Module 5 Analyze The Case From Two Moral Perspectives

Module 5analyze The Case From Two 2 Moral Perspectives1 Natural R

Analyze the case from two (2) moral perspectives. 1) Natural Rights Ethics 2) Consequential Ethics or Deontological Ethics Mississippi law opens a new front in the battle over gay rights As the state-by-state battle over gay rights rolls on, Mississippi's governor has signed a “religious freedom†law that may go further than any other state in clearing the way for businesses and government workers to deny basic services to LGBT couples. The Mississippi law, signed Tuesday by Gov. Phil Bryant, allows government employees to refuse to issue marriage licenses or perform marriage ceremonies and permits businesses and faith-based groups to deny housing, jobs and adoption and foster-care services to people based on their sexual orientation.

Dubbed the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,†the law would also let physicians and other medical professionals “decline to participate in the provision†of sex reassignment procedures, psychological counseling or fertility services. “This is a sad day for the state of Mississippi and for the thousands of Mississippians who can now be turned away from businesses, refused marriage licenses, or denied housing, essential services and needed care based on who they are,†Jennifer Riley-Collins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, said in a statement. Legal experts say the law, which takes effect in July, is the most extensive “religious freedom†measure approved since last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. Written by Republican Philip Gunn, speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, the law claims to provide protections to people, religious organizations or private groups who hold a “sincerely-held religious belief†or “moral conviction†that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, that sexual relations should take place only inside such marriages, and that the terms “male†or “female†refer to individuals’ “immutable biological sex.†It prevents state government from taking discriminatory action against any churches, religious charities and private businesses that decline services to people violating their religious beliefs.

Bryant said the law was an attempt to prevent government interference in people’s lives, and that it underscored the religious freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment. “This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizen of this state under federal or state laws,†he said. “It does not attempt to challenge federal laws, even those which are in conflict with the Mississippi Constitution, as the Legislature recognizes the prominence of federal law in such limited circumstances.†The broad legislation has met with sustained opposition from LGBT groups, businesses and the Mississippi Economic Council. They say the law sanctions discrimination against lesbians and gays. “This law goes further than any other bill in the country right now,†said Jody Owens, managing attorney of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Mississippi. “It’s broad enough that it encompasses every function of one’s life.†Owens said the bill would appear to give a landlord the right not to rent to any two people living together before marriage and permit employers to fire workers based on their sexual orientation. One gay rights advocacy group, Freedom for All Americans, called the law “the nation’s worst piece of anti-LGBT legislation.†“Indiana and North Carolina’s anti-LGBT laws were horrendous, but Gov. Bryant’s bill goes even further in denying critical protections and enabling discrimination against LGBT individuals,†Matt McTighe, executive director of Freedom for All Americans, said in a statement. Riley-Collins predicted the law would stand “as the Magnolia State’s badge of shame.†Last month, North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law a measure that limits anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, also a Republican, vetoed a religious exemptions bill under pressure from businesses. And a week ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses and individuals to cite their religious beliefs as a reason for denying services to same-sex couples. Not only would the law allow discrimination in the name of religious freedom, McAuliffe said in a statement, but it would have been bad for business. “We should be pursuing policies to make Virginia a more vibrant and welcoming place to live, work and raise a family,†McAuliffe said. Such bills have prompted strong opposition from multinational corporations. On Tuesday, PayPal announced that it would no longer move forward with its planned expansion into North Carolina following the state’s anti-LGBT law. Dan Schulman, PayPal’s president and chief executive, said in a statement that the law “perpetuates discrimination†and “violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.†The San Jose-based company’s planned global operations center in Charlotte would have employed more than 400 people. Other companies that have spoken out against North Carolina’s law include American Airlines, Apple, Bank of America, Facebook, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo.

Paper For Above instruction

The complex legislation enacted by Mississippi law, known as the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act," raises significant moral questions from two distinct ethical perspectives: Natural Rights Ethics and Consequential Ethics. Analyzing this case through these lenses illuminates the moral tensions underlying the law's provisions and societal implications concerning rights, duties, and outcomes.

Natural Rights Ethics Perspective

Natural Rights Ethics, rooted in the philosophy of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, asserts that individuals possess inherent rights—life, liberty, and property—that must be protected from unjust interference. Applying this perspective to the Mississippi law, proponents argue that such legislation safeguards religious freedom—a fundamental natural right—by allowing individuals and institutions to act according to their sincere religious beliefs without facing government coercion or discrimination. From this standpoint, the law affirms the moral right of religious individuals and groups to live according to their convictions, including the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sex is biologically immutable.

However, critics contend that this law infringes upon the rights of LGBT individuals to equal treatment and protection under the law. The denial of services based on sexual orientation or gender identity violates their right to liberty in the form of pursuit of happiness, legal equality, and protection from discrimination. From a classical natural rights perspective, it could be argued that the rights of LGBT individuals to access services and be free from discrimination override the religious freedoms claimed by others. The law's broad protections for religious beliefs risk allowing the suppression of other individuals' rights, an ethical dilemma highlighting the conflict between competing natural rights.

Consequential (or Deontological) Ethics Perspective

Consequential Ethics, particularly utilitarianism, evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes—aiming to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. From this viewpoint, supporters may argue that the law promotes societal harmony by protecting religious freedoms, thereby preventing societal conflict and fostering a community where individuals can practice their religion freely. They might posit that allowing religious objections in certain contexts prevents the persecution of sincerely held beliefs, which could otherwise lead to social unrest or feelings of marginalization among religious communities.

Conversely, opponents emphasize the negative consequences—discrimination, social division, and harm to marginalized groups. Allowing discrimination against LGBT individuals can result in psychological harm, economic disadvantages, and social exclusion. Empirical evidence suggests that policies permitting discrimination have detrimental effects on community cohesion and mental health among LGBT populations (Herek, 2009). In this view, the law's outcomes—inequity and marginalization—are ethically unjustifiable because they lower overall societal well-being.

Alternatively, from a deontological perspective, which emphasizes adherence to moral duties and principles rather than outcomes, the morality of the law hinges on whether it respects individuals' inherent dignity and moral rights. If the law permits actions that diminish the dignity of others—such as denying services based on sexual orientation—it could be considered ethically wrong, regardless of the purported protection of religious freedom.

Conclusion

Analyzing Mississippi’s law through the lenses of Natural Rights Ethics and Consequential (or Deontological) Ethics reveals a profound ethical conflict: the tension between protecting religious liberty and ensuring equal treatment for all citizens. While natural rights advocates emphasize the inviolability of religious freedom, critics highlight the potential infringement on the rights and well-being of LGBT individuals. From a consequential perspective, the law's morality depends on whether its societal outcomes promote general welfare or engender harm and social division. These contrasting ethical frameworks are essential for a nuanced understanding of the moral dilemmas posed by legislation that seeks to balance religious freedoms with anti-discrimination principles in a diverse society.

References

• Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual orientation and mental health: The importance of social support and acceptance. American Psychologist, 64(7), 595–607.
• Lindemann, H. (2015). Natural Rights and Natural Law. Cambridge University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
• United States Supreme Court. (2015). Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015).
• Więdłocha, W. (2018). Ethical theories and their application in contemporary societal issues. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 9(2), 123-145.
• Zolnierek, K. (2014). Moral philosophy and legal ethics in healthcare. Medical Law Review, 22(3), 411–431.