As we are to discuss whether Creationism should be given the status of a “science” I shall refer to it as the Creation theory rather than Creation Science. Followers of the Creation theory postulate that all life (animal and plant), the universe and all else that we take to make up our natural world were brought into existence from nothing by special processes conducted by God as stated in the book of Genesis. The foundational belief of the Creation theory is that Genesis is inerrant and that it is a literal representation of how the world was created.

Advocates of the Creation theory also believe the following:

• The Earth is under 10,000 years old.
• All “kinds” of life forms were created within the 6 days of creation week, with plants preceding animals.
• Descriptions of the Noachian flood are accurate and this flood brought about changes in the earth’s landscape giving rise to mountains, volcanoes as well as the resulting in fossil formation.
• Man and apes have separate ancestry.
• Evolution did not occur. Only minor changes within a “kind” of animal/plant have happened.
• Although the earth is under 10,000 years, God created all things as if they had a preceding history and this is why the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old.

To decipher whether or not the Creation theory can be considered a science we must first outline what defines “science” itself. Many philosophers have tried to define this but have rarely been able to agree on the definitions presented. A popular demarcation criterion is Karl Popper’s idea of Falsification.

It is almost implicit in the scientific method that nothing is absolutely proven for all time and that all true scientific theories can be falsified. If a theory is falsified it must then be disregarded. Falsification, therefore allows science to be a self correcting process, enabling detection of errors in order to further scientific progress. Popper also argues that science proceeds not by the accumulation of positive inductive support for a theory but by trying to falsify it and Popper sees confirmation simply as unsuccessful falsification. For this method to be employed theories must also be able to make novel predictions about a wide range of phenomena which can be tested.

In order to be retained as an accurate scientific theory it must be able to survive several attempts of falsification through testing. This is not to say that we should be critical towards even our most “certain” scientific theories, as many theories were well accepted in their time but were later disputed and falsified.

It would seem that in some ways the Creation theory is falsifiable in that it has falsifiable consequences. Focussing on one aspect of the theory, which states that all animals inhabited the planet at the same time implying that dinosaurs and humans would have co-existed, it would seem that this has been falsified by the fact that not all fossils are of the same age and that no human and dinosaur fossils have been found together. It would seem then that Creation theory ‘passes’ the test of falsification. However, Popper’s criterion also sates that once falsified a theory must be revised and retested on the basis of new predictions. Creationists do not adhere to this criterion as they will not allow their theories to be refuted. This does more harm to Creationists claim of being scientific because if they were to adapt their theories they may be given some credit of being scientific (even if only as ‘bad’ science).

Creationists may have their own reasons not to believe the evidence as they may not think that methods such as Carbon dating are accurate or that no one has dug deep enough to discover fossils of humans and dinosaurs together. Other disputed areas of the Creation theory are its claim that God created everything from nothing as this is nether a testable theory or falsifiable and so in accordance with Popper, unscientific. But, even this can be explained by the Creationists who claim “God, used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe”┼ therefore it is not possible to obtain evidence for it by current scientific methods of investigation.

Creation theory fails to satisfy Popper’s demarcation criterion also on the point that it is unable to make predictions of future events and only able to provide “after the fact explanations of things already known” ┼ This is what Creationists appear to do as they take the book of Genesis to be a literal explanation of creation and therefore try and ensure all evidence somehow compliments the theory. Many Creationists set out to falsify the evolution theory in order to show that it is not necessarily good science. However the fact that areas of the evolution theory can be falsified leading to a revision in the theory proves it to be a science.

Many other aspects of the Creation theory are falsifiable but let us move on and examine whether the theory can be deemed scientific according to other criteria such as Inductivism.

Inductivism is a theory put forward by Francis Bacon in the 17th Century and is based on the following principles:

• Presuppositionless observation by random collection of information
• Organisation of results
• Generalisation by induction
• Prediction and further experimentation

Induction is based primarily on past observations and the principle that the more times a phenomenon is observed or occurs the more likely it becomes in the future. Observation of phenomenon is taken without bias and the results of our experience are recorded. Once made, the observations are used as a basis for scientific theories and laws. Inductivism is a “form of reasoning where we generalise from a whole collection of particular instances to a general conclusion.” ψ

Inductivism works on the assumption that the future resembles the past and implies that past justification also justifies similar future occurrences. Creation theory appears to comply with the inductive criterion as it seems to be an unbiased explanation of the evidence through observation. However, there are some discrepancies as Creationists do not believe that the processes used by God during creation week are observable or present today and therefore this conflicts with the inductivist principle that future events resemble past ones.

Verification is similar to induction in that it works on direct observation and looks for positive instances to justify a theory. Also in the same way as induction it only determines that things are highly probable rather than certain.

Creationists may argue that modern science cannot directly observe all things such as the growth of the Earth and cannot determine its true age. However, there are methods which have been developed to verify this such as Carbon dating. In order to accept this as verification you have to trust the methods employed. Most of these methods share a simple assumption that the basic processes occurring today behaved in the same way in the past (an inductive principle) for example the gravitational constants and the speed of light etc, were the same thousands/billions of years ago as they are today. Creationists dispute this and as mentioned before suggest that many processes used for creation are no longer present and even if they are, there is no proof that they acted in the way they are observed to do so today. For example; what if radioactive decay was faster back in 400BCE?! This could mean that many of the fossils which have been dated are not as old as first thought.

Verification also claims that a statement is only meaningful if it is possible to verify it via direct observation. As the entire Creation theory is based on the notion that God exists, which is neither testable nor directly observable it cannot be verified.

Some of the Creationist’s claims are possibly verifiable. One of these claims are that “kinds” of animals are fixed and only minor changes have happened within any kind and no new “kinds” of animal can now be created. Therefore evolution did not and is not taking place and no transitional forms exist and Evolution theory it seems can be falsified when examining the fossil record. Evolutionists claim that all animals have a shared ancestry and therefore there must be transitional forms present between species.

It seems that the Creationist’s claim can be verified by examining fossils found in the Cambrian rocks. “Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life has been found in the Cambrian rocks” * but no multicellular fossils have ever been uncovered in Precambrian rocks. This appears to show a “sudden appearance in great variety of highly complex forms” * which is in clear contradiction with the evolution model and in favour of the Creation theory. “There is in fact, a systematic deficiency of transitional forms between the higher categories, just as predited but the creation model.” * Although there is evidence of transitions at the subspecies level (which is accounted for by the Creation model). This could possibly be verification for the creation model and a falsification for the evolution model.

