1.

General Ethics

The word is derived from the Greek word, ‘ethica’ or ‘ethos’. It means the customs or habits that are
approved by a particular culture. The word, moral comes from the Latin word, ‘mores’ which also
means practices or habits which are acceptable in a particular society. Customs are not merely
habitual ways of acting. They are in fact, ways approved by the group or community or society. As
customs, morals, etc., vary from society to society, and from culture to culture, values and ethical
actions, too might change.

Ethics assumes that every action is driven by a motive, such as desire or aspiration, which creates a
sense of obligation. This raises fundamental questions: What is the ultimate standard for right
conduct? Is there a highest good? What determines right and wrong?

General ethics examines actions in terms of their underlying motives, goals, and impact on
individuals and others. However, if an action is solely driven by personal happiness or pleasure, it
may neglect the well-being of others. To be considered ethical, actions must be guided by reason and
virtue. Ultimately, general ethics acknowledges that ideals and norms can vary, making the concept
of an absolute ideal a goal to strive for rather than a fixed reality.

2. Christian ethics and theology

a. Dualistic View
The basic assumption is that theology is different from ethics. They constitute their own.
They are not closely related. A traditional understanding is that theology has nothing to do
with ethics. God- questions are theological questions and not ethical questions for them.
Traditionally ethics deals with more practical aspects and theology deals with doctrinal
aspects. Ethics is very much reduced to moral behavior. Karl Barth deals with ethics
separately. Ethics is having a different volume all the time. Classical theologians do not want
to integrate the two. This is just like keeping them in watertight compartments. They are very
exclusive in themselves. They do not find much relationship between theology and ethics.
For them ethics derives more from theology.
b. Dialectical Method
They try to enrich each other. Ethics speaks to theology and theology speaks to ethics. There
is mutual response and responsibility. For Bonhoeffer ethics consults theology. They have a
strong relationship. They talk back and forth, as they have a strong relationship. They correct
each other and they also provoke to rethink. There is a dialogical relationship between
theology and ethics. Though they keep a separate identity, they are mutually responsible and
try to be inclusive, try to get suggestions from the other to have meaningful development.
c. Integration
This is a new development in the relationship between theology and ethics. It is overcoming
all existing patterns of relationship. Not only are theology and ethics related, they are very
much integrated. They integrate strongly as if theology looks like ethics and ethics looks like
theology. There is no visible difference between theological and ethical questions. All ethical
questions are taken seriously. It also deals with what is the real nature of God and what is the
function of God. By the development of political theology, the difference is not evident. 'God
is the liberator' is both theological and ethical view. There is no way to isolate theology and
ethics. Both deal with the issue of context. They raise same questions. There is no dichotomy.
Theology and ethics become essentially same. There is a strong unity
 3. Good: Good and evil, seemingly good, Noble/virtuous

"Who am I?" is central to ethics, as knowing oneself reveals areas for improvement. Virtue ethicists
equate this question with "How virtuous am I?" and consider the four cardinal virtues: prudence,
justice, temperance, and fortitude. To evaluate one's virtuousness, Thomas Aquinas suggests
considering standards to measure oneself against and ensuring fair self-assessment. Aristotle
recommends examining one's actions in spontaneous situations to gain honest self-knowledge,
revealing true character and areas for growth, and emphasizing the importance of critical and honest
self-awareness over wishful thinking.

Who ought I to become?

vision of the type of person we ought to become we acquire in life; they are what we
pursue.
 Acquisition:
This refers to what we obtain or achieve, whether tangible (like wealth, skills, or
possessions) or intangible (like knowledge, relationships, or virtues).
 Pursuit:
This implies that these acquisitions are not accidental but require focused effort,
intentionality, and persistence.
How do I get to the end?
To achieve one's goals, prudence is necessary. However, prudence is often misunderstood as
mere caution or self-interest. In reality, prudence is a virtue that involves being practical,
realistic, and attentive to detail. A prudent person sets achievable goals and works to attain
them, allowing for growth and development. Prudence requires anticipating challenges,
measuring progress, and adapting to circumstances. It is a skill that is developed over time
through experience and practice, rather than being an innate trait.

