Good Conduct and Key Moral Principles (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Sanctity of Life
Overview
This topic explores the Christian belief that human life is sacred to God. You need to understand:
- The concept of the sanctity of life
- How this principle applies to issues involving embryos and the unborn
- Just War theory and its application to weapons of mass destruction
This topic brings together theological concepts, biblical interpretation, and practical ethical applications. Understanding both the strong and weak forms of the principle is essential for evaluating different Christian responses to life-and-death issues.
The concept of the sanctity of life
What does sanctity of life mean?
When we describe life as having sanctity, we mean it is holy and set apart as sacred in God's sight. In Christian teaching, this has developed into a key ethical principle known as the Sanctity of Life Principle.
Biblical foundations
The Sanctity of Life Principle is based primarily on two Genesis texts:
Genesis 1:26-27 teaches that humans are created 'in the image of God'. Most theologians argue that what is created in the image of the Creator must be sacred to him.
Genesis 2:7 describes God's creation of humanity:
then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
The Hebrew word nephesh appears in this verse, translated as both 'breath' and 'soul'. Since this method of giving life is described only for humans and not for other creatures, most theologians conclude that humans uniquely possess souls. This belief in the soul connects to Christian teaching about resurrection and reinforces the view that human life is sacred to God.
Intrinsic value
Intrinsic value: Something that has value for its own sake, not because of what it can do or achieve.
According to this principle, human life possesses value in itself because it is a gift from God. Regardless of physical or mental condition caused by accident or disease, all human lives must be valued and respected.
Job 1:21 is often referenced here. Despite losing everything, Job declares:
the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.
This shows that life remains sacred even in suffering, as it ultimately belongs to God.
Strong and weak forms
Some theologians distinguish between two interpretations of the Sanctity of Life Principle. Understanding both forms is crucial for evaluating different Christian approaches to ethical issues.
The strong form
The strong form holds that:
- All human life is sacred to God without exception
- It is morally wrong to allow contraception, abortion or euthanasia for any reason
- Life-support should not be withdrawn, even without detectable brain activity
- Life is sacred from the moment of conception
The weak form
The weak form maintains that:
- Human life is sacred and the principle must always be considered
- The situation and context must also be taken into account
- There may be circumstances where other factors need to be weighed
Quality of Life Principle
Some theologians who support the weaker form also appeal to a Quality of Life Principle alongside sanctity of life. This approach considers:
- The actual quality of life someone experiences or will experience
- Whether continuing life in certain conditions respects human dignity
- The God-given right to autonomy (self-determination)
For example, someone on life-support with no hope of recovery, whose brain has severely deteriorated, and who expressed wishes not to be kept alive in such circumstances, might be judged to have reached a point where quality of life considerations apply. This is seen as respecting the autonomy that comes from being made in God's image.
Applying the Sanctity of Life Principle
Issues to consider
When applying the sanctity of life principle to embryos and unborn children, several issues arise:
- The strong and weak forms of the principle
- Questions about personhood (when does a biological life become a person?)
- The right to life
- The Quality of Life Principle
- UK law (particularly the 14-day rule for embryo research)
The strong Sanctity of Life approach
When does personhood begin?
Applying the strong form depends largely on understanding 'personhood'. At conception, when sperm fertilises egg, a new biological life begins. The crucial question is whether this biological life is immediately a person with an inviolable right to life.
The strong Sanctity of Life Principle holds that personhood begins at conception because all the genetic material that will form the born person is already present.
Catholic Church teaching
The Catholic Church supports this understanding, arguing there is 'continuous development' from conception to birth. The 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion states:
Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. From the time that the ovum is fertilised, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.
Biblical support
Several passages support the principle that life is sacred from before birth:
Psalm 139:13:
For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb.
Job 31:15:
Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
Whilst these verses don't address specific biology, they affirm that life is sacred to God even before birth. In Jeremiah's case, the principle applies even before conception.
The Incarnation
Jesus' conception and gestation was normal human development. Luke 1:31 records:
you will conceive in your womb and bear a son
If Jesus at conception was not a legitimate target for harm, the same principle must apply to all human embryos. The sanctity of Jesus' human life began at conception, so the sanctity of all human life begins at the same point.
