In This Course We Look At Classical Ethical Theories Of Util

In This Course We Look At Classical Ethical Theories Ofutilitarianism

Identify the specific ethical issue related to medical care in prisons and the ethical problems it presents. Drawing on various sources, explain how one of the classical ethical theories—utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics—would resolve this problem. Then, contrast this response with the perspective brought to the issue by relativism, emotivism, or ethical egoism. Finally, state which of these views is closer to your own, supporting your response with a clearly-presented and well-supported argument. Use specific examples to illustrate your points and ensure the paper is between eight to ten pages, excluding title and reference pages, with at least five credible resources, formatted according to APA (6th edition).

Paper For Above instruction

Medical care in prisons presents a significant ethical issue that raises questions about justice, human rights, and the moral obligations of society and correctional institutions. The core problem revolves around whether prisoners should have access to the same quality of medical care as the general population, and how to balance resource allocation, public safety, and individual rights. Ethical concerns include whether denying adequate healthcare constitutes inhumane treatment, violating prisoners' rights, or reflects societal neglect. These issues are complicated by the scarcity of resources, potential systemic biases, and differing societal values about prisoners' rights and public health priorities.

Utilitarianism, a classical ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, emphasizes the maximization of overall happiness or welfare. From a utilitarian perspective, resolving the issue of prison healthcare involves evaluating the consequences of providing or denying medical care to prisoners. Proponents argue that accessible healthcare should increase overall societal happiness by promoting public health, reducing suffering, and potentially decreasing recidivism through better mental and physical health management. Denying prisoners adequate healthcare, in contrast, could lead to increased suffering, higher societal costs due to untreated illnesses, and a negative impact on societal welfare. Therefore, utilitarianism would advocate for providing comprehensive medical care in prisons, considering it beneficial for both individual prisoners and society at large, as it improves overall well-being and reduces long-term societal burdens.

Contrasting this with relativism, which posits that moral standards are subjective and vary across cultures or individuals, the perspective on prison healthcare becomes more context-dependent. A relativist might argue that the ethical acceptability of providing healthcare in prisons depends on societal norms, legal standards, and cultural attitudes toward prisoners and public health. If, in a particular society, the norm is to deprioritize prisoner health, then from that relativist standpoint, inadequate healthcare might be justified. Ethical egoism, which emphasizes actions that promote one's own self-interest, might oppose extensive healthcare in prisons if the individual or societal decision-makers perceive the costs as outweighing benefits. From this perspective, limited resources might be allocated elsewhere if it benefits the individual or society directly, possibly at the expense of prisoners’ health.

In contrast to relativism and ethical egoism, utilitarianism provides a more consistent and outcome-oriented approach favoring the health and well-being of prisoners as part of the societal welfare. Emotivism, which suggests ethical judgments are expressions of emotional preferences rather than objective facts, would likely lead to inconsistent and subjective stances on prison healthcare, depending on individual emotional reactions rather than rational evaluation. Hence, utilitarianism offers a more systematic moral framework that emphasizes consequences and overall societal benefit rather than subjective preferences or egoistic interests.

Personally, I align more closely with utilitarianism in evaluating healthcare in prisons. From a moral standpoint, ensuring prisoners receive adequate medical care ultimately contributes to the greater good by promoting public health, reducing suffering, and maintaining societal justice. For instance, untreated illnesses among prisoners can lead to outbreaks within prisons and pose risks to staff and the community once prisoners are released (Richardson, 2020). Providing equitable healthcare aligns with societal interests by fostering trust in the justice system and upholding human dignity. Moreover, the utilitarian emphasis on the overall welfare resonates with my view that moral decisions should be guided by their beneficial outcomes for society as a whole, rather than subjective cultural norms or individual egoistic preferences.

In conclusion, the ethical issue of medical care in prisons exemplifies complex moral considerations involving societal justice and individual rights. Utilitarianism advocates for comprehensive healthcare based on its overall benefits, contrasting with relativism and ethical egoism, which can justify neglect or limited care based on cultural norms or self-interest. My position aligns with utilitarianism because I believe that prioritizing the health of prisoners promotes societal well-being, reduces long-term costs, and upholds moral dignity, making it a compelling framework for addressing this ethical dilemma.

References

• Richardson, J. (2020). Prison health care and human rights. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 26(2), 106-117.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Standards, and Appraisals. Oxford University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Gert, B. (2004). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
• Davis, L. (2014). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.