1. Ethical Teachings of Jesus Christ

The core of the Gospel and New Testament teachings is Jesus and His sacrifice, which
reconciled humanity to God. Ethical teachings of Jesus Christ are mostly found in the Sermon
on the Mount, but are also scattered throughout the Gospels. These teachings aren't a new set
of rules, but rather build upon and fulfill the Old Testament and its prophets. Jesus lived
according to the Old Testament Law and taught that He came to fulfill it, not abolish it. Jesus'
teachings cover both our relationship with God (religion) and our relationships with
others (ethics).

1. The norms and standards for the moral conduct have their origin in God.

God's laws are absolute, timeless, and binding for all people, as revealed in the Bible. Jesus
taught that He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it, and that it's permanent and unchanging.
The Law can be summarized as loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, and
loving our neighbours as ourselves. Even those who don't know God’s laws can sense right
from wrong, as the Law is written in their hearts, guiding their conscience and actions.

2. The moral conduct must grow out of a proper relation to God

To have proper relationships with others, we must first have a proper relationship with God.
Sin separates us from God and causes problems in the world. Jesus brought us back to God
and restored harmony. Through faith in Jesus, we can have a right relationship with God
again. When we are connected to God, we can live a good life and do good things. Jesus
teaches that changing our heart and having a right relationship with God comes first, and then
we can live a life that honors God.

3. Christian conduct is based on the fundamental law of love

Loving God and loving people are closely connected. If we don't love those around us, how
can we say we love God? The Bible teaches that faith is shown through love (Galatians 5:6).
We can't be right with God if we're not treating others with love and respect. Love is the
foundation for how we treat God and others. If we truly love God, we'll naturally love and
care for those around us. Jesus taught that loving others is a key part of following Him (John
13:34). By loving others, we can make a real difference in the world's problems, like
inequality, conflicts, and injustice. The world's biggest problem is sin, and the solution starts
with Christians showing love and kindness to those around them.

4. Jesus teaches a moral inwardness. -A moral act must be an outward expression of an

inward attitude

Jesus taught that being a good person isn't just about following rules or looking good on the
outside. He said that our actions and words should come from a good heart and genuine
intentions. Jesus considered bad thoughts and feelings, like anger and lust, to be just as wrong
as the bad actions they can lead to. He wanted His followers to be truly good people, not just
pretending to be, and to focus on being pure and loving on the inside, rather than just doing
the right things on the outside.

5. Jesus places the highest value on the human personality

To God, every human being is incredibly valuable and loved, simply because they exist.
Jesus taught that each person has dignity and worth, no matter what they've done or who they
are. In fact, Jesus said that God loves the world so much that He gave His only Son (John
3:16). The Bible says that humans are created in God's image and are redeemed by Jesus'
sacrifice. Christianity emphasizes the supreme value of each individual, valuing love, faith,
and morality above all else. This means that every person has inherent worth and dignity,
regardless of their circumstances or what others think.

6. Society cannot be regenerated except by the regeneration of the individual person

Jesus called His followers "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world," meaning they
have a crucial role in preserving goodness and sharing truth in society. Instead of avoiding
the world, Jesus prayed for His followers' protection within it, showing that personal
transformation is key to positive change in society. This transformation starts with a changed
heart and love for what's right. Jesus taught that true change comes from within, and that His
followers should engage with the world to make a positive impact, spreading love and
moral integrity.

7. Jesus is positive and not negative in his ethical teachings

Jesus teaches that living a good life is not just about avoiding bad things, but about actively
doing good. His teachings are meant to inspire and transform us, like yeast makes bread rise
and salt preserves food. As Christians, we're called to be a positive force in the world, not just
avoiding wrongdoing, but actively doing God's will. By doing so, we reflect God's glory and
show how faith can transform our daily lives.

