A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
Nevertheless, this is not the right term to justify this action, since there is no valid self-defense against someone who is innocent and unwilling to cause any harm. So, who are we to decide who has more right to life, the mother or the fetus? The answer can’t be taken by a game of chance and it will not be morally right to punish with dead an innocent person who has the same rights as the mother. In the same way, Thomson explores the notion of autonomy and the ability for women to decide what happens in and out their body. In other words, the idea of trespassing and violating is used as a metaphor for an unwanted pregnancy, which can also be morally permissible.
cannot be broken) primary precepts to make moral decisions. One of these primary precepts, “preservation of innocent life”, leads to abortion being forbidden. Natural law observes the sanctity of life thesis, considering an embryo / foetus to be a person. However, although Natural law respects the sanctity of life, it is by no means a religious theory, for it is based on objective truth. Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented.
We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations. Aristotle and Aquinas both conclude that humans aim for some goal or purpose in life-but does not see this as eudemonia. Aquinas believes that humans are the ‘image of god’ therefore the supreme good must be the development of this image which is perfection. They did not believe that you could reach this perfection in this life but the afterlife. There are the three laws in Aquinas’ book which are eternal, natural and divine.
Examine the role of conscience in Libertarianism (30 marks) Conscience can be defined as our belief on what is right and what is wrong. Butler stated that there is a principle working inside of us, it helps us “disprove or approve of actions... this principle in man is conscience”. This suggests that conscience is a final moral decision maker. In Libertarianism it is explained that we have complete freedom to act morally therefore we are morally responsible for our action. It is argued that conscience is the only true influence inside of us over our actions and that we should act with integrity and in a way that fits our principles and beliefs.
Question 1 1. Which of the following is NOT on the four ingredients in an ethical theory? Answer Guidelines Cases Area Rules Bases 3 points Question 2 1. Which ethic presupposes that no universal and lasting structures to human life exist: Answer Virtue Ethic Rule Ethic Christian Ethic Act Ethic 3 points Question 3 1. What is one of the two alternatives to the consequentialist response to moral dilemmas of trying to minimize the bad and maximize the good, do deontologists provide?
For example they believe it is not the fault of mental people for being ill, there biology redisposes them to certain conditions, and can’t be changed unless manipulated (i.e. schizophrenia is due to a high level of dopamine) Free Will: • Manslow and Rogers stated external forces are inaccurate & people have free will so they can choose how to behave, he believed our actions are free within a framework. • Determinism too mechanistic & unfalsifiable, impossible to believe that behaviour is determined a result of the someone not accepting themselves or others around them (with regards to the
The moral argument is that scientists are killing fetuses to improve the medical condition of living patients. I think that this argument is completely absurd. I think that if a person wants to donate an embryo for this type of research, it should be left up to them. My way of thinking on this issue is very nonconsequentialist which insist that consequences, effects or outcomes are irrelevant: morality is about doing what is right as a matter of principle, regardless of consequences. That means you do the right thing no matter what happens (Thiroux).
Explain the concept of Relativist Morality. Moral Relativism is an ethical judgement. It is the claim that there is no ethical system better than another. It stems from the fact that to judge an ethical system, it must be judged by a moral standard. Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless.