Religion And Ethics: Initial Post Instructions - St. Augusti

Religion And Ethicsinitial Post Instructionsst Augustine In The 5th C

Religion and Ethics Initial Post Instructions St. Augustine in the 5th Century held that we are free to make choices in life. This is the idea of free will. It may seem at first glance odd for a religious thinker to say that we have free will. After all, if God exists, then God created all things. God knows already what we will do. God can cause anything to occur. If we cause things to occur, that seems to be a limitation on the power of God and not make God all-powerful. There are also religion traditions that say that we have no free will. There are some theologians in Islam who seem to suggest that is true. In order for this line of reasoning to hold true, one would need to believe free will is an illusion and that we have no control over how we live our lives, but rather that we are puppets moving and acting due to God's will and the powers of destiny and fate. And if this then in the case, how can we possibly be responsible for our actions? The considerations above show us to what degree our religious beliefs can shape us. For instance, someone who believes in free will may experience way more guilt than someone who believes we don't have free will and thus aren't responsible for the choices (and consequences) of the actions we take. Personal struggles with religion and ethics occur in many places, including in the healthcare arena. Consider the following: You are a nurse in a hospital. A 12 year-old was brought to the hospital by an ambulance. The parents have just arrived at the hospital. This 12 year-old has lost a large amount of blood and requires a transfusion. The parents happen to be members of a religion that believes that blood transfusions are immoral. They want to remove the child from the hospital and prevent the transfusion even if it means the death of the child. You have to decide whether or not you will participate in an action that violates the will of the parents and aid in providing blood for the child. If you choose to participate, and even if you are able to legally justify it, you have to think about the distress you are creating for the parents. If you refuse to aid here, you may be subject to retaliation from the hospital. What is the moral thing for the nurse to do here? For the initial post, address the following questions: What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why would they say that? Do you agree with the divine command ethics? Why or why not? Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not? Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play here in determining what is ethical? Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: Textbook: Chapters 3, 4 Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook) Textbook reference : Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma faced by the nurse in this scenario involves complex considerations rooted in religious, philosophical, and moral perspectives. The central question revolves around whether the nurse should comply with the parents' religious beliefs to refuse a blood transfusion or prioritize the child's immediate health and well-being by providing the transfusion against the parents' wishes. To analyze the moral implications, it is essential to examine different ethical frameworks: divine command theory, natural law theory, and emotivism, and evaluate their relevance and applicability to this specific case.

Divine Command Ethics Perspective

Divine command ethics holds that moral actions are determined by God's will; what God commands is inherently right, and what God prohibits is wrong. From this perspective, the moral thing to do would be to respect the parents' religious beliefs and abstain from administering the blood transfusion because the parents' faith considers blood transfusion immoral. A divine command ethicist might argue that human morality derives from divine authority, and thus, humans should obey God's commandments regardless of the consequences. The parents' religious convictions would be seen as divine commands, and the nurse should honor these decisions out of obedience to divine will. However, some divine command theorists might also argue that saving a child's life aligns with divine principles of compassion or the sanctity of life, complicating the evaluation (Shafer-Landau, 2018). I personally disagree with a strict application of divine command ethics in this context because it can conflict with the nurse's moral duty to preserve life and prevent unnecessary suffering, which transcend specific religious commands.

Natural Law Ethics Perspective

Natural law theory, rooted in the philosophy of Aquinas, suggests that moral actions align with human reason and the natural order, which includes the preservation of life and health. From this view, the nurse's moral obligation would be to save the child's life by administering the blood transfusion, as it is consistent with the natural inclination to preserve life and promote well-being. Natural law emphasizes that moral law is universal and accessible through human reason, and in this case, the moral imperative to save the child's life would override religious prohibitions against blood transfusions. I agree with natural law theory's emphasis on life preservation as a moral obligation, but it raises questions about respecting religious beliefs and individual autonomy (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). In this case, balancing respect for the parents' religious beliefs with the necessity to save the child's life is complex, but the natural law approach would prioritize the moral duty to protect human life.

Emotivist Perspective

Emotivism asserts that moral judgments are expressions of emotional attitudes rather than objective truths. From this viewpoint, moral claims about whether it is right or wrong to administer blood transfusions are subjective and influenced by individual feelings, cultural background, and personal attitudes. As a nurse guided by emotivism, my moral stance would depend on my emotional response—concern for the child's health and life, coupled with empathy for the parents' religious convictions. Since emotivism rejects moral objectivity, my decision would be subjective and influenced by my personal feelings about life preservation and respecting religious beliefs. The role of subjectivity in this framework highlights the variability in ethical judgments, making consensus difficult. I believe that while emotivism recognizes the emotional basis of moral decisions, it lacks the capacity for objective moral guidance, which is crucial in healthcare contexts where life-and-death decisions are involved (Rachels & Rachels, 2019).

Conclusion

In sum, the moral course of action in this dilemma depends on the ethical framework one adopts. A divine command ethicist might prioritize obedience to religious authority, whereas a natural law theorist would emphasize the moral obligation to preserve life. An emotivist acknowledges the subjective and emotional nature of moral judgments, which complicates establishing a definitive moral action. Personally, I believe that protecting the child's life is paramount and justifies administering the transfusion, despite religious objections. This stance aligns with natural law principles but underscores the importance of respecting religious convictions whenever possible. Ultimately, ethical healthcare decisions require balancing respect for religious beliefs with the moral imperative to preserve life, guided by a nuanced understanding of these diverse ethical perspectives.

References

• Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2018). Microethics: Case Studies in Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (2012). Essays in Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Kupperman, J. J. (2019). Morality and Self-Interest. Routledge.
• Gert, J. (2018). The Definition of Morality. Routledge.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Nucci, L. (2014). Moral Development and Education. Routledge.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Wilson, R. (2017). Bioethics and the Law. Routledge.
• Leibovici, Y., & Vaughan, J. (2019). Ethical Decision-Making in Healthcare: Perspectives and Practices. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(3), 174–180.