St. Augustine In The 5th Century Held That We Are Free To Ma

St Augustine In The 5th Century Held That We Are Free To Make Choices

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 religious 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?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma faced by the nurse in this scenario can be critically examined from various moral frameworks, each offering distinct perspectives on what constitutes the morally right action. Central to this discussion are divine command ethics, natural law ethics, and emotivist perspectives. Analyzing these viewpoints provides a comprehensive understanding of the moral considerations involved and the role of subjective judgment in ethics.

Divine Command Ethics Perspective

Divine command ethics posits that moral standards are grounded in the directives of a divine being. From this viewpoint, an action is considered morally right if it aligns with God's will, as revealed through sacred texts or religious traditions. In the context of the hospital scenario, a divine command ethicist might argue that saving a life is inherently good because it aligns with the divine command to preserve human life and minimize suffering. However, this perspective also recognizes the importance of adhering to religious doctrines, which in this case includes respecting the parents’ religious objections to blood transfusions. Therefore, a divine command ethicist could justify prioritizing the parents’ authority and religious convictions, emphasizing respect for divine laws as interpreted through their faith, even if it contradicts the secular medical imperative to save the child's life. This highlights the tension between divine obedience and other moral obligations.

Evaluation of Divine Command Ethics

I find myself conflicted with relying solely on divine command ethics in this scenario. While respecting religious beliefs is crucial, the primary moral obligation should be to preserve human life and alleviate suffering when possible. Strict adherence to divine commands that prohibit life-saving interventions like blood transfusions may lead to moral dilemmas where the child's best interest is compromised. Therefore, I believe that divine command ethics can be valuable but must be balanced against other moral principles, especially in healthcare settings where human life is at stake.

Natural Law Ethicist Perspective

Natural law ethics asserts that moral principles are derived from human nature and the natural order, with the primary goal of achieving the common good. According to this view, acts that promote life and health are inherently good because they align with our natural inclination to preserve life. From this perspective, the nurse should act to save the child's life, considering it morally right to do so as it aligns with our natural moral understanding of life preservation. Natural law advocates often emphasize that moral law is accessible through human reason, which recognizes that blood transfusions are a means to restore health and preserve life. Consequently, an advocate of natural law ethics would argue that refusing to perform the transfusion violates this moral law and contradicts the natural inclination towards preserving life, unless doing so would directly contravene specific religious mandates perceived as higher moral laws.

Evaluation of Natural Law Ethics

I agree with the natural law perspective because it aligns with an intuitive understanding of morality based on human nature and the pursuit of the common good. Saving a life generally appears as a moral obligation inherent in our nature, making the refusal to do so ethically problematic. However, respecting the parents’ religious convictions also bears weight, suggesting a need for a balanced approach that seeks to uphold both moral duties where possible.

Emotivist Viewpoint

Emotivism posits that moral judgments are expressions of emotional responses rather than objective facts. From this angle, the decision about whether to proceed with the transfusion is influenced heavily by the nurse’s emotional reactions—compassion, empathy, guilt, or cultural sensitivity. The emotivist perspective suggests that moral judgments are subjective and variable based on personal feelings and societal influences. In this case, the nurse’s personal feelings about respecting religious beliefs versus saving a life will shape their moral stance. For instance, if the nurse strongly feels compassion for the child and desires to save life, they may see discontinuing the transfusion as morally wrong. Conversely, if they empathize with the parents’ religious convictions, they may see assisting their wishes as more ethically appropriate. Ultimately, emotivism underscores the importance of personal emotion and subjective judgment in moral decision-making, which may lead to different conclusions among healthcare professionals based on their individual feelings and cultural backgrounds.

Subjectivity in Ethical Decision-Making

Subjectivity plays a significant role in ethical decision-making, particularly in dilemmas involving conflicting principles like religious beliefs, respect for autonomy, and the duty to preserve life. While ethical theories aim to provide objective guidelines, individual values, cultural influences, and emotional responses invariably shape moral judgments. Recognizing the role of subjectivity invites a more nuanced appreciation of diverse moral perspectives and underscores the importance of empathy, cultural competence, and critical reflection in healthcare decisions. The variability inherent in subjective judgments highlights the necessity for dialogue among stakeholders, respecting different moral frameworks while striving for decisions that uphold core ethical principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision of whether to perform a life-saving blood transfusion against the parents’ religious objections is complex, involving multiple ethical frameworks. Divine command ethics may emphasize obedience to divine law and religious authority, potentially conflicting with the duty to preserve life. Natural law ethics aligns with the moral obligation to protect and sustain life based on human nature and reason. Emotivism stresses the importance of personal emotion and subjective judgment, which significantly influence moral decisions. Ultimately, an ethically balanced approach considers the importance of respecting religious beliefs while recognizing the moral imperative to save life, guided by both reason and compassion. Healthcare professionals must navigate these competing values carefully, ensuring that their actions reflect a considered integration of ethical principles, professional duties, and cultural sensitivities.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Catholic Church. (1998). Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 229–231). Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking. Oxford University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development. Harper & Row.
• Levine, D. (1987). Ethics and Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Issues. Yale University Press.
• Sadler, T. (2004). Moral Breakdown: The Case of the Blood Transfusion. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(3), 205–209.
• Shaw, G., & Barrett, P. (2018). Bioethics in Practice. Oxford University Press.
• Sumner, L. W. (1982). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Clarendon Press.
• Velleman, J. (2000). Why We Are Not Just Our Brains. Cambridge University Press.