Applying An Ethical Theory 479736

Applying An Ethical Theory

Choose either utilitarian or deontological ethical theory to apply it to an ethical question. Explain the core principles of that theory. Demonstrate how the principles of the theory support a certain position on that question. Articulate a relevant objection to the theory on the basis of that argument.

Write a five paragraph essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 600 to 900 words in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style.

The paragraphs should follow these guidelines:

• Introduction: One paragraph, no more than 120 words, clearly delimiting the ethical problem or question, defining the essential issues. The last sentence should briefly summarize the conclusion or position supported by the theory and state the objection that will be discussed.
• Body Paragraphs: Each should start with a topic sentence. Each should have at least four sentences and cover:
• Theory Explanation: Approximately 150-200 words explaining the core principles of the selected ethical theory. Include at least one quote from an accepted resource representing that theory.
• Application: Approximately 150-200 words describing how the principles apply to the ethical problem and the moral conclusion derived. Show how the theory's tenets lead to that conclusion.
• Objection: Approximately 150-200 words presenting a relevant objection exposing a weakness in applying the theory to the problem, explaining how it presents an obstacle or challenge for the theory.
• Conclusion: One paragraph, no more than 150 words, summarizing the main points and restating the thesis in paraphrased form.

Resources must include at least two sources: one representing the chosen theory and another pertaining to the ethical issue, both cited in APA format. Additional credible sources are encouraged. The paper should include proper APA in-text citations and a reference list.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical landscape presents complex dilemmas that challenge our moral intuitions and principles. Among these, the debate between utilitarianism and deontological ethics offers two distinct approaches to moral decision-making. For this essay, I will focus on deontological ethics, particularly Kantian ethics, to analyze a specific moral issue involving confidentiality in healthcare. The core principles of Kantian ethics revolve around the concept of duty and the moral law, emphasizing that actions are morally right if they adhere to universal maxims derived from rational principles. Kant asserts that moral agents must act according to maxims that can be consistently willed as a universal law, respecting the inherent dignity of every individual (Kant, 1785). Applying this to healthcare confidentiality, it becomes a duty that practitioners must uphold, respecting patient autonomy and privacy, regardless of the consequences. This ensures that moral agents act out of respect for persons as ends, not merely as means to an end.

In applying Kantian deontology to the issue of patient confidentiality, the primary principle centers on respecting the autonomy and dignity of patients. Healthcare professionals, guided by the duty to preserve confidentiality, must refrain from disclosing private information unless explicitly authorized or under exceptional circumstances such as imminent harm. This duty is rooted in the categorical imperative — a moral law that commands that one treats individuals as ends in themselves. When applied to a scenario where a practitioner considers revealing patient information to prevent harm, Kantian ethics maintains that unless the action aligns with a universal maxim that respects persons as ends, it is morally impermissible. Therefore, the moral conclusion supported by Kantian ethics is that confidentiality must generally be maintained, highlighting respect for autonomy as a fundamental duty that overrides consequentialist considerations.

One significant objection to the Kantian approach in this context arises from the potential rigidity of duties in situations where breach of confidentiality might save lives or prevent harm. Critics argue that strict adherence to duty without flexibility could lead to morally unacceptable outcomes, such as failing to disclose vital health information that could save a patient or society from danger. This criticism exposes a weakness in Kantian ethics, which prioritizes duty and intention over consequences, potentially leading to morally problematic decisions in emergency scenarios. For instance, if a healthcare worker refuses to disclose information about a contagious disease to prevent public harm, strict deontology could conflict with the utilitarian aim of maximizing overall well-being, illustrating a tension between duty and outcome-based morality. This obstacle emphasizes the need for a nuanced application of Kantian principles, especially when the moral landscape involves competing duties and potential harms.

In conclusion, deontological ethics, particularly Kantian principles, emphasize duty and respect for persons as moral imperatives, which strongly support maintaining confidentiality in healthcare. The core idea that individuals must be treated as ends in themselves provides a compelling basis for upholding privacy and autonomy, even in challenging situations. Nonetheless, the rigidity inherent in Kantian duty can produce dilemmas when moral obligations conflict with pragmatic concerns, such as preventing harm. Such objections highlight the importance of balancing principles with contextual judgment. Overall, Kantian ethics offers a robust framework for moral decision-making, but its application must consider potential conflicts and exceptions—underscoring that ethical theorizing is an ongoing process of balancing competing moral commitments.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Tools and Techniques. Oxford University Press.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.