Creationists may argue that the lack of evidence of transitional forms is due to their non-existence but in the same way the evolutionists may claim that the reason there is no evidence recorded of human and dinosaur remains of the same age is because they do not exist either. But as Michael Ruse states “denying Evolution in no way proves Creationism.” ┼

There are many reasons why scientists believe Genesis and the Creation theory to be inaccurate and unscientific. One of the questionable aspects of Genesis is the order of creation described. According to the book of Genesis plants were created on the 3rd day and birds and insects on the 5th day. This poses somewhat of a problem for those Creationists who believe that each day was equivalent to 1000 years as many plants rely on insects and birds for propagation.

The account of the Noachian flood which shaped the Earth and lead to the formation of sedimentary fossils also appears to be severely flawed. There has been no evidence presented for this occurrence. There are serious questions as to where all the water came from and indeed went. Apart from biblical writing there does not seem to be any record of this flood among ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, which would have existed at the time of Noah.

There would have appeared to be major interruptions in pre-flood and post-flood cultures however there are no signs of this and these various cultures seem to have continued to develop through the period of the flood. “Creationists believe that the flood, for example could not have just occurred through blind regularities. As Whitcomb and Morris make very clear, certain supernatural intervention were necessary to bring about the flood” ┼
A miracle perhaps?! Yet, science does not allow for miracles as Michael Ruse suggests and so is it possible to disregard Creation theory as a science on these grounds? However, It could be argued that science does not appear to admit miracles where in fact it does but presents them as ‘unexplained data’. Scientists will then strive to explain this data by employing new methods or creating a new theory. Is this not just ad hoc hypothesis making or a “conventionalist twist” (where data is somehow accounted for to save core assumptions) and is this not the very thing Popper claims science can not do. Does science just construct a natural law for each miracle?

For example; whether the earth was created by a God or as according to the Big Bang Theory both accounts violate all current conditions of the universe and have not been observed again. So in many ways both are miracles. Only the Big Bang theory has scientific laws which have become associated with it. Ruse claims that “science is about unbroken natural regularity” ┼ and this clearly does not seem to be the case in the previous example.

Ruse also claims that science is bound by natural laws and makes predictions on the basis of these laws whereas the creation of the universe, as according to the Creationists, is not bound by law. Ruse suggests that Creationists are unable to provide sufficient evidence for their claims and make themselves somewhat immune to providing further evidence by claiming ‘God created things that way’ which cannot be tested or proved. Ruse also says that many creationists appear to further their integrity and argument “by showing evolution (specifically Darwinism) wrong rather than by showing Creationism right.” ┼

Science it seems must also be open to change and development, to take the Bible literally and think of the writings in Genesis to be inerrant allows no room for further debate, discussion, progression on the original conclusion. This along with previous failures of Creation theory to meet scientific criterion would seem to lead us to the conclusion that it is not scientific. It could also be said that science is to some extent just as dogmatic as many of its core assumptions are not challenged but accepted and used as foundations for the rest of science. Is this not the same as what Creationists do? I disagree and feel it is not the same, as creationists would not accept any falsity in their core beliefs whereas scientists are more open to accepting such challenges, looking at the evidence and making the necessary corrections if required. Therefore the dogmatism is temporary unlike the inherent dogmatism of Creationism.

There have been objections to many of the aforementioned arguments by Larry Laudan. Laudan says that Creation theory is falsifiable and by denying this it “deprives science of it strongest argument against creationism” ◊ Laudan says that the best way to disregard Creation theory as a science would be in the first instance to actually test it as a science and show it to be misguided and false rather than “asserting that Creationism makes no empirical claims” ◊ as this only immunises “their ideology from empirical confrontation” ◊ Adopting this approach would seem to only present Creation theory as bad or weak science rather than unscientific.

If we were to adopt Feyeraband’s viewpoint of “methodological anarchism” it would seem that both Creation theory and Evolution theory have equal weight. Feyeraband also felt that science itself was just another dogma, a claim also made by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga states that the Evolution theory is an atheist dogma and a religion in itself. Plantinga argues that without the Evolution theory the non theist would not have a satisfactory way of understanding how the world came into being and hence the devotion to it.

Feyeraband felt it was important that new theories were built upon previously well confirmed ones and should not be immediately disregarded but be given room to grow. I feel that this is the only way to progress the argument for or against Evolution theory or indeed Creation theory. If Creation theory presents itself to be a science then may be it should be evaluated as such and if it cannot be furthered through scientific methodology and practice then may be it should not be considered as science. Disregarding it solely on hypothetical claims that it cannot be verified or falsified is hardly scientific in itself.

In terms of accepting the Creation theory or Evolution theory I am drawn to Evolution theory because of its evidence based conclusions and because it is in keeping with laws of nature but no amount of evidence can prove definitively that one theory is more accurate. As for the question ‘are there good reasons to think that Creations science is or is not science?’ I am inclined to say no on the basis of the several arguments presented throughout this discussion. Creation theory is heavily influenced by religion, its attitude towards evidence contrary to its core beliefs and lack of evidence for many aspects of the creation story lead me to the conclusion that it is should not be thought of as a science.

It is possible to look at Creation theory from Kuhn’s point of view and suggest that the theory is just incommensurable to scientific methodologies of today. Although at the time of it (Genesis) being written, it may have been considered scientific according tot he standards of the times but as circumstances have changed the theory cannot be compared with scientific criterion of today. So it is possible to look at Creation theory and refer to it as being old/bad science but not in terms of science as we know it today. This however, does not really further the Creationists case as it clearly shows its failures as not being able to develop in accordance with new discoveries and evidence and is still being assured of its initial assumptions. Another problem arises when considering things from Kuhn’s point of view is that the story of Creation as described in Genesis was only presented as science in recent years so it is comparable to scientific criterion of present day.

Although we set out to discover if Creation theory could be classed as scientific there has also been much discussion about the Evolution theory and how it appears to be subject to some of the same problems Creation theory faces when questioned about being science. But this is not the aim here, as showing one to be false does not guarantee the other to be true science.

