Ethical and Moral Issues - Assignment Example

Compare and contrast the moral issues involved in abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights. In thinking about this problem, consider the importance ofthe knowledge of biology in making decisions about this moral issue. b.Discuss the relationships among Thirouxs principles of goodness, justice, and individual freedom. The moral issues involved in abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights are highly subjective and incendiary within today’s society. The difficulty in discussing these issues is that considering whether the related actions are moral or immoral involves a valuation of life, which invariably, is not universal perceived by everyone. When considering how we “value” life, and how that valuation affects the moral implications of the issues of abortion and euthanasia, we must also consider the quality and stage of life. And with animal rights, while they are inarguably alive, we must define what “types” of life should deserve specific rights, even if they cannot perceive them. There is an obvious and inherent difference, for most people, in how they value the life of an ant and a human, yet both are alive. So the difficulty, in general, comes in being able to define the concomitant facets of life which “deserve” rights. Opposite the spectrum of humans might be bacteria. We have living bacteria covering our body, most of which mind their own business and cause us no harm. Yet, we often wash our bodies and are hands in a veritable genocide of these innocent microbes without a second thought. Self-awareness, foresight and planning, the ability to feel pain, the potential of that life to survive and other advanced cognitive and physiological capacities are often important deciding factors in the moral implications of abortion, euthanasia and animal rights. A important knowledge of biology is required to detect, understand, and analyze these aspects. In both abortion and euthanasia, human lives are taken. However, euthanasia in humans is often voluntary, though it may not always be. In the case the voluntary euthanasia, the patient usually has a terminal illness and stands no obvious chances of survival. Their potential for further life is minimal and ultimately they often seek to end chronic pain and suffering. In abortion, however, the human life does not make the sovereign decision of its own life, and it would not be able to. In early abortions, the “fetus” may only be a number of cells clustered together, not so different from small cellular organisms we “kill” everyday. However, these human cells have great potential for life, to develop into a human. They are not self-aware, they do not “plan” or have foresight, and they cannot feel pain. However, they have the potential to do so. Many animals are not “self-aware”, in the sense that they do not perceive themselves as an entity moving through the world (dolphins, monkeys, and, recently, some birds have been empirically demonstrated as self-aware, so perhaps our understanding of this concept is still limited)(Griffin & Ristau 246; Povinelli). However, animals do show some planning, and they are capable of feeling pain. Their cognitive capacities are not on par with human abilities, but if that should even be a criteria for sovereign lift is not clear. Certainly cognitively impaired humans are not as intelligent as “normal” humans, yet we do not grant them any fewer rights. Ultimately one must consider the biological facets of how we define life, which organisms possess the qualities, and how we define them. Thiroux describes his ethical principles as fundamental truths which can be utilized for the basis of reasoning (Myers & Shaw 121). Thiroux principles of goodness, justice, and individual freedom can be defined in the context of considering the aforementioned issues of abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights, and are often suggested as a framework for making decisions about health-related issues. All three principles are interrelated, in that to be good, you must also strive for justice and the pursuit of individual freedoms. Yet to be just, you must also consider the individual freedoms of the human or organism you are describing. All issues have dependencies upon one another, and to neglect or be absolutist to one principle may impinge upon the remaining principles. Truth telling is both a virtue and a moral principle. It is at the heart of human interaction. Discuss the importance of truth telling in health care, business, and the environment. Be specific about the benefits and harms involved in truth telling and its absence in each of these fields. What other moral principles might truth telling conflict with? Is there always only one "truth" in each situation? Telling the truth is an important aspect of health care, business, and the environment, where the lives of many people may be affected, potentially adversely. Tell the truth is important in that it provides the “listener” with valid information on which to base a decision. In health care, for example, if a patient is not told the truth about the severity of their condition, they may not take the proper steps to counteract their illness or make important preparatory decisions about their life. Patients confide and trust their physicians and deviation from the truth is a violation of that trust that could ultimately result in harmful consequences on that patient’s life. With regard to business, truth is not