that seeks the neighbour's good.
- Assumes situation ethics has no principles at all; correct this by noting Fletcher's four working principles and six fundamental principles.
- Attributes the theory to a different thinker; correct this by naming Joseph Fletcher and his 1966 book Situation Ethics.
- Treats virtue ethics as a rule-based theory that tells agents exactly what to do; correct this by stressing that it asks what kind of person to become.
- Defines the mean as a simple average or midpoint between two extremes; correct this by explaining that the mean is relative to the agent and situation and is judged by practical wisdom.
- Assumes people are born virtuous; correct this by explaining that Aristotle holds virtues are acquired through habituation.
- Confuses eudaimonia with mere pleasure or feeling; correct this by defining it as flourishing achieved through rational virtuous activity.
- Treats the three theories as identical in method; distinguish rule-based reasoning, situational love-based reasoning and character-based reasoning.
- Assumes virtue ethics gives a decision procedure of rules; explain that it asks what a virtuous person would do and relies on practical wisdom.
- Describes situation ethics as having no principle at all; state that agape remains its single absolute.
- Lists the theories without comparing them; draw explicit points of contrast between them.
- Applies only one theory to both issues; address all three theories across theft and lying.
- Treats natural moral law as allowing no reasoning at all; explain the role of secondary precepts and reason.
- Assumes situation ethics always permits theft or lying; show that agape must genuinely justify the act in that situation.
- Ignores the mean in virtue ethics; explain how a virtuous person avoids both excess and deficiency.
- Lists strengths and weaknesses without linking them to how the theory actually guides a decision; connect each point to a concrete case.
- Treats one theory's weakness as automatically proving another theory correct; evaluate each on its own terms before comparing.
- Asserts that a theory is 'too vague' or 'too rigid' without explaining the mechanism; specify which element produces the problem.