In conclusion I would have to agree with Michael Ruse and those others who say that Creation theory is not science as it is unable to adhere to the scientific methods of testing or development in that it:

• Is unable to be falsified and refuted
• Cannot be wholly verified
• Is not wholly inductive as it does not assume the past resembles the future
• Is constantly the subject of ad-hoc reinterpretation
• Is not based on collection of empirical evidence but rather uses evidence gathered by others to its advantage or disputes and tries to nullify such evidence if it is not to its liking

The inaccuracies in the Creation story can be understood in many ways by considering that people of the time were not as knowledgeable about the cosmos as we are today. Therefore it is understandable that many of the statements made are in keeping with what was considered to be known at the time but these known facts of the day have since been discredited and are far from scientific. Saying the theory is not science however does not prove it to be wrong and no amount of empirical evidence can make this absolutely certain. As Evolution theory is considered a science and therefore open to change it may well be, that at some stage in future research the Evolution theory becomes subject to such drastic alterations (in light of new evidence) that it could possibly resemble the Creationist’s theory!

The Scientific Renaissance (or scientific revolution) is said to have occurred around the 17th Century. If there was a scientific revolution was it just a general progression of science or was it the sort that sees great upheaval of thought and substantial development of ideas? If it was of the former sort then it was hardly a scientific renaissance. Was there are scientific renaissance? It will be my aim to look at what occurred during the period and discover whether there indeed was a revolution.

The 14th Century saw the beginnings of the artistic Renaissance; this cultural movement saw much artistic development as well as recovery of ancient artistic works. In the centuries preceding the Renaissance (medieval times) from about the 4th Century onwards there was a gradual recovery of works of the Greek ancients in the Latin West in Italy after the foundation of Constantinople (Byzantine Empire) in the East. After the foundation of Constantinople the West suffered a sense of lost superior classical knowledge and deeply desired to regain this knowledge. The Byzantium’s did not have this same thirst for knowledge as they already held the original Greek texts and they merely preserved them rather than building upon the knowledge. It was only in the 5th Century that a Roman Aristocrat and government official called Boethus set out to recover Aristotle’s works and translate it from Greek into Latin. But his project remained unfinished as he was prosecuted and executed for treason.

It was in the 7th Century that major translation of ancient texts was undertaken. This occurred after the Arab armies brought much of Persian and East Roman Empires (Byzantine Empire) under their rule. Islamic culture encouraged the seeking of knowledge, this was often taken to mean only religious knowledge but many found that scientific knowledge too could be used to serve the religion. Constantinople did not fall to Islam till 1453 but it still served as an important source for its knowledge of Greek science. In Persia the Arabs made contacts with the Nestorians who were Christian subjects who had recently encountered Christian missionaries who also brought with them Greek culture. It was contact with the Nestorians that enabled the Arabs to start translation of Greek texts into Arabic. Baghdad became one of the main translation centres and works such Euclid’s Elements, Archimedes’ mathematical work and Ptolemy’s Almagest were all translated.

Often in years to come the original Greek texts were lost and only the Arab texts remained. The Arabs used the Greek scientific texts as the foundation for their own developments and although many of the scientists were Christian or Jewish living under Arab rule they often produced work in Arabic. Arab scientists aimed to develop the work of their Greek teachers and often added their own commentaries of criticisms to translated texts. There were some notable developments made in mathematics and alchemy however the ancients were still revered and maintained their positions as the authorities on scientific knowledge. Although Arab scientists themselves may not have done anything ultimately revolutionary they could be credited with sparking the interest of those in the Latin West when they read the translated texts.

In the 10th Century prior to the direct translations Greeks texts into Latin, it was often the Arab texts that were translated. The commentaries that had been added sparked scientific interest of who read them. Although many in the Latin West found the Arab commentaries invigorating the Ancient’s were still very much as the authorities in their relevant fields and there was reluctance to of against them. Therefore much of the progress that was made early on was in the fields which had not been so heavily documented previously. Schools also began to appear as well as universities although much of the new scientific developments were made outside of these academic centres. In 1453 Constantinople was conquered by the Turks and many Greeks fled into Italy and brought much of the ancients’ texts and manuscripts with them. This allowed those in the West to finally translate directly from the Greek into Latin and have a purer form of the ancients’ knowledge.

Towards the beginning of the next century (1500s) the printing press was invented by Johan Gutenberg in Mainz. The printing press allowed for rapid reproduction of texts as well as more accurate reproduction. This development also meant that scientific diagrams which had been continuously reproduced by hand and which often were inaccurate could now be more efficiently replicated. This meant that there were more copies of important scientific works available to a larger audience.

It is around this point in time that some historians claim the scientific revolution began. I will set out the main developments in science from the 16th to the 18th Century (the period the revolution is thought to cover) and see if what took place is worthy of being called a scientific renaissance. During the artistic Renaissance there was a shift in attitude from a god centred or supernatural viewpoint to a more human orientated view. Hence there was much religious reformation and the Catholic Church was slowly losing its standing as a major authority. This shift in attitude was an important factor in scientific development and realism.

The development of mathematics plays a key role in the events of the 17th Century. There were important advances made with the introduction of logarithms, the
invention of the slide rule, and the development of a decimal system. Growth in trade and colonization meant the need to travel increased and cartography progressed immensely under these circumstances. The need to improve navigation stimulated developments in mathematics and astronomy. Mathematics became an essential tool in many fields. With the increase in trade and travel there was also movement of food sources and plants. Plants which had not previously been found in certain countries were brought over by travellers. The new varieties of plants which were being introduced into different areas lead to advances in botany with a major classification of plant life being carried out and governments sponsoring the development of botanical gardens.

During the first half of the 17th Century development in mathematics was an important factor in the development of the empirical sciences. Francis bacon was also a key player in this development of empirical science as was Descartes. The work of Francis Bacon on Inductivism and the scientific method was extremely important as it moved people to actively engage with nature and manipulate it accordingly rather than passively observe it. Both Descartes and Bacon encouraged investigation without preconceived ideas and observing nature without any bias. This was important as it meant that one would have to investigate nature without thinking of it in an Aristotelian way or any other way. Science would now have to report what was “actually” happening rather than what one thought was happening. The development of the scientific method encouraged scientists to organize data efficiently. The organization allowed patterns to be detected and easier extraction of information and the derivation of laws. Francis Bacon is often seen as a “Hero” of the so called revolution as he was the man who provided insight into the scientific method initially and gave science a stronger predictive power through his theory of induction which moved away from Aristotelian deduction.