so clear cut. Certainly it is important that customers are knowledge about business practices and product safety, however businesses need not always share all details, and they often don’t. The difficulty is in allowing businesses to be private about specific issues, while maintaining a level of transparency and truth about issues which may affect customer’s lives, i.e. their health. It is also extremely important to tell the truth about environmental concerns. The quality of our environment not only affects our own lives, but also the lives of all living organisms. Misleading, disingenuous statements or outright lies will confuse people, stop them from taking otherwise beneficial preventative actions, or worse. The issue of global warming is an obvious one. While scientists are overwhelming reporting that current global warming is man-made, opponents seek to muddy the water by stating half-truths or outright lies about the issue (Maslin 29). These kinds of lies may affect the decisions people make and, in the end, the well-being of all humans. Truth, however, can also be subjective (Engel 105). Your “truth” about what constitutes valuable life might be different from my “truth”. Subjective issues like these often have different “truths”, because ulitimately we come to these considerations from our beliefs and experiences. Truth can often times be the product is our perspective, and one difficulty is in deciding whose truth is more valid, if at all. Truth may also conflict with other moral principles. One example is goodness. What if telling the truth will inflict harm upon an individual, physical or psychological? Truth may then be in direct conflict with the principles of goodness, i.e. beneficence. Write an essay on the following question: "Is minor/non-minor sexual activity always "molestation?" In your essay you should define the following terms: "sexual," "molestation," & "minor." Consider: is a sixteen year old a minor (in all cultures)? How might the situation change if instead of "minor" the statement referred to anyone (is it all about (consent")? Does this kind of action appear to involve a "universal moral principle?" Do cultures agree on what constitutes sexual molestation, and on what a child is? If they do not agree on what those terms mean, does that affect what we believe to be the "universality" of the principle? Evaluate the question from the perspective of utilitarianism, Kant, and virtue ethics. Minor with non-minor sexual activity is not always “molestation,” despite the often absolutist approach of the law. To best understand this issue, we must first define the terms we are considering: “sexual,” “molestation,” and “minor.” “Sexual” describes acts of erotic desire or activity. “Molestation” implies unwanted sexual activity. And, a “minor” is a person under a specific age as defined by law. In the United States, this age is typically eighteen. A “minor” is typically thought of as a person who is too immature to make certain important decisions that may affect their lives. The important issues to be considered here are sexual consent and maturity of the individuals. The term “minor” is an arbitrary demarcation of age and has little implications on the actual maturity of an individual. Is a person who is one day before his 18th birthday significantly less mature than a day later? Yet by law, the legal implications of sexual activity for that person could be tremendous. In some cultures, women may be married and pregnant by sixteen. Few would argue that they are being molested by their husbands, and so there is obvious subjectivity in what constitutes a “minor”. And, there are obvious differences in maturity between individuals of the same age. As a society, we must take certain utilitarian principles for “the greatest good for the greatest amount of people”(Mill 16). While certain people may, unfortunately, be ill-affected by absolute establishment of what constitutes a “minor,” those people are the minority. Overall, laws have been developed for good and needs of the majority. Laws with regard to molestation and minors are intended to protect the 8 year old girl from the 40 year old man, not the 17 year old from the 18 year old. From a perspective of virtue ethics, ignoring the “act” of a minor and non-minor engaging in sexual activity and reflecting on the character of the individuals, provides a more reasonable assessment of what constitutes appropriate sexual activity. From this perspective, the “character” of the sexual acts between a 17 year old and 18 year old may be completely genuine and moral. However, it is because we place absolute marks for what “minor,” “non-minor,” and “molestation” are within the “universality” of the law, these individuals can sometimes fall within these law-based definitions despite lack of any inherent immorality. WORKS CITED Engel, Pascal. Truth. McGill-Queens Press - MQUP, 2002. Griffin, Donald Redfield, and Carolyn A. Ristau. Cognitive ethology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991. Jr, Gordon G. Gallup. “Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in primates.” American Journal of Primatology 2.3 (1982): 237-248. Maslin, Mark. Global Warming. MBI Publishing Company, 2007. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Co., 1906. Myers, Bill, and Lin Shaw. The Social Sciences. Nelson Thornes, 2004. Povinelli, D. “Monkeys, apes, mirrors and minds: The evolution of self-awareness in primates.” Human Evolution 2.6 (1987): 493-509. Read More