Hello, my name is Mrs. Rawbone and I'd like to welcome you to this lesson today.

Together we're going to be working on the question of suffering and compassion.

By the end of today's lesson, you are going to be able to explain where compassion fits within different ethical theories and also look at whether it can justify suffering.

We've got three keywords in today's lesson.

Compassion, justify, and suffering.

Now, compassion is the feeling of care for someone else who is suffering and wanting to alleviate that suffering.

Justify means to explain why something is right or acceptable.

And suffering is the experience of pain or distress.

The lesson today will take two parts.

Firstly, we're going to be looking at compassion in ethical decision-making, and then we're going to look at compassion as a justification for suffering.

So let's get started on the first part of today's lesson, compassion in ethical decision-making.

As we think about the role of compassion in relation to suffering, we're going to be using philosophy as our lens.

Now philosophers are academics and thinkers who study ultimate questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality, using logic to explore them.

Whether you have a religious or a non-religious worldview, you can use philosophy as a tool to better understand the arguments that other people use to support their worldviews.

In this lesson, we will explore where compassion fits within different ethical theories and we'll use philosophical tools to debate whether it can justify suffering.

The word compassion comes from Latin.

It has two parts, com and passion.

The meaning of the word com is with.

Passion actually comes from the verb pati, meaning suffer.

So the original literal meaning of compassion is to suffer with someone.

Over time, it's come to mean feeling sympathy for someone else's pain and wanting to help them.

Now compassion has a role in many ethical theories.

Let's think about Kantian ethics first.

Kantian ethics is about doing your duty.

Kant emphasises the dignity and worth of each person, and we can see how feeling compassion would fit with this.

Let's consider utilitarianism.

The goal for utilitarian is to reduce pain and maximise good for the greatest number, and we can see how compassion might fit with this.

Reducing pain is certainly an aspect of what compassion is all about.

Let's think about how compassion works in situation ethics.

Situation ethics, which is particularly a Christian theory, focuses on agape love, unconditional care for others.

Another theory is virtue ethics.

Compassion has a really clear role in this theory because it's considered a virtue and therefore we should show it.

So let's delve into this a bit more deeply and think about how our theories link in with compassion.

Virtue ethics focuses on developing good character traits rather than on following rules or focusing on outcomes and consequences.

Consider this example.

You see someone drop their shopping bags and you immediately rush to help them pick them up.

This is compassionate.

You see someone in a typical situation where they are struggling and you go to help them.

So your action reflects a compassionate character and it demonstrates kindness as a key virtue.

Thinking about what Kant has to say about ethical decisions.

According to him, it's your duty to act in a way that we would want to become a universal law.

So in other words, if we do something, we need to be happy that it is something that if everyone else did would work well for the world.

So think about a situation you might well have come across.

A friend is struggling with their homework and you help them and you do this even though you could use the time to finish your own work.

Doing this is showing compassion because you see your friend is struggling and you go to alleviate the suffering that they're going through.

In this case, Kant would approve, because showing compassion and helping a friend could be universalized.

If everyone did that for each other, it would mean we treated each other with dignity and care and we didn't really just use each other as a means to an end.

Now utilitarianism focuses on maximising the good, so getting the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and at the same time minimising the pain felt.

Here's a situation where we can see utilitarianism in action, really demonstrating that compassion is a way of maximising good and minimising pain.

During a flood, a local community centre opens to provide shelter for those affected.

So thinking about maximising the good and minimising the pain is a way of showing compassion because people's basic needs are being met during a crisis.

Compassion is sometimes equated with showing love, and in situation ethics decisions are based on choosing the action which shows the most agape love.

So that is the unconditional love that Jesus told people to show for their neighbour and also for their enemies.

You might see a homeless individual in the cold and offer them your coat, even though you need it yourself.

This is an example not only of compassion but of situation ethics in practise.

Agape love is really about showing compassion by helping someone, and it's the right choice even when it comes at a personal cost, or even especially when it comes at a personal cost, because then it's really meaningful.

So let's check your understanding so far on compassion in ethical decision-making.

Which ethical theory might encourage compassion because it reduces the pain and maximises the good for the greatest number? Is it A, Kant's deontology; B, utilitarianism; C, situation ethics; or D, virtue ethics? Take a moment to choose which answer you think is correct.

Pause if you need to, then come back to check.

Well done if you chose B, utilitarianism.

Remember, utilitarianism is about outcome, so it thinks about what the outcome of the action will be and it hopes to or aims to make the greatest good for the greatest number and to minimise the pain overall.

It's always easy to say we should be compassionate, but let's think a little bit more about the challenges involved.

Laura's class have been debating the question, is it easy to show compassion? While some of her classmates think that showing kindness and alleviating someone's pain is fairly straightforward, Laura makes this comment.

"If we don't understand someone's suffering, it can be hard to show them compassion." Here you can see a scale with 0 in the middle, which would mean it's neither easy nor difficult to show compassion, down to -5, no, it's very hard actually to show compassion.

And on the positive, on the +5 we have, yes, it's very easy.

Where would you put Laura to be on this scale? What number would you rate her at? She says, "If we don't understand someone's suffering, it can be hard to show them compassion." Have a think about where you'd put her view and why, and then think about your own.

Is this similar to your opinion? What's the reason why it's similar or maybe why it's dissimilar? Take some time, talk to somebody nearby, pause if you need to, you can always talk to me, and then come back when you've had a think.

Now Jun's class have also been thinking about some big questions related to showing compassion.

The question they've been debating is, is showing compassion always a helpful response? Now while some of Jun's classmates think it's obvious that it is helpful, that's the whole point of compassion, Jun makes this comment.

He says, "Showing someone compassion might make them too dependent on other people." So we're going to think about Jun's comment in relation to a scale again, with -5 meaning no, it's not helpful to show compassion, and -5 meaning yes, it is helpful, and 0 somewhere in the middle, so it can be or it might not be or it's kind of neither.

Where would you put Jun's view on this scale? So do you think he's suggesting it's not helpful, or that it is? Or is he somewhere kind of on that line? Why would you put it there? And then I would like you to think about your own view.

Is showing compassion always a helpful response? Is it similar to Jun's? What's the difference, why is yours similar or dissimilar? If you're able to talk to somebody nearby, please do so.

If not, pause and talk to me.

And then come back when you've had some time to think about the question.

Andeep's class have also been thinking about questions related to compassion.

And they're asking, does showing compassion solve big problems like world poverty? Some people in Andeep's class are not so sure it does.

They think that world poverty is too big a problem to just be solved by simple kindness.

But Andeep says, "Showing compassion helps deal with poverty because it means giving someone food and shelter." I wonder where Andeep's comment fits on this scale.

Does he think that it doesn't solve the problem? Or does he think that it does, or perhaps he's somewhere in the middle? So we have 0 as in it doesn't really solve the problem completely but perhaps it kind of isn't going to hurt, right down to -5, no, it really doesn't solve the problem, or +5, yes, it does.

Have a think about where you'd put and Andeep's view on that scale and why, and then I'd like you to compare it with what you think.

Does showing compassion solve big problems like world poverty? Do you agree with Andeep? Why? Why not? Take some time to talk to somebody nearby or you can pause and talk to me, and come back when you've had a chance to really think about this question.

Now, some of these questions about compassion that we've been thinking about are ultimate questions.

I'd like you to reflect back on what we've learned about the different characters and how they saw their answers to those questions.

Is this statement true or false? People may not have an absolute view on ultimate questions because they all use different theory and personal experience to decide what they think.

Is this statement true or false? Take a moment to think, jot down your answer, pause if you need to.

Well done if you put true.

In our examples, we saw that Laura, Jun, and Andeep had different views from people in their class and that everyone's views fell on a scale.

The background to that would be that they were thinking differently because they had a different theory in mind or they had a different personal experience.

So why is the statement true? It's true because people approach ultimate questions from their own worldview, applying different beliefs, theories, and personal experiences to the question, which leads to varied answers.

So let's complete a task so we can practise what we've learned about compassion in ethical decision-making.

A city is deciding whether to build a luxury apartment complex that would help the economy but displace many low-income families.

So that means that people would benefit economically, so financially businesses might get more money made, et cetera, et cetera.

But at the same time, some families who were perhaps living in accommodation nearby or actually on the site might have to move.

Jun and Andeep are applying situation ethics and utilitarianism to this scenario.

For this task, I'd like you to identify who is applying which theory and explain how you know that.

Jun says, "The greatest good would come from building the apartments, as improving the economy will show compassion to lots of people." Andeep says, "The government could show agape love by focusing on the wellbeing of the families being displaced." Think about what you know about each ethical theory and decide who is using which.

Make a note of your answer and make a note of the reasons how you know who is applying which theory.

Pause the video and then when you're ready to check your answer, come back to me.

So let's see what you could have said.

"Jun's statement reflects utilitarianism, as it focuses on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

The overall benefit of improved economic conditions will help a larger number of people in the long term.

Andeep's statement reflects situation ethics because he mentions choosing the action which shows the most agape, selfless love.

It suggests that the government should respond with agape love by prioritising the wellbeing of the displaced families." Well done if you managed to work out who was expressing which theory.

Now we know what compassion means and a little bit about its role in ethical decision-making, we're going to move on to look at whether compassion can be a justification for suffering.

Compassion as a justification for suffering.

The word justify comes from Latin.

It's made up of two main parts, jus and fy.

Jus comes from the Latin word justus, meaning fair.

Fy comes from the Latin word facere, which means to make or do.

So putting those together we can see that justify means to make fair or right.

So asking, does compassion justify suffering? Means asking, does compassion make suffering fair or right? Does compassion justify suffering is an ultimate question, one that philosophers debate.

Now when they're engaging with an ultimate question like this, philosophers always begin by stating their intention, so that means saying what they think.

They then use logic to formulate their response.

So let's break that approach down.

First of all, a philosopher would say what they intend to argue, their view on the question.

So they might decide that compassion doesn't justify suffering, and the first thing they do is they make that point.

Now, philosophers are never content to leave it just there.

They would need to, A, present an argument to support their view.

So we have A for argument.

This would be any point that would support their view, which in our case was that compassion doesn't justify suffering.

So it's a reason for an argument.

The next step, B, is for them to consider an objection or rebut.

So what this means is thinking about, if they've made a point and given a reason for it, what might someone say back to them? They do have to take this into account because what they want to do is to make their point even stronger and to deal with objections or deal with buts.

So we have B, a but.

Now you wouldn't get very far if you made an argument for your point of view and then you considered why someone would disagree and then you just stopped, because it would almost be that you hadn't made up your mind or maybe had even changed your mind.

What philosophers do is they counter the objection.

So they come back to their original argument and they say why the objection doesn't work, so we have C for counter.

Here's an example of what that structure might look like when it's written in words.

"I intend to argue that compassion does not justify suffering.

When we feel compassion for others, we're motivated to reduce their distress, not excuse or tolerate it.

While some may argue that suffering is justified because it leads to compassion, which benefits us all, this view risks causing more harm.

Compassion's true value lies in easing pain and helping others, not in accepting their suffering." Let's have a look at how this paragraph uses that tool of logic.

Let's break it down into those different steps.

So, firstly, the philosopher says what their intention is, and here we have highlighted in jade green, "I intend to argue that compassion does not justify suffering." Philosophers are not shy of expressing what they think and they usually start out by making it very clear what point they want to make.

Now, for a philosopher saying what you think is never enough, you have to back it up, and this is where we have the next section highlighted again in jade green presenting an argument.

So the philosopher makes an argument for their point of view.

"When we feel compassion for others, we are motivated to reduce their distress, not excuse or tolerate it." So they've made their point and they've given a reason or argument to support it, an A.

That argument is only going to be strong enough if the philosopher is prepared to think about why someone might disagree.

So this is where part B comes in, a but, they consider an objection.

And again highlighted in jade green we can see that they're considering an objection when they say, "While some may argue that suffering is justified because it leads to compassion, which benefits us all." So in that part of the sentence they've taken on board a criticism of their idea or an objection to their idea.

Now to really round off what they want to say, they need to finish that, counter the objection.

And this again is highlighted in jade green.

"This view risks causing more harm.

Compassion's true value lies in easing pain and helping others, not in accepting their suffering." So that's our C.

We had our A, the argument, our B, the but, objection, taking that into account, and C, countering the objection.

So let's check your understanding of how a philosopher might put together the argument for their point of view.

What is the first thing we should do before creating a philosophical argument, objection and counter-argument, so before embarking on our A, B, C? Is it A, account what our intention is, the view we intend to argue? Is it B, work out what other people think? Or is it C, work out the correct answer? Take a moment to jot down your answer to that question.

Pause if you need to.

Well done if you put A, work out what our intention is, the view we intend to argue.

We then say what our intention was and then get into the argument, objection and counter-argument.

The A, argument, the B, but, and the C, counter-argument.

Let's have a think about this ultimate question of whether compassion justifies suffering.

Sam and Izzy are discussing whether compassion justifies suffering.

Sam says, "Compassion justifies suffering because going through pain can have value if it inspires kindness or helps others." Izzy says, "Compassion does not justify suffering, but it does reduce it by inspiring people to perform helpful actions and to make life better for others." So Sam and Izzy agree that compassion has some value, but Sam thinks it justifies suffering, so it makes suffering okay, right or fair, whereas Izzy doesn't.

What do you think might have influenced Sam and Izzy to think differently on this question? If you're able to and there's someone nearby, have a discussion with them.

Pause if you need to.

You can always talk to me.

And then come back to the lesson when you've had a chance to think about this question.

Let's check your understanding on compassion as a justification for suffering.

True or false? The following statement suggests that compassion justifies suffering.

"Compassion helps us understand others and ease their pain." Take a moment to think about your answer.

Decide if you think this statement is true or false.

Pause the video if you need to, and then come back to me.

Well done if you put false.

The statement is not about compassion justifying suffering, so it's not about compassion making it right or fair.

So the reason why this statement is false is that it's really about reducing suffering, so compassion lessens the pain.

But it doesn't suggest that it makes the pain necessary or right or fair, which would be what it would need to say to justify suffering.

Let's practise your understanding on compassion as a justification for suffering.

For task one, Sam, Aisha, and Izzy are using philosophy to help create arguments on the question, does suffering justify compassion? Now, Sam thinks that it does, but Aisha and Izzy disagree.

Their arguments have been put into a table so that you can see the different steps, the A, argument, the B, but or objection to their point, and the C, conclusion.

I want you to use your knowledge of how to argue logically to complete the points that are missing from the table.

So you're going to complete the unfinished sections for A, B, and C in the table.

You'll see that Sam begins by saying, "Yes, because.

." and you're going to finish off her argument.

What might she say to make the point that suffering justifies compassion? Her B and her C have been written for you, so read those and see if they help you with thinking about what her first point might have been, or they might help you with things that you can put in the gaps for Aisha or Izzy.

For Aisha, her argument is written for you.

She says, "No, it will be better to stop suffering rather than suffer with others." So your job is to complete the B, the but.

"An objection may be.

." So write down what Aisha might anticipate someone saying to her in response to her point.

Her counter is written for you so you can see how she comes back, and that might give you some ideas for what you can put in her B, or you can look at what Sam has said and use that.

Finally for Izzy, her argument and her but, her counter, are written for you.

So she says, "No, but compassion does reduce suffering, which is a good thing." "A difficulty is that compassion itself could be seen as suffering." And you're going to write her C, her "However.

." and try and finish her points, supporting her idea that compassion does not justify suffering.

So take some time.

You could draw out the table if you wish, but you probably don't need each part of it.

But what you do need is an A for Sam, a B for Aisha, and a C for Izzy, and to make sure that that fits in with their other points.

Pause the video and come back when you've had time to work out what you think they might say.

Let's have a look at what you could have said.

So for Sam's argument that compassion does justify suffering, you might have said, "Yes, because compassion benefits all of us." Well done if you put something along those lines.

For Aisha, for her but, she's trying to consider what someone might say in response to her point that compassion does not justify suffering.

"An objection might be that compassion strengthens our relationships." And for Izzy, who's making her final points responding to that objection with a counterpoint, you might have written, "However, not everyone responds to suffering with compassion." There are lots of things that you could have written, so well done if you used any of the ideas there.

For part two of our task on compassion as a justification for suffering, we're gonna have a go answering the unit question, which is, how do we know what is good? So for that, you're going to be using your learning on suffering and compassion.

Now you don't have to use them, but here are some sentence starters that you could either use exactly or perhaps some of or maybe just as a bit of inspiration.

You might begin with "Compassion is.

." and go back to explain what that word actually means.

Next you might think about our work on ethical theories.

"Ethical theories suggest compassion is good.

For example.

." You could then go on to say, "Some would say compassion is a good response to suffering because.

." Next you could contrast a view.

"Others would say that.

." Make sure you focus on our ultimate question from today's lesson.

"An argument supporting the view that compassion justifies suffering is.

." Don't forget that when we're using philosophy we always think about the opposite point of view, so you would need to include an objection to this.

"An objection to this is.

." And then you need to consider a counter to that objection, so, "A counter-argument is.

." So remember, we're using our learning from today about suffering and compassion to think about how we know what is good.

So the question really is about whether compassion is a good thing and does it justify suffering.

Take your time with this.

Remember the sentence starters are there to help you.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check what you've written.

Here's an example of how you might have explored that idea of what is good, how do we know what is good, using our work on compassion and suffering.

"Compassion is suffering with someone and usually means showing kindness in response to their pain.

Ethical theories suggest compassion is good.

For example, situation ethics says we should show agape love, which is selfless and unconditional.

Some would say that compassion is a good response to suffering because it leads to practical solutions to suffering, such as making sure someone's needs are met.

Others would say that receiving compassion can make someone too reliant on others.

An argument supporting the view that compassion justifies suffering is that helping a friend who is upset makes them feel valued.

An objection to this is that helping the friend means you have to sacrifice your own time.

However, a counter-argument is that you will strengthen your friendship." Look carefully at your work.

You may have written things that are quite different from these examples here, but just have a check through and see if there's anything that you can add or if there's anything that you would like to change in your answer.

So let's just recap what we've learned today in our work on suffering and compassion.

When applied, most ethical theories encourage showing compassion.

The value of showing compassion can be debated and opinions will vary depending on someone's worldview.

The question, does compassion justify suffering? is asking whether compassion makes suffering right or fair.

Philosophers use logic to approach ultimate questions such as, does compassion justify suffering? And a philosophical answer begins with a statement of intention before moving on to consider a counter-argument and to respond.

Thank you for working so hard on this lesson today.