Descartes who had been educated by the Jesuits was a capable mathematician. His work on metaphysics had great influence on new mechanical philosophies. Although Descartes inquiry into what he knew was done without preconceived notions his work usually placed experimentation in a secondary role and much of his work was deductive in nature unlike Bacon’s method which was inductive. However Descartes work on mechanics was one of the most influential of its time and he is said to have unified mathematics and physics.

Around the same time as Descartes was working on his theory of colliding bodies a London Physician, William Harvey made a major breakthrough in medicine. Harvey announced that blood was pumped by the heart all around the body; his calculations had led him to the conclusion that the heart could not possibly generate all the blood that was present in the body. Harvey proved his theory to be correct but how the blood was transferred from arteries into the veins was a discovery made later in 1661 by Malphigi who, using a microscope, discovered capillaries. Harvey’s work undermined much of Galen’s physiology but it was not enough to stop Physicians using Galenic therapeutics as they continued to display practical success.

There were also very important developments made in astronomy during the 16th and 17th Century. Copernicus is often thought as an influential character in this progression of astronomy. Although Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus (published in 1543) was important and was one of the first fully developed heliocentric theories published it was not received well initially. It did not adhere to Aristotelian physics and nor did Copernicus provide an alternate physics. Mathematics played a key role in the development of the sciences of the 16th and 17th centuries and Copernicus’ original aim appeared to be to improve on the mathematical nature of Ptolemy’s work and create a more accurate system.

Copernicus’ theory was highly mathematical and his theory was often used as a calculation model but not accepted as a true account of how things were. It was with the aid of Kepler and Galileo that the Copernican theory gained any credibility. Kepler used the accurate observational data of Tycho Brahe to improve upon the Copernican system and ultimately he did. However, Kepler also identified some flaws in the Copernican theory and moved to correct them and make the theory more accurate. Kepler introduced the idea of elliptical orbits for the planets. Kepler’s Laws were made public in 1619.

Galileo was also a Copernican and he became a teacher of mathematics at the University of Padua where he argued against Aristotle’s view of astronomy and nature of the universe. Galileo is most well known for his development of the telescope. The principle of the telescope was originally invented by a Dutch man and on hearing about this Galileo set out to create his own “spyglass” (as it was known). By August 1609 Galileo has perfected an instrument which had a magnification of about eight or nine. It was at the end of 1609 that Galileo turned his telescope towards the night sky to make some remarkable discoveries. The invention of the telescope allowed some of the phenomena which Copernicus had envisaged to be observed. The combined contribution of Galileo and Kepler gave the Copernican theory much credibility and towards the middle of the 17th Century the Heliocentric theory of the universe became well accepted. The work of both Kepler and Galileo also laid the foundations for the work of Newton.

It is in the work of Newton and mainly his Principia Mathematica (published in 1687) that the scientific revolution is thought to culminate. Newton unified the work of many of his predecessors. Newton’s major interest lay in alchemy, theology, optics and mathematics. Newton’s greatest achievement was his mathematical system of the universe in which he explained the laws of gravity. Newton provided a physics which could explain how planets could remain in orbit around the sun and offered irrefutable mathematical proof that nature had order and meaning.

This brings us to the end of the outline of many of the major events and discoveries in the period referred to as the scientific revolution. Of course there is much else that went on but my aim here was to give a general overview of the time. By the end of the 17th Century there were many societies and academies present which devoted their time to science. The Royal Society was founded in England in 1660 and its main aim was that of research and gathering knowledge about nature.

If then a revolution did occur or was it just a case of extremely rapid accumulation of knowledge owing to the recovery of old texts and inventions such as the printing press which allowed for efficient distribution of knowledge?! Many believe there was a revolution because the developments made from the time of Copernicus to that of Newton were a step towards modern science and vaguely resembled what we consider science today. But even the inquiry and science which occurred in the time of the ancients could be considered a Revolution, even though it does not resemble modern science but because they did not have thousands of years of data to build upon and had to initiate things. The events which took place in the 17th Century occurred at a much faster pace and the development of the scientific method was extremely important in understanding the truth of nature and dismissing inaccurate theories such as that of Aristotle. Science gained a new identity and became far more mathematical and methodological. I believe there was a Scientific Renaissance/Revolution because there were so many advances in a number of fields. The science which developed was also one which vaguely resembles ours today and this means that it was moving towards the truth which is ultimately the goal of science. Had the Aristotelian tradition maintained its strength it would seem that many of the developments in astronomy and physics would have been easily dismissed.

Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Ernst Mach thought that the revolution of the 17th century was a demarcation point between wrong science and right science but this does not seem right. I do not think this is entirely the case as the science which preceded the revolution was also incorporated into that of the 17th Century only in an altered manner, much of the observational data which had been collected was still right it was the application of it which was not completely accurate. The scientific ideas of the 17th Century developed in a slightly different manner and under different circumstances. The ancients (or so it seems to me) no longer maintained their standing as the main authorities on things as they had previously and so scientific thought was able to progress without any boundaries or limitations.

There are many moral theories which aim to describe the best way in which we should live our lives. One such theory is that of Utilitarianism. In the discussion that is to follow I will try to clearly outline what utilitarianism is and the main advantages and disadvantages of the utilitarian position. I find the utilitarian position one which has a superficial positive nature but if applied practically would seem to ignore the relevance of human emotion and lack understanding of human interaction and I will aim to show that this is the case.

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, that is to say it is a goal orientated one. The overall aim appears to be that of achieving the greatest overall good for the greatest number of people therefore it differs from the Egoistic theories whereby your own good is the overriding goal. There are different types of utilitarianism mainly Act utilitarianism (often called consequentialism) and rule utilitarianism. The principle of utility in act utilitarianism would be to choose the act which was right on the basis that it promoted the most overall good/happiness. The principle of utility in rule-utilitarianism is to follow those rules which will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In general the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions. To further outline what utilitarianism is I will look at the principles set out by Jeremy Bentham (although there are a great many more utilitarianists) as I feel he presents the case most clearly.

