What is COP26?

Tory Turmoil: have the Conservatives become the antilockdown party?

Juliet Kose, Year 13

On 14th December 2021, tensions continued to mount in the Conservative Party as nearly 100 Tory MPs revolted against Boris Johnson’s proposals for new Covid-19 restrictions. This backbench rebellion held particular significance as it involved Conservative MPs from every tendency and intake voting against the new restrictions, displaying the large breadth of disapproval and division in the party. Neither the whips nor the rebels expected the rebellion to be so big, pointing to a leader in trouble and a party out of control. Whilst one of the main reasons for the rebellion can be linked to general dissatisfaction with Boris Johnson’s style of leadership, it is also a broader turn against nonpharmaceutical interventions and the use of the restrictions altogether from Tory MPs.

Immense pressure is not a new thing for Boris Johnson as he had to tackle and address scandals - such as reported parties in the Downing Street office last year during the winter lockdown, as well as an expensive refurbishment of his apartment. The rebelling lawmakers said that the divided vote was a wakeup call for Boris Johnson and his need for the changing of the operation of the government, in order to prevent possible leadership challenges. With some Conservative MPs describing the new restrictions as draconian, others believe that Johnson has not managed to utilise the large majority and support what the party won with in 2019. Unfortunately, despite their expressions of discontent, there is not enough popular support to dislodge Johnson from his current role of leadership, suggesting that this rebellion may not be significant enough to impact Johnson’s future actions.

Many Tory MPs have justified their opposition to new restrictions or possible lockdowns due to the scientific evidence which suggests that Omicron is much less severe than the Delta variant. Following this logic, they believe that further restrictions are unnecessary, especially due to the uptake of the vaccine and booster jabs across the UK. Conservative MP Richard Drax stated, “Evidence is showing there is no need for further restrictions. Time to trust people to get on with their own lives and for the state to back right off.” An overwhelming sense of frustration and anticipation has begun to spread through the Conservative party, as it wishes to return to normality without thoroughly weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of new restrictions. Britain’s future hinges on the possible compromises needed to strengthen the majority party and allow Johnson to gain control not only of his MPs, but also the variant.

As the peak of the Omicron wave is likely to be ‘long and drawn out’, government advisers have warned that the NHS could be under sustained pressure. This brings up the question of how these MPs can justify rebelling against further restrictions when the NHS is struggling due to problems of understaffing and higher numbers of admissions. Understandably, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a huge toll on our lives for nearly two years, however, if we continue to disregard the increasing pressure on the NHS, we will have to face serious consequences as well as, in turn, a feeling of frustration towards the government.

Will Boris Johnson manage to unite his party, or will the feelings of uncertainty towards his leadership spread as quickly as the Omicron variant?

Do Virtue Ethics still have a place in the modern world?

Francesca Leonard, Year 13

To fully understand the notion Virtue Ethics, one must have a basic knowledge of the man behind it, Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC). Although there are other ancient Greek philosophers who had similar principles, he is most commonly associated with Virtue Ethics. Aristotle believed in the Theory of Causation, which has relevance to Virtue Ethics when considering his concept of ‘Eudemonia’: the Greek εὐδαιμονία, Aristotle’s perception of the highest good possible, has no direct English translation but literally means ‘good spirit’, which Aristotle thought was achieved when a person fulfils their purpose. Think of the feeling of accomplishment after finally lying in bed after a productive day. He believed that everything was being pulled towards its ‘telos’ (τέλος, end goal or purpose) by the ‘Prime Mover’ , a God-like being that sets and keeps everything in motion. The telos of a knife would be to chop, when it eventually becomes dull it does not fulfil its purpose and therefore is a ‘bad’ knife to Aristotle. The same logic would apply to animals, whose purpose it is to reproduce and survive; an animal that does not achieve this would be a ‘bad’ animal.

However, humans are not knives that are simply made to chop, nor do we have the limited mental consciousness that animals have. We are rational, intelligent, and social creatures - which makes our purpose (or telos) much more difficult to know and achieve. However, Aristotle did not create an absolute ethical code: it is neither consequentialist (like Utilitarianism) nor is it deontological (like Kantian ethics), so Virtue Ethics serves less as a ‘what should I do?’ in a situation to behave ethically, but rather it focuses on character and would more readily prompt the question ‘how do I become a virtuous person?’.

It is worth noting that Aristotle’s position is more optimistic than Hobbes’ and Xunzi’s more pessimistic philosophies of human nature, as it declares human beings to be naturally virtuous. However, Aristotle felt that virtues were not simply inbuilt, but needed to be practised in order to become habits.

That said, how do we know what virtues are? A virtue, as Aristotle understood it, was a ‘Golden Mean’ between two extreme vices. Take courage, for example: this would be a virtue that is a Golden Mean between cowardice and recklessness. Another example of a virtue would be honesty, which is the average between lying and brutal honesty. Philosophers such as Kant have taken a more absolutist view, believing for instance that lying is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

Aristotle stated that this ‘Practical Wisdom’ (knowing the right thing to do in the right circumstances) can be achieved once a person has practised these virtues. For him, the best way to do so is through picking a particularly virtuous person and emulating what they do. This translates into Aristotle’s definition of a right act, being – for him - ‘the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances’ .

This philosophical point is taken up in other cultures. For instance, within Christianity, it corresponds to the famous ‘WWJD?’ (‘What would Jesus do?’) approach, a core part of the belief system through which followers are taught to act more morally.

However, one could make the argument that Virtue Ethics are outdated. Firstly, Virtue Ethics correspond to a narrow set of Christian religious