Decision Making And Philosophy Part II

Decision Making And Philosophy Part Ii Philosophy And The Communitywh

Decision-making and Philosophy Part II: Philosophy and the Community Whereas Part I focused on how you as an individual are impacted by a particular decision, Part II focuses on the individual as a member of a community. Thus, you will write an eight- to ten-page research paper based upon a current event/pressing social issue that is relevant to your community. You should address the following points in your analysis: Identify a social issue Identify news articles that present at least two different points-of-view on the issue Explain why the issue is relevant to your community Explain the nature of religious belief and identify the social norms and religious values/beliefs that inform the various perspectives on the issue Explain a relevant ethical theory Explain a relevant political theory Analyze how the chosen theories might approach the issue, including the relevant considerations and the ultimate conclusion reached. You will be expected to explain the relevant theories with support from the course texts (with particular emphasis placed on the primary texts) and from pre-approved secondary sources (including, but not limited to, the course text, online lectures, and a list of suggested online resources). Submit your assignment in the W5: Assignment 2 Dropbox by Tuesday, August 19, 2014 . Assignment 2 Grading Criteria Maximum Points Identified a current event/pressing social issue that is relevant to their community 10 Identified authoritative scholarly articles and news articles that present at least two different points-of-view on the issue 10 Explained the nature of religious belief and identified the social norms and religious beliefs/values that inform the various perspectives on the issue 30 Explained a relevant ethical theory with support from primary texts and authoritative secondary sources. 50 Explained a relevant political theory with support from primary texts and authoritative secondary sources. 50 Analyzed how the chosen theories might approach the decision 90 Used correct grammar and spelling. 5 Conformed to APA citation and page length guidelines (8-10 pages). 5

Paper For Above instruction

The importance of community in ethical decision-making and philosophical inquiry has been a longstanding subject within social philosophy and ethics. The second part of the assignment prompts to analyze a current social issue relevant to one's community, exploring diverse perspectives, religious influences, and philosophical theories shaping human responses. This paper will focus on the contentious issue of vaccination mandates within local communities, a topic that has gained renewed prominence during the ongoing global health crises. Vaccination mandates serve as an exemplary case of how social norms, religious beliefs, and ethical and political theories intersect in shaping community responses to public health challenges.

The issue of vaccination mandates is highly relevant to my community, as local debates often reflect broader national discourses. News outlets such as local newspapers and online platforms present contrasting viewpoints: proponents argue that mandates are essential for public safety and community immunity, citing scientific evidence and collective responsibility; opponents raise concerns about individual autonomy, religious freedoms, and bodily integrity, often invoking religious and philosophical principles that prioritize personal choice. Analyzing these perspectives requires an understanding of the religious and social norms that inform community beliefs about health, liberty, and social duty.

In many communities, religious beliefs significantly influence attitudes toward vaccination. For example, certain religious groups emphasize divine providence, spiritual purity, or a divine right to make autonomous health decisions, which can either support or oppose vaccination protocols. Social norms within these communities often reinforce the importance of faith-based decision-making and resistance to perceived government overreach. Conversely, other faith traditions advocate for vaccination as a moral obligation grounded in love for one's neighbor and the protection of the vulnerable—mirroring the social norms of communal responsibility and ethical care rooted in religious doctrine.

A relevant ethical theory for analyzing this issue is Utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on their consequences for overall happiness and well-being. From a utilitarian perspective, vaccination mandates can be justified by their potential to reduce suffering and prevent disease outbreaks, thus maximizing social benefit. Primary texts such as John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty" and Jeremy Bentham’s "Principles of Morals and Legislation" underscore the importance of promoting collective welfare while balancing individual freedoms. Conversely, deontological ethics, as articulated by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes respect for persons as autonomous agents. Kantian ethics may oppose mandates if they infringe upon individual rights, proposing that moral decisions must respect the intrinsic dignity and autonomy of every person.

In the political realm, liberal individualism champions personal autonomy, advocating for minimal interference in personal health choices. This view aligns with libertarian principles, emphasizing the primacy of individual rights over state intervention. Conversely, communitarian political theory emphasizes community welfare, social cohesion, and the collective good—values that support mandates as necessary for the health and safety of the community. The tension between these political philosophies reflects core debates about the scope of individual liberty and state responsibility in public health policy.

Analyzing how these theories approach vaccination mandates illuminates the ethical and political stakes of community health decisions. Utilitarianism tends to endorse mandates based on empirical evidence of public health benefits, emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number. Kantian ethics might oppose mandates if they violate individual autonomy, insisting on informed consent and moral respect. Liberal individualism may advocate for voluntary choice, highlighting personal liberty, while communitarianism supports collective action, emphasizing shared responsibility. Ultimately, a balanced approach might integrate these perspectives, recognizing individual rights while prioritizing community health to find ethically sustainable policies.

In conclusion, evaluating vaccination mandates through diverse philosophical and religious lenses demonstrates the complex moral landscape facing communities today. Religious beliefs, social norms, and philosophical theories collectively inform community attitudes and policy debates. Using ethical and political frameworks such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, liberalism, and communitarianism allows for a nuanced understanding of the competing values at stake. This analysis underscores the importance of integrating multiple perspectives to craft policies that respect individual rights while promoting social well-being—an essential balancing act for future community decision-making.

References

• Bentham, J. (1789). Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Childress, J. F. (2019). Bioethics and Public Health Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Cockburn, H. (2021). Religious perspectives on vaccination: An overview. Journal of Religious Health, 34(2), 211-227.
• World Health Organization. (2020). Vaccine hesitancy: Building confidence in vaccines. WHO Publications.
• Brown, P. (2018). Liberalism and public health: Balancing individual rights and community interests. Public Policy Review, 12, 45-62.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
• Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.
• Ginsburg, G. S., & Van Doren, E. (2016). Ethical considerations in vaccination mandates. American Journal of Bioethics, 16(2), 28-32.