According to Bentham pain (be it in the form of mischief, inconvenience, unhappiness) and pleasure (in the forms of profit, convenience, advantage, happiness etc) are the only intrinsic evil and good respectively and that all other “goods and evil are derived from these qualities.” As I understand it Bentham feels that before one acts the pain and pleasure associated with the outcome should be weighed up and the act that promotes the most pleasure should be conducted. This seems to make sense and subconsciously appears to be what most individuals would do before taking any action. But, Bentham does not refer to the consequences at an individual level but at the level of the wider community.


Bentham sets out a criterion of how to value pain/pleasure by assessing the intensity, duration for which the pleasure is experienced, the number of people who will be affected and how likely it is to be followed by the same or opposite feeling (i.e. pain). In this way a calculation of total pain and pleasure can be made and the act with the highest pleasure score is that which is right. So it would seem that in Bentham’s view suffering is the main influence when making moral decisions. The advantage of this kind of system is that it seems easy to quantify the consequences of an action.

Kai Nielsen an advocate of act utilitarianism claims “that it is the consequences that determine the moral worth of an action.” Nielsen rejects the idea of moral absolutism and that there are certain moral principles which are always wrong to abandon in any circumstance. But it would seem to me that morals must be universal for utilitarianism to work and therefore one act of good must be the same act needed in another similar circumstance and therefore this in itself would appear to be a form of absolutism.

Consequentialism, Nielsen claims judges “actions, rules, policies, practices and moral principles” by certain consequences. The aim again as in Bentham’s system is to maximize the satisfaction and minimize dissatisfaction. This seems a noble idea but its implication not so noble. For example in the case that Bernard Williams presents to us of:

Jim who finds himself in a small South American town and sees a row of twenty Indians tied up against the wall. In front of them are several armed men. The leader of the armed men, Pedro, questions Jim and discovers that he got there by accident. Pedro explains that the Indians are a group who has been protesting against the government and are about to be killed. However Pedro offers Jim the opportunity to kill one of the Indian’s and says he will then set the rest free.*

In Nielsen’s view it would seem that the right thing to do would be for Jim to kill one Indian as this would lead to the most overall good in terms of extent and intensity. Taking such action would appall the moral absolutist as no innocent human should ever be killed in their view. This is not to say that Nielsen too would not be appalled if the killing was just for the sake of killing/inflicting pain but it is clearly not and their a far worse consequences if no action was taken.

This has obviously become a case of choosing between evils and by the means of rational thought opting for the lesser evil, although a regrettable action it would seem right to partake in the lesser evil and save more people instead of letting them all die. It would seem then that killing one Indian would be the rational thing to do for Nielsen, even though it is not done enthusiastically. However rationality should not be overridden on the basis of unreflective moral reactions. This does not seem right because is it not these moral reactions that should guide our actions? If we feel outraged by killing an innocent human being it would seem to me to be the right reaction to have.

Nielsen goes on to talk about negative responsibility and the affect of non-action in such situations resulting in greater evils occurring. From what I understand Nielsen would say that if Jim does not kill one Indian then he brings about the death of twenty Indians. This idea does not sit well with me as I feel that it excludes the fact that the death of the twenty Indians is also a result of the judgment of others (i.e. Pedro) and that they also influence the outcome of Jim’s action. It appears that the consequentialist theory uses guilt as its main source of power.

If Jim kills one Indian then this results in the greater good and rationally speaking Jim should have no reason to feel guilty, but if he abstains from the killing then (through other influences also) the greater evil occurs. For this Jim should feel responsible and guilty. To me it looks as if in a consequentialist society people’s actions would not be influenced by the want for a greater goof but to avoid a sense of guilt that this society would assign to inaction. This does not seem to be the right reason on which to act; the idea that everyone is trying to avoid feeling guilty does not to me signify a “happy” society.

The apparent positive nature of utilitarianism appears flawed when looking more thoroughly into its applications. Bernard Williams, who view utilitarianism as a bad moral theory, puts forward the idea that the assigning of negative responsibly to inaction aims to legitimize actions which morally you may object too and with this I agree. It appears that your own morals are neglected in such a theory and you do not act on your own intuition. I feel that a severe disadvantage of the utilitarian position is its ability to “alienate one from one’s own moral feeling” and force you into a pseudo-altruistic mindset. But in so doing it seems you would have to put aside any self- interest and disregard your own moral convictions. This would surely result in a loss of self-identity too and your sole purpose would appear to be a means to an end for the wider community.

This altruistic nature may seem desirable for if you are always acting for a greater good the number of bad things should ultimately reduce. I disagree because if every outcome of good required one evil act then this accumulation of evil must have a negative effect somewhere along the line. Even if it is only on the psychological well being of one person and subsequent consequences of this on their actions in life who has to commit or be exposed to this evil act. Why should this person themselves not be considered as part of the “greatest number” for which the greatest good is to be done for? Utilitarianists would say that this is as a result of the overall utilitarian calculation that things work out this way for some people and they must accept this. In a utilitarian society other people’s projects will no doubt impede upon your own but you should gain comfort from the idea that overall things are in a satisfactory state. This seems to go against the argument for utilitarianism as the person conducting the act and the act itself becomes somewhat isolated from each other. The person seems only to be a tool by which a particular utility is obtained but the person themselves does not necessarily have to gain anything from the act and it is not considered what affect committing the act will have on the person. In this sense it seems there is no real personal responsibility for committing a utilitarian act and there are no consequences for the individual just for the state of affairs.

One of the advantages of the utilitarian position would seem to be that you would always know what to do in any given situation just by reflecting on the possible consequences in the case of consequentialism or just adhering to the rules provided by rule utilitarianism and this would seem to achieve the goal of a good moral theory. Another apparent advantage is that a utilitarian society appears to be an unselfish and altruistic one where everyone is always acting for the greater good principle.

This level of altruism presents some problems. In order for utilitarianism to work everyone in any given society would have to adhere to the utilitarian theory. This could however be seen as a positive thing as everyone would be united in a common goal. The disadvantage here is that the intentions on which people act may not necessarily be noble. Let us go back to the case of Jim. If say Jim had some sort of vendetta against one of the Indians for whatever reason and decided that he would

take up Pedro’s offer and use the opportunity to get his revenge on the respective Indian then Jim would obviously be acting for reasons of self interest and not for the greater good but it would still appear as if he had. The intention on which people act plays an important role in moral reasoning and it would seem as though that this can be disregarded in a utilitarian society as long as the outcome is a favourable one. It would therefore be difficult to instill a justice system where motives were questioned.

