Principle of Ethics

St. Augustine in the 5th Century held that we are free to make choices in life. This is the idea of free will. It may seem at first glance odd for a religious thinker to say that we have free will. After all, if God exists, then God created all things. God knows already what we will do. God can cause anything to occur. If we cause things to occur, that seems to be a limitation on the power of God and not make God all-powerful.

There are also religion traditions that say that we have no free will. There are some theologians in Islam who seem to suggest that is true. In order for this line of reasoning to hold true, one would need to believe free will is an illusion and that we have no control over how we live our lives, but rather that we are puppets moving and acting due to God’s will and the powers of destiny and fate. And if this then in the case, how can we possibly be responsible for our actions?

The considerations above show us to what degree our religious beliefs can shape us. For instance, someone who believes in free will may experience way more guilt than someone who believes we don’t have free will and thus aren’t responsible for the choices (and consequences) of the actions we take.

Personal struggles with religion and ethics occur in many places, including in the healthcare arena. Consider the following: You are a nurse in a hospital. A 12 year-old was brought to the hospital by an ambulance. The parents have just arrived at the hospital. This 12 year-old has lost a large amount of blood and requires a transfusion. The parents happen to be members of a religion that believes that blood transfusions are immoral. They want to remove the child from the hospital and prevent the transfusion even if it means the death of the child. You have to decide whether or not you will participate in an action that violates the will of the parents and aid in providing blood for the child. If you choose to participate, and even if you are able to legally justify it, you have to think about the distress you are creating for the parents. If you refuse to aid here, you may be subject to retaliation from the hospital. What is the moral thing for the nurse to do here?

For the initial post, address the following questions:

What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why would they say that? Do you agree with the divine command ethics? Why or why not?
Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play here in determining what is ethical?

find the cost of your paper

Sample Answer

 

 

 

 

Divine Command Ethicist Perspective:

  • Action: A divine command ethicist would likely argue that the child’s life takes precedence. They would likely base this on the belief that God is the source of all morality and that preserving human life is a fundamental divine command.
  • Reasoning: This perspective posits that actions are morally right simply because God commands them. If God, in their understanding, values the preservation of life above all else, then providing the transfusion would be the morally correct action.
  • Agreement: Whether I agree with this depends on my own theological beliefs. If I believe in a benevolent God who values human life, then I might agree with this perspective. However, if I question the nature of divine commands or believe that individual autonomy should be respected, I might disagree.

Full Answer Section

 

 

 

 

Natural Law Ethicist Perspective:

  • Action: A natural law ethicist would likely argue for the transfusion based on the inherent value of human life. They would argue that preserving life is a fundamental human good, and that denying the child the necessary medical treatment would violate this natural inclination.
  • Reasoning: Natural law ethics emphasizes that humans possess inherent reason and the ability to discern moral principles through observation of the natural world. The preservation of life is seen as a fundamental principle derived from this observation.
  • Agreement: I may agree with this perspective to a certain extent. The preservation of human life is a fundamental value, and denying necessary medical treatment can have severe consequences. However, I also recognize the importance of respecting individual autonomy and the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children.

Emotivist Perspective:

  • Evaluation: An emotivist would argue that moral judgments are merely expressions of personal feelings or emotions. In this scenario, the nurse’s decision would be based on their own values, beliefs, and emotional responses to the situation.
  • Subjectivity: Emotivism emphasizes the subjective nature of morality. There is no objective right or wrong, only personal opinions and emotional reactions. The nurse’s decision would be based on their own subjective feelings about the situation, their professional obligations, and the potential consequences of their actions.

Conclusion:

This scenario highlights the complexities of ethical decision-making in healthcare. Different ethical frameworks offer varying perspectives, each with its own strengths and limitations. Ultimately, the nurse must carefully consider their own values, the ethical principles that guide their practice, and the potential consequences of their actions before making a decision.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer