Analyse non-religious responses to moral issues arising from protection. - Scottish Highers Religious Moral and Philosophical Studies - Question 13 - 2023

Non-religious responses to moral issues surrounding protection can be analyzed through various philosophical perspectives, such as utilitarianism, human rights, and social contract theory.

Utilitarian Perspective

Utilitarianism suggests that the morality of an action is judged based on its outcomes. In the context of protection, a non-religious response may advocate for measures that maximize overall happiness and minimize harm. For example, implementing laws aimed at protecting citizens from violence would be justified if it leads to a safer society. However, critics may argue that such measures could infringe on individual freedoms.

Human Rights Perspective

From a human rights standpoint, the moral obligation to protect individuals stems from the inherent rights that every human possesses. Non-religious advocates may argue for protections extending to marginalized groups who are often vulnerable. This approach emphasizes the importance of equity and justice, asserting that society has a duty to safeguard the rights of all individuals.

Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory proposes that people consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to surrender some freedoms to a governing body in exchange for protection. Non-religious responses may highlight the moral necessity of governments ensuring the safety and well-being of their citizens, drawing from thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. However, a critical evaluation would also consider whether governments uphold their end of the contract by effectively protecting citizens.

Conclusion

In summary, non-religious responses to moral issues arising from protection focus on utilitarian outcomes, human rights, and social contracts. Each perspective offers unique insights but also presents challenges regarding the balance between individual freedoms and societal safety.