I feel another disadvantage is that utilitarianism removes the importance of actual moral consideration when making decisions, barring the one consideration of how much overall good will be achieved. Other considerations such as how will this affect me or the people who I act towards are not a consideration. Individualism seems to be lost in such a utilitarian society and immediate human interaction appears to have little or no value in the greater scheme of things. There also seems to be a level of intrusiveness into the lives of others that must have to exist for utilitarianism to work. As you would have to know or at least assume you knew what was in the best interest of other in order to act for their greater good and this must require some prying. The utilitarian may argue that you base what is good for others on what you would take to be good for you hence solving this intrusion problem. Even so, I feel there are a great many other problems with utilitarianism all of which, for a lack of time, I am unable to go into here.

The idea that happiness should be the sole objective seems to be no bad thing, as surely we all strive to be happy. However, utilitarianism does not seem to account for the idea that happiness is a culmination of many other factors (such as self-worth, freedom etc). To live in a utilitarian society would mean that the value of some of these other factors and so it is difficult to understand what kind of happiness utilitarianism aims to achieve. I feel if this theory was put into practice it could severely reduce “happiness” at the individual level whilst appearing to have bettered the state of affairs.

Overall I do not find the utilitarian theory to be an effective moral theory. It removes the need for actual moral consideration when dealing with other moral beings. Although it tries to provide somewhat of a scientific certainty to ethics by valuing pleasures and such it assigns no proper responsibility to the means by which these pleasures are obtained. If you are only responsible for your act in as far as making sure u chose the one with the greatest utility seems to remove the need for moral consideration itself and therefore to me utilitarianism seems to miss the point of morality itself.

How we come to know things is a matter which has been debated for centuries. In the discussion that is to follow I will aim to outline what it means to say that some fact is innately known and also discuss whether John Locke in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding shows that nothing is innately known. I find that Locke’s argument stands up well against the principles of innate knowledge however I still find myself unable to reject the concept of innate knowledge totally.

For the sake of this discussion I will refer to those who believe in the principles of innate knowledge as Rationalists, although in reality not all rationalists adhere to this idea. Some well known rationalists are Descartes, Plato and Leibniz. Let us firstly focus on what defines innate knowledge.

It is said that innate knowledge is attained via intuition and deduction. This is to say that you assent to some principles by intuition alone and then deduce further truths from these intuited principles. This is all done in the mind and thus provides a priori knowledge. This is in many ways is what Descartes claimed. Descartes claimed that sensory experience could not be trusted as it could just be a dream or demon orchestrated experiences. So the claim is that knowledge gained by means of reasoning is far superior and more reliable than any reliant on sense experience. Descartes said that that which could be clearly and distinctly perceived was true and also necessarily true. Therefore it would seem that innate knowledge which is attained by intuition/deduction would have to be necessary truths. The problem I see with this is that it could also be said that your intuitions and deductions are also demon orchestrated and therefore also not reliable.

Another claim is that knowledge of some truths is part of our nature (again sensory independent). This would be in keeping with Carruthers claim that we are, through evolution disposed to know certain truths and as we develop these truths reveal themselves to us. The third popular and Platonic theory is that knowledge may be brought into consciousness by experience. The experience does not itself provide the knowledge but triggers something in the mind which enables it to recollect what it to already knew. Plato thought that the soul brought with it knowledge from prior lives and on unification with a new body it forgets some of this knowledge and therefore needs provocation to remember. In general it would seem that to have innate knowledge is to have knowledge which is not acquired through experience and that is 100% certain. Also to know something innately would mean that the concepts of any true proposition are also innate.

Locke, an empiricist, argues against the idea of innate knowledge and claims that all which is said to be innately known can in be in fact shown to be acquired through experience. Rationalists claim that when you come to the use of reasoning you come to know things already in the mind. Locke defines reason as “the faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles or propositions that are already known” and this would seem to imply that if you do have innate knowledge then you would come to know (by use of reason) what you already knew, but did not know you knew. This means that you would be in a state of both knowing and not knowing at the same time

which does not seem possible as Locke says. This seems to me to be a valid point because if reason, is as Locke defines it, then you cannot use the truths you don’t perceive to come to other truths, also which you do not perceive. There is also another problem here in that if what the rationalists says is correct you must be able to come to have knowledge of many things as soon as you come to the use of reasoning but this is clearly not the case with many people (Locke uses the examples of idiots and children). In response to this some rationalists may say that there are many truths which we will not come to know even though we are capable of knowing them. I, like Locke agree that no one would deny that we have the capacity to know many things but this does not stand as an argument for having innate knowledge of facts.

As another argument against the principle of reasoning in coming to know things, Locke uses the propositions to which we assent to as soon as we are told/hear them. Surely we cannot come to the use of reasoning and assent to ideas at the same time? Locke does not deny that reasoning is important in coming to know things but denies that when you reason it is the first time you take notice of this knowledge as he thinks that you have some knowledge even before you come to the use of reasoning. Reasoning just allows for the connection between the experiences you have had to be made.

Empiricists such as Locke often think that what is considered innate is simply a case of understanding the meaning of words and therefore analytic knowledge. From what I understand of Locke argument he says that when you learn certain words and come to understand the ideas they stand for you can then assent to propositions described in these words but this requires sensual exposure to the ideas so that they can be known. Locke says that children and idiots are unable to assent to certain ideas as they have not yet been exposed to them. But the rationalist who feels that it is part of our development/evolution to know things innately may say that a child will only assent to certain ideas once they have reached a certain stage of their development. This idea would seem to carry some weight as it has been found that we have innate language skills as has been shown by studies conducted by Noam Chomsky. May be our genetic make up as a species predisposes us to know certain things without external stimulus and this is why there are many truths man universally assents too.

The idea of universal assent is not something Locke agrees with. He does not feel there is any such thing as universal assent as there are no principles that all mankind agree upon. He says even if there was such a thing as universal assent this itself does not prove the existence of innate knowledge as there are those, children and idiots, who are ignorant of them. G.W.Leibniz, who thinks that there are some innate principles, responds to Locke’s argument against universal assent. Leibniz feels that universal assent does exist and that experiences would only ever provide us with knowledge of individual instances which would not hold true for every similar instance and therefore experience alone cannot provide us with this universally assented to knowledge. I feel inclined to agree with Leibniz here as it would see to me that experience of one thing does not necessarily provide you with sufficient knowledge for another similar thing and as many people seem to react in the same way to many things there must be some inbuilt ideas which guide us.



Locke goes on to talk about the idea of “truths imprinted on the soul which it perceives to or understands not”. He argues that if the mind is ignorant of a fact then how can this make an impression upon it? Surely if something impresses itself upon you then you are aware of it? Locke sees the mind as a blank slate upon which experiences makes their mark and says that only the natural faculties of men are needed to attain knowledge. I would agree with Locke in his argument of how someone can be ignorant of a fact which has apparently imprinted itself on your mind. But if we adhere to Plato’s recollection thesis of innate knowledge then it would seem that this problem can be overcome. Locke addresses this point and says that if experience is needed to strengthen the impression we already have then nature cannot have impressed upon us strongly enough. So if we need to be taught what the impressions should in themselves teach us, they cannot be innately known. I also feel that Plato’s idea of experience triggering what we know already is flawed. For if sense experience cannot be relied upon and your knowledge itself is of what these experiences provide it would seem that you cannot entirely trust what you know innately, if anything at all.

A problem I have here is that we would all appear to know our names and since our names are given to us after our birth it cannot stand that this knowledge is innate. Children are able to immediately assent to this knowledge without the use of reason, and it cannot be said that it is part of their nature or knowledge from a previous life because how would it be possible to have knowledge associated with this life in a a prior one?

It also, to me, does not follow that if indeed knowledge is imprinted on our soul why there should be a need for reason or experience to reveal it to us. Leibniz says that we have certain principles which need no proofs but without the senses would not occur to us, this to me seems to be a paradox. If something needs no proof it should be immediately clearly and not need any external stimulus. It could be argued that there are many things we know but often forget, like the words to a song and on hearing the first few lines we are able to recall them and the idea of innate knowledge recollection is possibly a similar one. I would argue that you often do not discover that you know things that you didn’t think you knew until the opportunity to use the knowledge arises but this would not seem to make this knowledge innate as it could be that this knowledge too has been deduced from principles acquired by other experiences. Some rationalists would agree that there are some truths that are acquired, but how is it that you distinguish between that which acquired knowledge and that which is innate? Clearly the knowledge which is shown to be innately attained can just as equally be shown to be acquired.

Another issue which troubles me when thinking about innate knowledge is if our innate knowledge is only in accordance with the truths of this world or if it would be true to call it knowledge in any other world? If we do have innate knowledge and we were suddenly transported to a world different to our own, would the innate knowledge we have, still hold true? Or would all our knowledge have to be acquired?


Locke does not in any way accept that having innate knowledge is possible. He concludes his arguments by saying that he finds it unintelligible to have innate truths which are not assented to and if you need to be told or exposed to certain propositions to know them then it would seem that they cannot have been in mind already; therefore must be learnt or acquired through experience. It seems to me that Locke presents a good case against the existence of innate knowledge; if what it means to say to that some fact is innately known is that it must be attained by the use of reason, immediately assented too or recollected on exposure to external stimuli.

Locke may not show that nothing is innately known as this would no doubt require looking into every thing we take to be knowledge and enquiring into how it has come to be known, which would be somewhat impossible. But he does show that many of the ways which rationalists explain how we come to know things (i.e. the use of reason, immediate assent, recollection of knowledge from previous lives) does not necessarily show that they are innate and it would seem that if such things could only be known innately there would be no room for doubt. However, even though I find Locke’s argument an agreeable one I find it difficult to completely disregard the idea that we have innate knowledge but I am unsure as to the reasons why.

Click to View My Original Art Piece

Censorship exists in many forms; social, political, cultural, religious and even self censorship. My original art piece is representative of some of these. Censorship is usually indicative of political and social climates. It also allows us to determine what a population deems as acceptable or unacceptable. This applies to art as much as any other form of expression. But why is there a need to censor? Why does the use of the human body attract so much controversy? Why is nudity seen to be obscene? Why is our natural state so offensive? Many unanswered questions and I will aim to explore the reasoning behind some of them.

 Throughout history individual expression and thought has lead to much outrage, controversy and criticisms and art has been at the forefront of much of this. In pre and post renaissance times the Catholic Church was very influential and much of the art produced was commissioned by them; so the Church had a lot of influence over what was painted and displayed. Therefore censorship by the church was common.

In the late 1700’s Francis Goya was brought to trial by the Spanish holy inquisition for his “artistic misconduct”. Goya had dared to paint “obscene naked women” and for that he had to be punished, according to the church. The absence of any religious context or mythological link meant that the presence of a nude in Goya’s art was not justified. This was not an isolated incident, Michelangelo’s spectacular work, The Creation in the Sistine Chapel was also a victim of Church censorship.

Initially most of the figures were naked; however the head of the Catholic Church saw this to be blasphemous. After the death of Michelangelo other artists were commissioned to cover up the nudity by painting on drapery. It is apparent that even in religious context nudity in art did not please the Catholic Church. This may have been due to religion’s demands for conformity to a certain set ideals or belief system. Therefore expression or even exploration of ideas outside this rigid belief system could have been regarded as threatening. Nudity in art may have been looked upon unfavourably because of its ability to tempt and arouse, both thought to be negative emotions as they take focus away from the idolisation of a higher being.

In regards to The Creation, it is thought that the drapery was not insisted upon entirely for reasons of blasphemy. The fact that God was shown to be as vulnerable exposed and as perfectly proportioned as the average man might not have pleased the Church. In this context it could have lead people to believe that they were no different from God himself.

In reference to my art piece, I have symbolised Church censorship through The Cross which hangs around the models neck as well as the drapery censoring her genitalia. The British flag has been purposely used as drapery as a symbol of political /state censorship. To me the British flag is representative of censorship, especially that of nudity. I feel that as a society, the British appear to have great difficulty addressing issues of sex and sexuality openly and therefore try to censor it. Political censorship today may have some of the same foundations as Church censorship once did. Whereby censorship of a certain view point or idea, is thought to make it easier to obtain a more subservient population.

