What you'll learn
This topic examines how different religions and non-religious worldviews understand the importance of human life. You will explore the concepts of sanctity of life and quality of life, analysing Christian and Buddhist teachings alongside secular humanist perspectives. This topic appears regularly in WJEC GCSE Religious Education exam questions requiring evaluation of religious responses to ethical issues.
Key terms and definitions
Sanctity of life — the belief that life is sacred and precious because it is created by God or has intrinsic value; life should never deliberately be taken.
Quality of life — a measure of fulfilment, satisfaction and dignity experienced by a person; often contrasted with simply being alive.
Imago Dei — Latin for "image of God"; the Christian teaching that humans are made in God's likeness, giving them special status and worth.
Personhood — the status of being a person with rights, self-awareness and moral significance; debated in relation to when life begins and ends.
Secular — not connected with religious or spiritual matters; based on reason and human experience rather than religious authority.
Intrinsic value — worth that comes from within something itself, not from its usefulness or function.
Abortion — the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, usually before 24 weeks gestation in the UK.
Euthanasia — the act of deliberately ending a life to relieve suffering; illegal in the UK but legal in some countries like the Netherlands.
Core concepts
Religious perspectives on the sanctity of life
Christianity teaches that life is sacred because humans are created by God. The doctrine of Imago Dei (Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image") establishes that every human has inherent dignity and worth. This belief means:
- Life is a gift from God, not something humans have absolute control over
- Only God has the authority to give and take life
- Each person has equal value regardless of age, ability or circumstances
- Taking innocent life is fundamentally wrong
The Ten Commandments include "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13), which Christians interpret as protecting all innocent human life. Catholic teaching particularly emphasises sanctity of life from conception to natural death, opposing abortion and euthanasia in almost all circumstances. Protestant denominations vary, with some allowing exceptions when the mother's life is at risk.
Buddhism approaches life's value differently. Rather than a creator God, Buddhists focus on karuna (compassion) and the first moral precept: "I undertake to abstain from taking life." This extends to all sentient beings, not just humans. The concept of dukkha (suffering) means Buddhists recognise that life inherently involves suffering, but the goal is to overcome this through the Noble Eightfold Path, not to end life.
Key Buddhist principles affecting attitudes to life include:
- Ahimsa — non-violence and respect for all living things
- Anatta — no permanent soul, which affects views on when personhood begins
- Rebirth — actions in this life affect future existences, making every moment morally significant
- The Middle Way — avoiding extremes, which influences Buddhist thinking on end-of-life decisions
Non-religious perspectives on the value of life
Secular humanists do not believe life is sacred in a religious sense, but strongly affirm life has intrinsic value. Humanist arguments centre on:
- Human consciousness, self-awareness and capacity for relationships give life meaning
- Reason and evidence should guide moral decisions, not religious texts
- Individual autonomy — people should control their own lives and bodies
- Consequence-based ethics — actions are right if they reduce suffering and increase wellbeing
Humanists UK supports abortion rights, arguing that women's autonomy and existing personhood outweigh a foetus's potential personhood. They also support assisted dying in cases of terminal illness where someone can make an informed choice, prioritising quality of life over simply preserving life at any cost.
Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher, challenges traditional sanctity of life arguments. He suggests personhood requires self-awareness, rationality and awareness of oneself as existing over time. This controversial view leads him to argue that some non-human animals have greater moral status than some humans (like those with severe brain damage), prioritising capacity for suffering over species membership alone.