8. Jesus taught very clearly that man must fear God rather men determining the course of
his conduct

Jesus taught that we shouldn't fear people who can harm our bodies, but rather fear God who
has power over our souls (Matthew 10:28). The apostles Peter and John agreed, saying we
should obey God rather than humans (Acts 5:29). As Christians, we must stand up for truth,
justice, and what's right, even if it's unpopular or goes against the powers that be.

9. Jesus clearly distinguishes between fundamental ethics and matters of ceremonies,

customs, and tradition
Jesus observed Jewish customs and the Jewish Ceremonial Law, but He always kept first
things first, and when His disciples were charged with having violated the Sabbath, He
pointed out to his critics that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

10. The cardinal virtue of Jesus

Jesus' main teachings emphasize love, humility, and sincerity. He also valued other virtues
like justice, mercy, kindness, and forgiveness. Jesus taught that true greatness comes from
serving others. Unfortunately, these values are often ignored in the world today, where
hatred, arrogance, and hypocrisy prevail. As a result, Christians can be influenced by the
world's negative values, and must strive to stay true to Jesus' teachings.

2. Ethics of Paul

1. New Creation: Eschatology And Ethics

Paul’s moral vision comes from the apocalyptic event of Christ death and resurrection. On
the other hand, Jewish apocalyptic tradition is eradication of evil and establishment of
messianic age or kingdom. However, Paul understanding of new creation comes from the
prophetical book of Isaiah 65:17-19. Based on Isaiah, Paul states in 2 Corith 5:17 already in
Christ we are in eschatology age. What kind of eschatology Paul is talked about? How do we
understand the salvation for men and creation? Can Kosmos of sin have nullified on the
cross? Paul thinks of the present time as an anomalous interval in which the “already” and the
“not yet” of redemption exist simultaneously in dialectical tension. The ends of the ages have
overlapped. The hope of redemption paradox due to persists mundane obligations, sin and
suffering. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is an eschatological sign, a foretaste
and assurance of God’s promised redemption (2 Cor1:22; 5:5).
2. THE CROSS: PARADIGM OF FAITHFULNESS
This concentration on the death of Jesus is the outworking of Paul’s determination “to know
nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). The cross is a complex symbol
in Paul’s thought-world, encoding a rich variety of meanings. Paul, Jesus’ death on the cross
is an act of loving, self-sacrificial obedience that becomes paradigmatic for the obedience of
all who are in Christ. The death of the Son of God on a cross is a unique event, unrepeatable,
reconciling humanity to God. it does become for Paul also an example, a paradigm for the life
of faith. When Paul writes in Galatians 6:2, “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way, you
will fulfil the law of Christ,” he has taken the pattern of Christ’s self-giving (1:4, 2:20) and
projected it into an imperative for the community to serve one another in love.
3. REDEEMED COMMUNITY: THE BODY OF CHRIST
Paul develops his account of the new community in Christ as a fundamental theological
theme in his proclamation of the gospel. Paul insists, have become “one in Christ Jesus,” no
longer divided by former distinctions of ethnicity, social status, or gender (Gal. 3:28).
Because in Christ they are all “sons of God,” John Barclay has well summarized the ethical
issue at stake: “The problem here is not legalism but cultural imperialism regarding Jewish
identity and Jewish customs as the essential tokens of membership in the people of God.”
Paul could equally be accused of promulgating a reverse “cultural imperialism.” He has
relativized and disqualified the distinctively Jewish signs of membership in God’s covenant
community. Daniel. B says study of Paul, describes Paul’s vision of community as
“particularist universalism.” The conformity of the Galatians to Christ is to be expressed in
their communal practice of loving, mutual service: “Through love become slaves to one
another Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfil the law of Christ” (5:13c;
6:2).

3. Christian Ethics is Deontological

Ethical systems can be broadly divided into two categories, deontological (duty-centered) and
teleological (end-centered). This is sometimes called consequential-ism since the value of an
act is determined by its consequence. Christian ethics is deontological. Utilitarianism is an
example of a teleological ethic. The nature of a deontological ethic can be seen more clearly
by contrast with a teleological view.