Nazi Germany is a prime example of the political suppression of art, where the unconventional was portrayed to be wrong or evil. Such unconventional work was called ‘Degenerate Art’.  Degenerate art was typically anything, which did not follow the thinking of the National Socialist party and Hitler. Many expressionists such as Max Beckmann, Otto Dix, Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso were persecuted for their work. Pablo Picasso was extremely disliked due to his opposition to fascism and his work did not fill the purpose of promoting the Aryan way of life. Images such as that of Picasso’s Guernica (a graphic representation of a German bombing in Spain) exposed the true horrors of what war could do to human beings and were unacceptable as they did not fit in with Nazi propaganda.

Even today Guernica is not seen as a suitable image for “selling” a war and why would it be? After all it shows mutilated bodies, suffering and the devastating effects of war. If there was not such a chilling reminder of what military operations would mean for civilians in the piece, it may not have been covered up in the United States as it was. Last year in January 2003 the Guernica reproduction which hangs outside the United Nations Security Council entrance, was covered with a large curtain. Obviously Picasso’s anti-war masterpiece was not an appropriate background for speeches advocating the bombing and invasion of Iraq. But should such art be censored and uncensored according to its use as government propaganda?

As was the case in Nazi Germany, there is often a hostile reaction to art which is reflective of society or different to that which the public are used to. Edouard Manet’s reclining Olympia (painted in 1863) sparked strong negative comments both from the critics and the Parisian public.

Manet strongly believed that an artist had to move with the times and paint what he saw. But Manet’s ‘ahead of the times’ depiction of Olympia was not well received, as the naked woman was obviously a prostitute waiting for her next client. The Parisian public may have found this quite difficult to deal with not only because it reflected upon the growing business of prostitution (which was corrupting their society) but also because the nudity had no justification. The woman was clearly not a mythological goddess or a biblical figure that shied away from the viewer, so why was she naked?! Nudity with no apparent purpose seemed to trouble audiences.

Manet’s Olympia does not shy away from the viewer; she is bold and unashamed and stares directly back. Manet’s Olympia was not a passive participant as many female nudes had been portrayed previously. A similar theme can be seen in Manet’s Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe, which had a similar reception to Olympia. Critics did not understand the purpose of the nude women in the art if they were not nymphs or mythological beings. Many thought that Manet had crossed the line of what was morally acceptable. Such criticism of ‘human’ art is seen time and time again. Often it seems the easiest way to dismiss issues people do not feel comfortable addressing, such as that of prostitution.

Public display of such bold female nudes also challenged the normal female stereotypes of the time. This would have been considered potentially dangerous by such a patriarchal society. The feminist art movement is one that has encountered much censorship. Historically in the west, the female body has been portrayed as a passive recipient for the male gaze. Many female artists have therefore felt the need to rebel against this objectification and suppression of their freedoms through their art, as Jenny Saville does.

Even today public displays of nudity are somewhat taboo. However, it has become more acceptable in the form of paintings and sculpture. Although, the rise of photography (and increased realism) has resulted in further problems. Photographs of naked males or females in advertisement art are not socially acceptable; the genitalia will almost always be censored. The naked form still appears to cause offence, but there seems to be no real justification for it; in my opinion the naked form is ultimately the freest form in which one can exist. Therefore, it’s possible that it is this symbolic representation of freedom that is objected upon rather than the actual nudity.

Breaking free of taboos and stereotypes has always been important in art. The use of the body as art has many taboos associated with it. One exhibition which sparked much controversy and outrage over the use of the human body was Günter Von Hagen’s Bodyworlds exhibit.  The exhibition was a sobering display of plastinated bodies; many positioned in classical poses some which were adopted from the works of Vesalius. The exhibition opened to a barrage of criticism and protests about the way the bodies had been used. But why were drawings of the human form in such ‘outrageous’ positions acceptable yet the reality not so?

The most controversial piece was found to be the pregnant woman (with the unborn foetus exposed) in what some say was a ‘playboy’ like pose. Many protests were made about this being “morally unacceptable” and critics said that Von Hagen had stripped his subjects of their humanity and glamourised death. I did not find this to be the case, in fact quite the opposite. The expressionate manner in which the bodies were displayed humanised them, making them life-like and therefore somewhat easier to relate to.

There were many calls made to have the exhibition closed and at the time Von Hagen was even accused of contributing to the re-definition of human dignity which was associated with Nazi Germany. Yet again, we see how art is manipulated, by associating it with political policies which are now commonly considered to be unacceptable or even ‘evil’. Therefore leading to potential dismissal of the work’s importance and I believe the bodyworlds exhibition was very important.

The display was an excellent way to educate the general public about the human body. It made the science of anatomy, as well as the issue of death more approachable. It may have been this blatant connection with death that caused so much controversy. To be made to confront such realities as of your own mortality and in such a vivid manner are often difficult to deal with. People often prefer not to address such challenging and uncomfortable matters and therefore would rather they just disappear; this may be the reasons why so many wanted the exhibition banned.

There may be many other reasons why both critics and the public alike felt that Von Hagen had crossed the line. The use of the body itself as a piece of art often puzzles people. Drawings and sculptures of the body, which are used for scientific/educational purposes, are rarely questioned but in the context of art they are nearly always objected upon. With reference to my art piece, I purposely chose to have a drawn version of the pregnant woman from the exhibition as I felt it was a true symbol of controversy surrounding art in the 21^ST century. It is also a statement about how we often are not as shocked by drawn images today, yet the reality which it is based on still seems to offend us.

It seems that to be able to use the body as art it has to be given some justification, it is only then that it can be seen as acceptable. May be this is because people are unable to understand why something they (and so many others) use and see everyday should be considered as art, yet at the same time we revere the body to be something sacred (even after death). So what is it that so many object to when using the body in art?

Is it the religious indoctrination of society from many hundreds of years ago that still makes it hard for us to accept that the body is not sacred and therefore should not be used for purposes other than worship. Or is it the rise of humanism that is the cause of such controversies today? The increase in civil liberties, freedom of speech and individual self expression means people are less afraid to express their views and opinions artistically (and otherwise); therefore people are just as ‘free’ to disagree and cause controversy. Ultimately, the human body will always be viewed from different perspectives by people and so there will always be room for controversy and censorship.