Sanctity vs quality of life debates
The tension between sanctity and quality of life appears throughout medical ethics:
Abortion debates:
- Sanctity position: Life begins at conception; the foetus has equal value to born humans; abortion is killing an innocent person
- Quality position: A woman's established life, wellbeing and autonomy matter more than a developing foetus; severe disability might justify abortion
Euthanasia debates:
- Sanctity position: Life must be preserved until natural death; suffering has meaning; slippery slope to killing vulnerable people
- Quality position: Dying with dignity matters; relieving unbearable suffering is compassionate; personal autonomy includes choosing when to die
Medical treatment decisions:
- Sanctity position: Life-sustaining treatment should continue even when quality is poor; "do not resuscitate" orders raise moral concerns
- Quality position: Keeping someone alive in permanent unconsciousness or severe pain lacks compassion; withdrawing treatment differs from killing
Christian applications to life and death issues
Different Christian denominations apply sanctity of life principles in varying ways:
Catholic Church:
- Opposes abortion in all circumstances, even rape or incest
- Views life as beginning at conception
- Forbids euthanasia but permits withdrawing futile treatment (ordinary vs extraordinary means distinction)
- Emphasises palliative care as compassionate alternative
Church of England:
- Generally opposes abortion but acknowledges some situations require "lesser of two evils" thinking
- Officially opposes euthanasia but shows more flexibility in discussion
- Focuses on care for dying rather than hastening death
Both traditions reference:
- Job 1:21 "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away"
- Psalm 139:13-16 describing God forming humans in the womb
- Jesus healing the sick, showing life's value
Buddhist applications to life and death issues
Buddhist teachings produce diverse views on abortion and euthanasia:
Abortion:
- Generally seen as breaking the first precept against taking life
- However, compassion for the mother's suffering creates moral complexity
- Some Buddhists distinguish early pregnancy (before consciousness develops) from later stages
- Japanese mizuko kuyo rituals acknowledge grief for aborted foetuses while recognising women's difficult circumstances
Euthanasia:
- Deliberately killing violates ahimsa
- However, refusing treatment or allowing natural death differs from active killing
- Mental state at death affects rebirth, so dying peacefully matters
- Some Buddhists accept ending life to relieve unbearable suffering as compassionate if intention is pure
The Dalai Lama has stated each case requires individual examination — sometimes prolonging life causes more suffering than allowing death, but intention and circumstances determine whether action is skilful or unskilful.
Evaluation arguments for exam questions
When evaluating religious vs non-religious perspectives:
Arguments supporting religious sanctity of life views:
- Provides absolute standard preventing abuse (history shows dangers when some lives deemed worthless)
- Protects vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves
- Recognises life has meaning beyond physical pleasure or pain
- Religious communities provide practical care demonstrating life's value
Arguments challenging religious sanctity of life views:
- Causes unnecessary suffering by prohibiting compassionate choices
- Imposes religious views on non-believers through law
- Fails to account for genuine moral dilemmas where any choice causes harm
- Quality of life matters — mere biological existence differs from meaningful life
Arguments supporting non-religious quality of life views:
- Respects individual autonomy and human rights
- Reduces suffering practically and compassionately
- Based on reason and evidence rather than ancient texts
- Acknowledges moral complexity requiring case-by-case judgment
Arguments challenging non-religious quality of life views:
- Risk of devaluing disabled or elderly lives
- "Quality" is subjective — who decides which lives are worth living?
- Slippery slope concerns — voluntary euthanasia could become pressure on vulnerable people
- Undermines unconditional value of every human
Worked examples
Example 1: AO1 question (4 marks)
"Explain Christian teachings about the sanctity of life."
Model answer: Christians believe life is sacred because humans are made in God's image (Imago Dei), as stated in Genesis 1:27. This means every person has inherent dignity and worth given by God. The Ten Commandments include "You shall not murder," which Christians interpret as protecting innocent human life from conception to natural death. Christians believe life is a gift from God, so only God has the authority to give and take life, not humans. This teaching affects Christian views on issues like abortion and euthanasia, where taking life would be seen as wrong.
This answer identifies specific teachings (Imago Dei, Ten Commandments), provides scriptural evidence, explains the significance, and links to practical applications.
Example 2: AO2 question (15 marks)
"'Quality of life is more important than sanctity of life.' Discuss this statement showing that you have considered more than one point of view. (You must refer to religion and belief in your answer.)"
Model answer structure:
Introduction: This statement raises the debate between religious believers who emphasise life's sacred value and those who prioritise living well over simply staying alive.
Argument supporting the statement: Non-religious humanists argue quality of life matters more because preserving life at any cost can cause unnecessary suffering. A person with a terminal illness experiencing unbearable pain should have the right to assisted dying rather than being forced to continue suffering. Peter Singer argues that self-awareness and capacity for meaningful experience matter more than biological life alone. This respects individual autonomy — people should control their own bodies and make informed choices about their death with dignity.
Religious counter-argument: However, Christians would reject this view because they believe life is sacred as a gift from God. The Catholic Church teaches life must be protected from conception to natural death regardless of circumstances. Even in suffering, life has meaning and value because humans are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27). Prioritising quality over sanctity could lead to devaluing disabled or elderly lives, creating a "slippery slope" where vulnerable people feel pressured to end their lives. Christians emphasise palliative care as a compassionate alternative that respects life's sanctity while reducing suffering.
Alternative religious view: Some Buddhists take a middle position between these extremes. While the first precept forbids taking life and shows respect for life's value, Buddhist compassion (karuna) recognises that in extreme cases, ending unbearable suffering might be the most compassionate choice. The intention matters more than a rigid rule.