Christian ethics falls under the deontological category, emphasizing duty and moral
obligations, rather than consequences. In contrast, teleological ethics, like utilitarianism,
prioritize outcomes and consequences. A key difference between these approaches is how
they evaluate actions. Deontological ethics considers an action good or bad based on its
inherent nature, regardless of its outcome. Teleological ethics, on the other hand, determines
an action’s value by its consequences.

For example, from a deontological perspective, attempting to rescue a drowning person is

considered a good act, regardless of whether the attempt is successful. In contrast, a
teleological approach might argue that the act’s value depends on its outcome or its impact on
society. Christian ethics, being deontological, asserts that actions reflecting God’s nature are
inherently good, regardless of their success or failure.

Deontological Ethics Teleological Ethics

Rule determines the result. Results determines the rule.
Rule is the basis of the act. Result is the basis of the act.
Rule is good regardless of result. Rule is good because of result.
Result is always calculated within the Result is sometimes used to break rules.
rules.

4. Major Branches of Ethics

Ethics is a multifaceted discipline within philosophy that explores moral principles and their
applications. The major branches of ethics are:
1. Meta-Ethics: This branch examines the nature, origin, and meaning of ethical concepts.
It questions what we mean by terms like “good” or “right” and whether moral truths exist
independently of human beliefs.

2. Descriptive Ethics: This branch focuses on how people actually behave and what moral
beliefs they hold. It studies the ethical standards of different cultures and societies, often
drawing from fields like anthropology and sociology.

3. Normative Ethics: This branch is concerned with establishing norms or rules for behavior.
It seeks to determine what actions are morally right or wrong and includes theories such as:

 Deontological Ethics: Focuses on the morality of actions themselves, regardless of

their consequences (e.g., Kant’s Categorical Imperative).
 Consequentialism: Evaluates actions based on their outcomes (e.g., Utilitarianism).
 Virtue Ethics: Emphasizes the importance of character and virtues in ethical
decision-making (e.g., Aristotle's teachings).

4. Applied Ethics: This practical branch applies ethical theories to specific real-world
issues, such as bioethics, environmental ethics, and business ethics. It addresses
contemporary moral dilemmas faced in various professional fields.

1. Introduction

The concept of euthanasia has been distorted to mean mercy killing. This essay argues that
the increasing acceptance of euthanasia is alarming, particularly for vulnerable groups such
as the terminally ill, physically or mentally handicapped, and the elderly. In the advances in
medical technology have created unrealistic expectations and led some people to opt for
death rather than continued life with illness or disability.

1. Euthanasia

The term “Euthanasia” originated from the ancient Greek language (‘eu’ means good or
noble, and ‘thanathos’ means death), which means “good death” or “happy death”
The concept of euthanasia has undergone significant changes over time. The triumph of
man's creativity in medical science, bringing vast blessings, has also brought problems: The
brief postponement of death, often in the form of agonizing pain, may be purchased at the
price of financial ruin for the family, and increasingly threatens even the resources of the
state.

Today, euthanasia includes not only active mercy killing but also the right to refuse
treatment. Euthanasia must be distinguished from the termination of treatment, where death is
allowed to occur naturally without intentional intervention. The term “passive euthanasia” is
often misused, implying intentional causation of death, whereas “letting die” or “allowing to
die” more accurately describe the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
 1.1. Definition of Euthanasia
A widely accepted definition of euthanasia, which has been adopted by HOPE (Healthcare
opposed to Euthanasia), is as follows: Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission
of a person whose life is considered not to be worth living. This is popularly called “mercy-
killing”, and is divided between ‘voluntary euthanasia’ (‘assisted suicide’, the death
occurring at the explicit plea of the patient) and ‘involuntary euthanasia’ (the death occurring
by someone else’s decision when the patient is incapable of giving consent).

