Choose An Issue In Ethical Application ✓ Solved

Topic Ethical Applicationthreadfirst Choose An Issue In Applied Eth

Choose an issue in applied ethics that greatly interests you. You may choose from topics such as abortion, biomedical issues (IVF, stem cell research), capital punishment, church-state relations, economics, environment, euthanasia, just war, LGBTQ issues, marriage and family, healthcare, political engagement, poverty, racism, and race issues, or sexual ethics. Based on the ethical theory you defended in DB 2, formulate an ethical application on this specific issue in a word thread. Support your analysis with both textbooks and outside academic sources. If you are a Christian, create an application grounded in Christian ethical theory. If not, use the ethical theory you defended in DB 2. Briefly present a strong counterargument to your position and respond to it in no more than one paragraph. A more detailed elaboration will be required in the Capstone Essay.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The intersection of ethics and contemporary social issues presents complex challenges that require careful moral analysis. Among the most debated topics in applied ethics today is euthanasia, which raises profound questions about autonomy, the value of life, and moral duties. This paper applies a deontological ethical framework to the issue of euthanasia, exploring its moral permissibility and potential objections.

Understanding Euthanasia as an Ethical Issue

Euthanasia, often referred to as mercy killing, involves intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering. The debate pivots on whether such an act is morally justifiable and under what circumstances. Proponents maintain that individuals have the right to die with dignity, especially when suffering from terminal illness. Opponents argue that life is inherently sacred, and intentionally ending it breaches moral duties.

Deontological Ethical Analysis

Deontological ethics, rooted in Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, emphasizes the importance of duty, moral laws, and intentions over consequences. According to Kantian principles, actions are morally permissible only if they are performed out of duty and in accordance with a universal moral law (Kant, 1785). Applying this framework to euthanasia, one must consider whether actively ending life can be reconciled with the moral duty to respect human dignity.

Kantian ethics contends that humans should be treated as ends, not merely as means, which underscores the intrinsic value of human life (Kant, 1785). From this view, euthanasia could be seen as disrespecting the moral law that mandates respect for life. However, some ethicists argue that compassion and the duty to alleviate suffering may, in certain cases, override strict deontological prohibitions. Nonetheless, the core Kantian stance prioritizes the preservation of life based on moral duty, rendering euthanasia morally impermissible under this framework.

Counterargument and Response

A common counterargument claims that respect for autonomy justifies euthanasia, as individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives. This view emphasizes personal liberty and compassionate response to suffering. Nevertheless, from a deontological perspective, permitting euthanasia might undermine the moral law and the respect owed to human life. The duty to preserve life and uphold moral duties to oneself and others outweigh individual autonomy in this context. While compassion is vital, it does not override the moral obligation to respect the sanctity of life (Beauchamp, 2008).

Conclusion

Applying deontological ethics indicates that euthanasia, by virtue of respecting moral duties to preserve human life, is ethically impermissible. While recognizing the importance of compassion and respect for autonomy, a strict deontological framework underscores the inherent value of life and the duty to uphold moral laws. Ethical decision-making in such sensitive issues must balance respect for individual rights with moral obligations derived from universal principles.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor (2007). Cambridge University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L. (2008). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Check, J., & Kinsella, M. (2020). Ethical considerations in euthanasia: A deontological perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(9), 602–607.
• Summers, S. (2019). Autonomy and morality: Navigating euthanasia debates. Philosophy & Medicine, 35(2), 191–205.
• Sullivan, M. (2017). Cultural and religious influences on euthanasia ethics. Bioethics, 31(6), 464–471.
• Huidobro, D. (2015). Respect for life and moral duties in euthanasia. Ethics & Medicine, 31(2), 105–109.
• Brooks, R. (2012). Moral implications of assisted dying. The Journal of Ethics, 16(4), 351–367.
• Rachels, J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine, 292(2), 78–80.
• Miller, F. G. (2019). Legal and ethical issues in euthanasia and assisted suicide. Legal Medicine, 41, 10–15.