Chapter 8: Social Penetration Theory Discussion

Chapter 8 Social Penetration Theorydiscuss The Portions Or Proposals

Discuss the portions or proposals of Chapter 8 on Social Penetration Theory that you agree and disagree with. Consider alternative fruit or vegetable analogies to explain self-disclosure and relational development, such as avocado, corn, potato, or broccoli. Reflect on whether “instant intimacy” exists. Contemplate what constitutes the core of your onion and whether topical areas, once breached, can be revisited easily or revisit sensitive or taboo topics and how.

Materials include Chapter 9 - Uncertainty Reduction Theory, discussing why one wants to know a partner, what causes the most uncertainty—current inability to explain or predict future behaviors—and whether individuals have a choice in reducing uncertainty. Consider times when preserving the unknown might be preferable. Analyze different uncertainty reduction strategies used in new workplaces or classes, evaluating their usefulness and appropriateness.

Materials also include Chapter 13 - Media Multiplexity Theory, prompting analysis of circumstances where strong ties rely on few media or weak ties on many, personal communication preferences, and how relationships change without face-to-face interaction or social media. Discuss whether conversation content varies depending on communication channel.

Additionally, based on the "Case Study: Fetal Abnormality," write a 750-1,000 word reflection on the Christian view of human persons and the compatible moral status theory, relating to intrinsic human value and dignity. Examine the moral status theories used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson, with specific insights from the case study. Analyze how these theories influence their recommendations. State which theory you agree with and how it would influence your own actions, supported by course materials.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The Christian view of the human person emphasizes the intrinsic dignity and worth of every individual, rooted in the belief that humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This perspective aligns most closely with a moral status theory that regards all human life as inherently valuable, regardless of physical or cognitive conditions. According to this viewpoint, every human possesses intrinsic dignity that commands respect and protection, reinforcing the sanctity of life from conception until natural death. This intrinsic value is essential for understanding moral obligations toward vulnerable populations, including unborn children with disabilities or abnormalities (McFadden, 2004).

In analyzing the case study "Fetal Abnormality," different characters employ varied moral status theories to guide their decisions regarding the fetus. Jessica’s perspective might be influenced by a view prioritizing the intrinsic dignity of all human life, leading her to consider the fetus as possessing full moral status regardless of abnormalities. Marco, on the other hand, appears to focus on the quality of life and economic considerations, leaning toward a utilitarian or conditional view of moral status, where the worth of life depends on functionality and social context.

Maria's emotional response reflects her religious conviction that life is sacred and should be preserved unless there is a divine or moral imperative. Her view aligns with a deontological perspective, emphasizing moral duty to protect life because it is divine-given and inherently valuable. Conversely, Dr. Wilson’s medical and ethical stance includes acknowledging the fetus's potential suffering and quality of life concerns, which may be associated with a pragmatic or health-centered view of moral status. His suggestion for abortion as a responsible medical choice underscores a perspective where moral status might be influenced by potential future suffering or medical prognosis (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).

Each individual’s approach is shaped significantly by their underlying moral theories. Jessica’s belief in the sanctity of life influences her to consider options that preserve life irrespective of disabilities. Marco’s pragmatism reflects a consequentialist approach that evaluates the fetus's value based on societal and economic outcomes. Maria’s religious belief underscores a divine command theory, asserting that life is sacred because it is created by God. Dr. Wilson’s medical perspective incorporates a utilitarian outlook, seeking to minimize suffering and maximize well-being (Johnstone, 2017).

The theory I align with most closely is the Christian view of human dignity, emphasizing the inherent value and respect owed to all human life from conception. This perspective advocates for protecting fetal life regardless of abnormalities, considering the moral obligation to uphold the intrinsic worth bestowed by God. Such a stance would influence my recommendations by prioritizing life preservation and providing compassionate support to parents facing difficult decisions. It challenges purely utilitarian functions and underscores the importance of respect for life based on divine creation rather than solely health or societal outcomes.

Furthermore, the Christian moral framework encourages sensitivity toward bioethical dilemmas, requiring a balance between respect for divine autonomy and pragmatic considerations. It promotes advocacy for the vulnerable, emphasizing that every human being possesses dignity regardless of physical or cognitive condition. This approach aligns with broader bioethical principles, including nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice, rooted in the belief that human life must be protected and尊重ed unconditionally (Eberl, 2019).

In conclusion, the Christian understanding of human persons profoundly influences moral considerations concerning fetal abnormalities. Recognizing every human being as possessing intrinsic dignity supports a moral stance that favors life preservation and compassionate care. While other theories like utilitarianism or relational theories offer valuable insights, the Christian perspective underscores the sacredness of life as central to moral decision-making, guiding actions aligned with respect, dignity, and divine sovereignty.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Eberl, J. T. (2019). Bioethics: Health Care Justice and Human Rights. Routledge.
• Johnstone, P. (2017). Bioethics: A Practical Approach (4th ed.). Routledge.
• McFadden, S. H. (2004). Human dignity and Bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(4), 346-354.