Conclusion with personal judgment: Overall, sanctity of life provides crucial protection for vulnerable people throughout history, preventing the abuse seen when societies devalued certain lives. However, in limited circumstances with terminal illness and informed consent, quality of life considerations might justify assisted dying. Religious principles offer important wisdom even if strict application causes unnecessary suffering. [Or alternative judgment depending on view defended]
Example 3: AO1 question (5 marks)
"Explain Buddhist attitudes to abortion."
Model answer: Buddhism generally opposes abortion because it breaks the first moral precept: "I undertake to abstain from taking life." Buddhists believe life should be treated with compassion (karuna) and non-violence (ahimsa). However, Buddhism also emphasises compassion for the mother's suffering, creating moral complexity. Some Buddhists distinguish early pregnancy before consciousness fully develops from later stages, though many believe consciousness begins at conception. The concept of anatta (no permanent soul) means Buddhists don't have identical views to Christians about when personhood begins. Each situation requires examination of intention, circumstances and which choice causes least suffering overall, following the Middle Way rather than absolute rules.
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
Mistake: Writing "all Christians believe exactly the same thing about abortion/euthanasia." Correction: Acknowledge differences between denominations. Catholics have stricter positions than many Protestant churches. Use phrases like "Many Christians believe..." or "The Catholic Church teaches..." to show awareness of diversity within Christianity.
Mistake: Confusing sanctity of life with quality of life, or using them interchangeably. Correction: Sanctity means life is sacred/holy with inherent worth. Quality refers to the level of fulfilment, dignity or satisfaction in that life. These concepts often conflict in ethical dilemmas.
Mistake: Claiming Buddhism opposes abortion/euthanasia in exactly the same way Christianity does. Correction: Buddhism has no creator God and no absolute divine commandments. Buddhist opposition comes from compassion and the first precept, but allows more flexibility based on intention and circumstances than Catholic absolute rules.
Mistake: Writing about non-religious views without specific reference to humanist organisations or philosophers. Correction: Name Humanists UK or philosophers like Peter Singer. Explain that humanists base ethics on reason and reducing suffering rather than religious authority. Avoid vague statements about "atheists believe..."
Mistake: Providing only one perspective in evaluation questions worth 12-15 marks. Correction: WJEC mark schemes require "more than one point of view." Always include religious and non-religious perspectives, or different religious views, with developed arguments for each side.
Mistake: Listing Bible verses without explaining their relevance. Correction: Always interpret quotations. After citing Genesis 1:27, explain that being made "in God's image" means humans have special dignity and worth that makes life sacred.
Exam technique for Issues of Life and Death: the value and sanctity of life
Command word recognition:
- "Explain" (AO1, 4-5 marks): Describe religious teachings with specific examples and scriptural references. Two developed points with detail.
- "Discuss" or "Evaluate" (AO2, 12-15 marks): Present multiple perspectives with developed arguments. Must include religious and non-religious or contrasting religious views. Reach a justified conclusion.
Structuring evaluation answers:
- Introduction: Briefly define key terms and outline the debate
- Present 2-3 developed arguments supporting the statement (with religious/philosophical sources)
- Present 2-3 developed counter-arguments (from different perspective)
- Conclusion: Make a judgment with justification (you can argue either side or a balanced middle position)
- Aim for roughly equal development of both sides before concluding
Maximising marks:
- AO1 questions reward specific religious teachings, technical vocabulary (Imago Dei, ahimsa, karuna) and scriptural support
- AO2 questions reward analysing strengths/weaknesses of positions, not just describing them
- Always reference "religion and belief" explicitly — name Christians, Buddhists, humanists
- Use real-world applications: abortion law in UK, euthanasia in Netherlands, hospice care
Time management:
- 4-mark questions: approximately 5 minutes, two developed points
- 15-mark questions: approximately 18-20 minutes, ensuring balanced evaluation before concluding
Quick revision summary
Life's value is central to religious ethics. Christians believe in sanctity of life based on humans being made in God's image (Imago Dei), opposing abortion and euthanasia. Buddhists respect life through the first precept and ahimsa but apply teachings flexibly based on compassion and intention. Non-religious humanists emphasise quality of life and individual autonomy over sacred status, supporting abortion rights and assisted dying in some circumstances. Evaluation questions require balanced analysis of religious and non-religious perspectives, considering both protection of vulnerable lives and reduction of suffering.