Many times throughout history, morality and ethics have been compromised. People have always questioned the “unwritten laws” of what is deemed ethically correct and what isn’t. In the medical world, there was a discovery that allowed for many new accomplishments and unlocked the potential of modern-day medicine. In the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the author, Rebecca Skloot, explores the life of a very important woman in modern science. Her immortal cells revolutionized the medical field and led to the growth of a multimillion-dollar industry.
Don Marquis, on the other side of the abortion debate begins his essay “Why abortion is immoral” through the frustration of little support being given to the thought. This essay was written to show the falsified belief that an anti-abortion stance is nothing other than irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by a seriously confused philosophical argument. The argument is set forth throughout that abortion is, except in rare cases, seriously immoral. This essay sets forth the belief that abortion is in the same category as killing an innocent adult human being. Don Marquis argues with rare exceptions such as a life-threatening pregnancy, all cases of abortion are seriously wrong and are not much different than killing an adult
Rosalind Hursthouse in her paper Virtue Theory and Abortion, handles with the moral standpoint of abortion from a virtue ethics perspective. Her research is directed towards investigating whether or not an abortion is something a virtuous person would do. Hursthouse examines the morally relevant considerations and in so doing, she rejects the standard questions used to determine the morality of an abortion such as the status of the fetus, and the rights of a women. The morally relevant considerations she sees fit to assess the moral legitimacy of an abortion are concerns with family relationship, personal circumstance, and basic biological facts. Through her considerations, Hurthouses account of virtue ethics gives us adequate moral advice in regards to the question of abortion.
Soledad Soleman (Sol) was twelve years old when she became aware of her parents’ occupations. It was at a dinner gathering of two of her school teachers and three of her parents’ business colleagues, including her uncle Gianni. “I wonder what the kid knows. If you knew that your parents sold arms that prop up your country’s military dictatorship, what would you do?” she overheard one of her teachers asked.
In every day life, we face many situations that require a moral decision. We have to decide what is right and what is wrong? Not always is this an easy task thus, it seems important to analyze how we make our moral decisions. I will start with an analysis of how we make decisions in general
Chris McCandless, whose story is analyzed in Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer, is a young adult who decides to leave his known habits and material belongings behind and live a completely self-sufficient life in the wilderness, a choice which ultimately leads to his death. In doing that, he also forfeits his family and friends. With that in mind, a question can be posed regarding the ethics of said behavior. As a childless, single and financially independent man, Chris McCandless has absolute ownership of his body and thus his decision to continue doing a sport that he knows can kill him is ethically defensible.
The decision as to whether it would be morally acceptable for the operation to take place, lies in the social construct of the surgeon and what influences her morals. Throughout the course of this essay I will identify theories on morality that will offer a framework as to how we think and identify which moral theories have a significant influence on the social construct of the surgeon which consequently will reveal her decision. Utilitarianism; right and wrong is determined by an outcome whereby happiness outweighs the consequences of the moral dilemma, in this case killing one man to save five. This is one of the theories the surgeon would potentially base her decision on. If the surgeon believed in this theory, her decisions would not be influenced by any personal preferences or interests, she would in turn believe it morally admissible to operate, as sacrificing the life of one person to save five people would be for the greater good, as the action may lead to overall happiness which in-turn outweighs the bad.
In recent years, several competing viewpoints have emerged about embryonic stem cell research. All of this debate raises an important question, Should embryonic stem cell research be conducted for treatment of present and future diseases? People who believe that an embryo should not be destroyed tend to say that embryonic stem cell research should not be conducted. On the other hand, people who believe that embryonic stem cell research creates means of curing diseases reply that the research should be conducted. Embryonic stem cell research “uses special cells found in three-to-five day old human embryos to seek cures for a host of chronic disease” (PRC).
The position of moral patients is that they are unable to formulate moral principles. For this reason they are unable to be judged as being in the right
Abortion is not only a fluctuating concept in our society, but an ethical and emotional debate, as well. The image I have chosen presents concepts from a cultural and historical background, as well as presents an ethical, emotional, and logical appeal to the audience. The debate about abortion has simply been overblown and exhausted. The truth of the matter is, abortion is murder. Ending a life, whether innocent or guilty, is murder.
In this text, Eglewogbe sought to present a key moral puzzle about pregnancy and abortions concerning a girl who becomes pregnant under ‘influence’. She is in an inner struggle as she suffers guilt and mental suffering. Thus, she is faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the pregnancy or abort it. Her dilemma can be interrogated on two fronts; the moral argument and the social argument. The social argument involves her having an abortion to maintain the status quo and saving her face in the society whilst the moral argument represents her religious views about abortions.
The abortion of foetuses with severe birth defects may be for the greater good from an act utilitarianism
Peter Singer is a well-known Australian moral philosopher whose work in applied ethics for example abortion, animal liberation and infanticide has led to controversy. Singer’s willingness to work through the controversial topics made him became so famous around the world. When Singer’s paper about abortion and infanticide was publicised, Singer has proven to be a popular target especially among the pro-life activists. Singer exclaimed that membership of Homo-Sapiens is not sufficient to confer a right to life (Hassan. P, 2015).
Healthcare Ethics: Savior Siblings A current ethical debate in the world of healthcare is Savior siblings. A savior sibling is a child who is born to be genetically compatible with a sibling that is suffering from a life-threatening disease. The child is born to provide either organ or cell transplant, and/or blood transfusions for the ill sibling. The child is created through in vitro fertilization (IVF), once the embryo goes through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), it helps identify genetic defects within the embryos.
The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.