1.2. Different Kinds of Euthanasia

There are different kinds of euthanasia: Active and Passive.
 Active Euthanasia
The Active euthanasia is taking a life to avoid suffering. The National institute of Health
states that active euthanasia refers to the physician deliberate act, usually the administration
of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally ill patient’s life. It requires an active
intervention by a healthcare professional. It is often perceived as more controversial due to
the direct and intentional nature of causing death.
 Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia involves intentionally causing death, whereas passive euthanasia involves
allowing death to occur naturally. While active euthanasia is generally considered morally
wrong, passive euthanasia can be morally justifiable depending on the circumstances. There
are two types of passive euthanasia: unnatural passive euthanasia, which involves
withholding basic life-sustaining measures, and natural passive euthanasia, which involves
withdrawing artificial life-support measures that are prolonging an inevitable death.

1.3. An Evaluation of Natural Passive Euthanasia in Irreversible Sickness

Even in this carefully restricted sense of limited passive euthanasia, there are some
significant problems. The two most prominent ones are the meanings of “irreversible” and
“unnatural means.”
What Does Dying Mean?
A condition is considered “irreversible” when there are no known medical means to correct
the injury or disease process leading to death. This means that even the best unnatural means
will not stop death.
What Are Unnatural Means?
Natural life-sustaining methods include food, water, and oxygen. In contrast, unnatural
methods like respirators, artificial hearts, and kidney machines are clearly distinguishable.
However, certain treatments like intravenous feeding, oxygen masks, and antibiotics blur the
lines, as they involve natural elements (food, oxygen) delivered through artificial means.
Withdrawing these treatments can be equivalent to starvation or suffocation. The morality of
such decisions depends on the availability of technology. If special equipment is unavailable,
there's no moral obligation to use it. Similarly, heroic efforts with unnatural means aren't
morally required for irreversibly ill patients.
Is It Unmerciful Not to Relieve Pain by Death?
Some argue that certain individuals suffer so intensely that only death can alleviate their pain,
and that refusing to end their life is inhumane. However, the Bible offers guidance on this
issue.
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink
and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more. (Provo 31:6-7)
Although strong drink is condemned as a beverage that causes drunkenness (Prov 20:1; Isa.
5:11), it is recommended for those who are dying so that it can relieve them of their suffering.
Those in extreme distress should be given relief, such as sedatives, to ease their suffering.
This approach prioritizes compassion and pain management over euthanasia, emphasizing
that the dying should be comforted, not killed.
What if Pain Relievers Accelerate Death?
The Bible recommends relieving pain with sedatives, not euthanasia. When pain relievers
accelerate death, the principle of double effect may be invoked, where the good effect (pain
relief) is willed, and the evil effect (accelerated death) is an unintended consequence.

1.4. Christian Ethical response

Human life is considered a sacred gift from God, and its value is not determined by utility or
personal autonomy. While sustaining life is important, it's not an absolute value that must be
maintained at all costs.
In cases of terminal illness, prioritizing care over cure is morally permissible when life has
reached its limits and further treatment would be burdensome. However, actively intervening
to end life is seen as incompatible with the values of trust, care, and healing. Proponents of
euthanasia argue that exceptional cases of unbearable suffering may justify mercy killing.
Nevertheless, legalizing euthanasia could lead to unintended consequences, such as erosion
of trust in healthcare professionals and the slippery slope of extending euthanasia beyond
initial limits.

1.5. Conclusion
The issue of euthanasia remains a deeply complex and controversial topic that requires
careful reflection and ethical discernment. While advances in medical technology have
brought significant benefits, they have also created challenges in distinguishing between
prolonging life and delaying death. Euthanasia, whether active or passive, raises moral,
ethical, and theological questions.
I believe that active euthanasia would not be requested in most circumstances if there was
more humane care for the dying. Cases of extreme and intractable suffering, if the patients
were treated well, are uncommon, but they do occur.
I have come to the conclusion that euthanasia is intrinsically evil act, since it contradict the
dignity of the human person and against Christian ethics and furthermore, they are a crime
against humanity. Therefore, no intention, motive, circumstance, or presumed benefit can
justify what is an immoral act in itself.