Ethics Framework and Decision Making - Essay Example

ETHICS, FRAMEWORK AND DECISSON MAKING Ethics, framework and decision making Ethical values are experienced in every day’s activities. What people do and how they do it defines their inner most character and this is referred to as human ethics (Diver J 2007, pg.11). It can just be defined as the ability to reason on the basis of moral principle and values as we are going to see in this document. If found in a situation in the middle of the pacific ocean with a life raft, I would choose to be with a deontologist brain rather than a utilitarian brain surgeon considering the fact that I am homeless and uneducated. A utilitarian believes that the value of something depends on its utility. A utilitarian brain surgeon would view a homeless and uneducated person as a useless figure in the society and therefore has no solid reason to live. When someone who is of these qualities finds himself in the verge of death with a utilitarian brain surgeon, he will be discouraged on his reason to live. On the other hand, a deontological brain surgeon will be the best because his belief is based on the metaphysical knowledge of the temperament of living things and their existence. For him everything has its own reason of existence and in this case he will encourage a hopeless person positively. When found in a situation where circumstances force someone to cheat in an exam, a utilitarian would advise the person not to cheat in his final examination because the value of passing exams depends on the utility of a person’s knowledge which is not there in this case. Passing after cheating would mean practically, one is still useless as he doesn’t depend on his brain. A deontologist would also say that if one fails, he will repeat the course and work harder, thus would disagree with cheating in exams no matter the circumstances. Today the world is full of many wrong doings. Sin has become the order of the day. This brings up the question, can anyone go a day without sinning. The small things we do either when driven by emotion or at times feelings of desire. It is hard for someone to realize he or she has committed sin since sin has become par t of man as he does this daily sometimes without even noticing. We look at some of the deadly sins which are slow anger, greed, pride, envy, gluttony, and lust. Slow anger is a very dangerous mood as it develops with time and when the anger gets to its bream it is very hard for a person to develop self control and as a result may end up partaking actions that he will regret later. This kind of rage is sometime hereditary or in built in the cause of time in respect to the environment around someone. The only way to counter this is to avoid the company that may drive out the anger or develop a virtue of self drive that will help neutralize the effect thus making one not to be violent. Greed is considered to be a character sometime but a negative one for that fact. It may lead to many hazards. Greed is a sin that promote hatred. When one desires everything to be his, he props u a character of not being able to accept that other people may as well own the same things and for this reason they become self centered and might even kill when his desires over powers him. Lust is another form of sin. Its may lead to diseases like HIV and at times hatred due to heartbreaks. Heinz dilemma has been used to stress the matter of cultural relativity, which was commented by psychologists on the ideas based on moral way of thinking as well as religious assembly. Heinz was in a dilemma if he did not steal the drug his wife would have died. Yes he did a good thing in saving life which shows a sign of humanity but according to ethic it was a wrong move for him to take. He would have at least taken a loan or find other ethical ways of getting the drug like trying harder in convincing the person who discovered the drug to allow him get the drug and pay later even if it will be at a higher price. Heinz had self interest that his wife is healed that is the main reason that he could do anything possible to get the drug. The person who discovered the drug would have considered that there was a person’s life at stake and try reducing the cost but still he had the right to make money from the discovery. Heinz in stead of considering this he preferred fulfilling his interest. The situation of cancer drugs being available in Australia is very similar to that of Heinz dilemma. The cancer specialists have a dilemma in deciding whether not to tell cancer patients on the availability of the cancer drug that is believed to have the capability of extending the patients life. Doing this the specialist may be lacking ethics since it is their duty to tell patients the drug that will cure them. The dilemma that these specialists face in this case is that they fear that if they expose the drugs to the patients, the drugs will only be helpful to the rich only which is unfair to those who cannot afford the drug at that expensive price. My opinion still doesn’t change I still think one should seek for better solutions in doing their things. The cancer specialists are finding better ways of making the drugs available to all by attacking relevant health authorities for not doing anything in ensuring the new drugs that prolong life available to both the rich and the poor rather than just following self interest of making money and sell the drugs only to the rich. Heinz would have initiated a convenient ethical solution to deal with his dilemma. Ethical values are not hereditary but are acquired from the surrounding in which a person is raised. The environment plays a very big role in shaping a person’s character. It is indeed proper for someone to be judged using his peers, parents and siblings as these groups are the ones who build up the outcome of a person. Virtues are natured and practiced to become effective. It is unethical for people with blood relations to engage in acts like sexual intercourse. The bible which is a moral guide book in the Christian world and the Quran for the Muslims both condemns having sexual relationships with relative. Science has also proven it to be wrong because it might arouse certain unwanted traits in the bloodline which will be seen in the offspring of the couple. Citing an example of Julie and Mark, it was not right for them to make love because of the blood ties that forbid them from doing that. They are siblings and for that fact it was wrong. Sex should not happen between relatives on the basis of gaining experience as this does not justify the act. Morals have their own rules and once broken they cannot be validated but corrected instead (Diver J 2007, pg.136). Technology is a feature that has raised concern over the years as it keeps on advancing. It has become so challenging to link technology with ethical values as sometimes it answers the hard questions raised by ethics. Taking an example of reproduction, one may ask himself that is it right to use technology to get babies if someone is infected with HIV and AIDS and thus can not engage in sexual intercourse. On the other hand would it be ethically right to do so? Ethics and technology keep on contradicting each other raising many questions which are hard to answer if all ethical rules are to be followed. This leads us to the discussion of Nadya Suleman who got eight babies as a result of technology. I consider this wrong because Nadya did not have a problem with getting children the natural way. The act is unethical because technology is not as perfect as the natural process. The babies may have side effects in future and the mother may also incur health problems. It is not morally upright to cause future suffering to innocent children just for the sake of fulfilling ones desires. Technology is a good thing but it can be destructive as well if not used with the right sense of motive. Technology can be considered as the start of a slippery slope as it has many negative impacts that come with its positive aspects. In this point we are made to admit that technology is attractive as it meets people’s desires thus many get into using it without baring in mind the consequences that might occur in the process or as an aftermath. Though science allows some practices, biblically they are regarded as improper. Since the bible is the root of morality and ethics we might consider this to be ethically wrong (Diver J 2007, pg.22). Intervening into such practices will be beneficial to people as it will create awareness and caution to those who believe so much in technology. Ethics should also be considered when using technology. Taking the example of Nadya, the eight children are going to grow up under a single parent. This will make them miss certain things like father’s affection and guidance. The boys won’t have a person of their kind to take after which kills certain facets moral acquiring in them. The children will suffer psychologically in future if they find out that they were not sired in the same manner as their peers. For those who have intense disorders, instead of using technology to rectify their disabilities they should follow the appropriate medical procedures or if this won’t help then they should adopt children and continue with their normal life. People should note that not everyone is lucky in life and science is not the solution to all problems and save themselves from the risk of suffering various disorders, psychological problems and even death as you are never sure of the outcome. In conclusion, technology should be there to help but not destroy the normal well being of human beings. Ethical values should be upheld. Family ties should be respected. People should learn to live with what they deserve thus to eliminate cases of exam irregularities which are unethical. Self centeredness is a vice that may lead to unethical behaviors like theft. References Diver J. 2007. Ethics the fundamentals. New York: Blackwell. Read More