Conclusions from the strong form
Based on this reasoning:
Regarding embryo research: UK law gives special status to embryos after 14 days (when the 'primitive streak' appears). The strong form argues this effectively denies the embryo's right to life, which exists from conception. Any experimentation on embryos at any stage breaks the commandment against murder.
Regarding stem cell research and cloning: Despite potential medical benefits, these procedures are profoundly immoral. Harvesting embryonic stem cells destroys the donor embryo, equivalent to murder. Cloning is seen as 'playing God' by manipulating sacred life.
Regarding genetic selection (PGD): Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis allows testing for conditions like Down's syndrome and cystic fibrosis. However, the strong form rejects this because:
- It could create a society divided between a genetically-selected 'super-race' and those who cannot afford such procedures
- Children should be valued as they are, made in God's image
- PGD rejects some lives as not worth living
Regarding abortion: Life is sacred because it is created in God's image. Abortion destroys that image. We should care for life through good stewardship rather than claiming ownership over the embryo. The child's 'right to life' can override the mother's 'quality of life' considerations, even in cases of pregnancy through rape.
The weak Sanctity of Life approach
Christians who support the weak form reach different conclusions.
Church of England position
The Church of England accepts the value of the embryo at all stages but also considers actual and potential situations.
Regarding abortion: The church applies a Quality of Life Principle to the mother's life. If:
- The mother is pregnant as a result of rape, or
- Her life is in danger from the pregnancy, or
- She or the child could suffer abuse
Then the importance of the quality of her life in such situations can override the sanctity of the embryo's life.
For many Protestant Christians, Quality of Life also applies to the foetus. If severe mental or physical disability is certain, this may override the foetus's right to life. In Fletcher's situation ethics, for example, the primary concern is applying agape love rather than considerations of rights or sanctity.
Regarding embryo research and PGD: The Church of England uses the same principle to allow Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis for serious disorders and to permit embryo experimentation under strict control. The belief is that God-given knowledge should be used to improve the human condition whilst still holding to the sanctity of life. Different Protestant groups may accept the 14-day rule, viewing such research as recognising the sanctity of lives of millions suffering from currently incurable diseases.
Evaluating the Sanctity of Life Principle
Arguments in favour
The principle protects life as sacred and promotes a positive approach to valuing human life, including lives affected by disability. The weaker form:
- Aligns with Jesus' teachings on agape and loving one's neighbour
- Is often seen as more realistic about life's complexities
- Recognises that abortion is not necessarily an arbitrary choice but often linked to inadequate social support
The Church of England states:
The Church must also stand in opposition to the restricted life chances, poverty and in particular inadequate housing and social services which continue to limit and stunt too many people's lives.
Arguments against
The principle, particularly in its strong form:
- Rests on a pre-scientific assessment of human value made approximately 3,000 years ago
- Ignores scientific findings about evolution and natural selection
- These show that humans are not a special life form but part of what has evolved, no different from other animals
- The claim that humans are made in God's image is anthropomorphism (attributing human characteristics to God)
- It reinforces a patriarchal model where women are not equal with men in their choices (e.g., concerning abortion)
The Just War theory
Why does Just War theory relate to sanctity of life?
The Just War theory directly relates to the Sanctity of Life Principle because war involves issues of life and death. In effect, war overrules the sanctity of life or makes the right to life conditional.
Development and rationale
Just War theory was mainly developed in Christian circles because Christian authorities found tension between:
- Jesus' commands to resist violence (Matthew 5:38-41)
- Situations where they found violence to be necessary
Both Augustine and Aquinas were influential in developing the theory, which is set within a natural law framework. This framework includes a principle of defending one's own life and the lives of the innocent.
Two main elements
Ius ad bellum: The laws or conditions under which it is legitimate to go to war.
Ius in bello: The rules under which a war must be fought once it has begun.
Ius ad bellum principles
Six conditions must be met before going to war
Remember these using the mnemonic: J-L-R-P-L-P (Just cause, Legitimate authority, Right intention, Probability of success, Last resort, Proportionality)
1. Just cause
There must be a just cause, such as:
- Restoring peace
- Defending the innocent
- Resisting attack
Difficulty: Who decides whether a cause is just? In most wars, both sides believe their position is just.
2. Legitimate authority
War can only be declared by a competent political authority - a political system that promotes genuine justice. Hitler's dictatorship would not qualify.
Difficulty: Who decides that an authority is competent? How successful has the United Nations been in controlling the start of wars since 1945?
3. Right intention
The war must be fought with right intention, meaning the intention matches the just cause (e.g., to restore peace). Right intention should arguably include intervention to stop barbaric actions like genocide.
Worked Example: Right Intention and the Holocaust
Even if Hitler had not declared war in 1939, it could be argued there was right intention to declare war on him because of his attempt to exterminate Jews and others he considered 'undesirable'. This demonstrates how right intention can justify intervention to prevent atrocities, even when a country has not directly attacked you.
4. Reasonable probability of success
Unless the war is winnable, it is pointless. Fighting an unwinnable war would be futile.
Difficulty: Whether a war can be won cannot necessarily be known at its start. Much might depend on others seeing the legitimacy of the cause and deciding to assist once war has started.
5. Last resort
All other means to settle the conflict must have been tried first.
Difficulty: This criterion is problematic because pacifists will use any means to avoid war, including making concessions and having protracted negotiations. Sometimes the strategy with the best chance of success may be an immediate attack.
6. Proportionality
The benefits expected from waging war must be proportionate to the expected harm caused.
Worked Example: The 2003 Iraq War and Proportionality
The 2003 Iraq War illustrates the difficulty of applying proportionality. Tony Blair committed the UK to a US-led coalition to invade Iraq to remove an alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, described as an immediate threat to world peace.
The outcome:
- Such weapons failed to materialise
- Casualties were estimated between 150,000 and 600,000 deaths
- The region was destabilised
- The conflict bred deep resentment
The problem: It's impossible to know outcomes in advance, making the principle of proportionality difficult to apply. Were the effects proportionate to achievements? Many would argue no.
Ius in bello principles
Two principles govern conduct during war
Remember these using: D-P (Discrimination and Proportionality)
1. Discrimination
Non-combatants must not be directly attacked. It would be illegitimate to target civilian areas for bombing without legitimate military targets in those areas.
Worked Example: The Bombing of Dresden
During World War II, the saturation bombing of Dresden on 14 February 1945 killed between 25,000 and 40,000 civilians.
The justification:
- Dresden's rail network linked key areas
- It was considered legitimate reprisal for German bombing of Coventry
- Response to V-1 and V-2 rocket attacks on England
The problem: Both sides evidently accepted that civilians were legitimate targets. Is the theory, developed centuries earlier, even applicable to modern warfare?
2. Proportionality of means to ends
The means used to fight the war must be proportionate to the ends required. This includes:
- Rejecting intrinsically evil methods such as rape and genocide
- Rejecting biological and nuclear weapons, which are likely to be indiscriminate
Worked Example: The Rwandan Genocide
In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, rape was used as a weapon to humiliate and terrorise. An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans died in 100 days. Some perpetrators called themselves the 'Army of Jesus', believing they acted legitimately against God's enemies.
The question: How practical are such criteria in modern warfare when such atrocities occur despite Just War principles?
Weapons of mass destruction
What are weapons of mass destruction?
Three broad types exist - remember NBC:
- Nuclear weapons
- Biological weapons
- Chemical weapons
Nuclear weapons
Effects include heat, blast and radiation. A thermonuclear explosion produces heat of several million degrees. A 20-megaton blast would:
- Produce third-degree burns up to 38km away
- Level civilian buildings up to 20km away
- Create lethal radiation effects up to 5km away
Environmental damage would be severe, with contamination of topsoil, crops and water supplies. The 1986 Chernobyl explosion released radioactive dust over 200,000 km² of land. Effects of a global nuclear war are incalculable, particularly regarding environmental damage.
Chemical weapons
These cause injury, incapacitation or death. In World War I, mustard gas and phosgene gas caused blindness, lung damage and death. Phosgene was responsible for about 85% of 100,000 deaths from chemical weapons. Modern agents like Sarin gas can be around 16 times more deadly than cyanide, whilst VX gas is about 100 times more deadly than Sarin. Such weapons can create combat no-go areas where human and animal casualties are inevitable.
Biological weapons
These include bacteria and viruses. Entomological warfare uses insects to deliver biological agents like plague. Insects carry infectious pathogens transmitted when they bite victims. Botulinum toxin, distributed by aerosol or contaminating water and food, is so deadly that one gram can kill a million people if inhaled.
How weapons of mass destruction breach Just War theory
Three key breaches of Just War principles:
- Discrimination - WMDs cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants
- Proportionality (ius ad bellum) - The harm can never be proportionate to the good aimed at
- Proportionality (ius in bello) - Using WMDs can never be proportionate to the ends desired
- Probability of success - Full-scale use could destroy all sides, making success impossible
Discrimination
Most theologians argue that weapons of mass destruction can never discriminate. They are equally likely to kill non-combatants as destroy military targets, breaching the principle of discrimination (ius in bello principle 1).
Proportionality
Most theologians argue these weapons meet neither proportionality clause:
- Ius ad bellum principle 6: The harm done can never be proportionate to the good aimed at
- Ius in bello principle 2: Using these weapons during war can never be proportionate to the ends desired
This is particularly true of nuclear weapons, where use likely renders affected areas contaminated and unusable for decades.
Probability of success
With airburst nuclear weapons, contamination could be as deadly to aggressors as to intended victims. A full-scale nuclear confrontation would result in massive casualties and environmental destruction for all sides. With current weapons development, destroying Earth entirely may be possible within decades. This goes against ius ad bellum principle 4, since such wars have no probability of success.
Christian views on using weapons of mass destruction
View 1: Just War theory cannot be applied
Many Christians argue Just War theory cannot apply to weapons of mass destruction because:
- The evil threatened or caused would be out of proportion to any hoped-for good effects
- Their use could never be just
- Many churches appeal to Just War theory in describing nuclear weapons as 'intrinsically evil'
Since 2013, Pope Francis has urged the abolition of nuclear weapons. Many Protestant Churches take a similar line, for example, recommending that Trident (the UK's submarine-based nuclear deterrent) should not be renewed.
View 2: Such arguments are unrealistic
Other Christians see abolition arguments as unrealistic and unworkable because:
- Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented
- It would be naive to imagine countries will voluntarily give up nuclear weapons
- Smaller nations with nuclear capacity use it to deter larger, more powerful countries
- Without a nuclear deterrent, they would have nothing to prevent full-scale attack
Worked Example: Nuclear Deterrence and Czechoslovakia
If Czechoslovakia had possessed a nuclear deterrent in 1939, Hitler would have been unable to invade without retaliation that would have obliterated much of Germany. This illustrates the deterrent argument: the threat of devastating retaliation prevents attack.
In this thinking, the threat and use of nuclear weapons (and potentially biological and chemical weapons) could be justified because:
- The threat of use is the best deterrent to potential attackers
- Invasion and conquest by another country could be worse than using nuclear weapons
- Atrocities committed by invading armies are arguably as unspeakable as nuclear weapon use
- Abolishing nuclear weapons would merely return us to conventional warfare
- Conventional weapons are rapidly becoming as deadly as nuclear weapons
Some argue modern nuclear weapons have been developed to be less powerful with very accurate guidance systems enabling 'surgical strikes', potentially making them compatible with Just War principles.
Exam tip
When discussing Just War theory and weapons of mass destruction, ensure you can:
- Explain each ius ad bellum and ius in bello principle clearly
- Show how weapons of mass destruction breach specific principles
- Present both Christian viewpoints on whether the theory can apply
- Use examples to illustrate difficulties with the criteria
Key Points to Remember:
-
Sanctity of life means human life is holy and sacred to God, based on Genesis 1:26-27 (image of God) and Genesis 2:7 (breath of life/nephesh)
-
The strong form holds that all human life is sacred from conception, making contraception, abortion and euthanasia morally impermissible for any reason
-
The weak form considers situation and context alongside sanctity, allowing the Quality of Life Principle to be weighed against the right to life in certain circumstances
-
Just War theory has two parts: ius ad bellum (six conditions for going to war) and ius in bello (two principles for conducting war)
-
Ius ad bellum - J-L-R-P-L-P: Just cause, Legitimate authority, Right intention, Probability of success, Last resort, Proportionality
-
Ius in bello - D-P: Discrimination and Proportionality
-
Weapons of mass destruction - NBC: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical
-
Most Christians argue weapons of mass destruction breach Just War principles because they cannot discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, and the harm caused can never be proportionate to any good aimed at