Week 2 Assignment: Religion And Ethics Required Resources ✓ Solved

Week 2 Assignment: Religion and Ethics Required Resources: T

Textbook Chapters 3, 4; Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). Select two of the following scenarios and address two of the questions listed.

Scenarios:

1. John Doe has decided to clone himself. He is sterile. He cannot find anyone to marry him. He wishes to have children. He knows that he will not be able to love a child that is adopted or not connected directly to him biologically. He will be making use of a new procedure that involves taking his skin cells to produce a twin. The twin starts out as an embryo and grows into a child. The child in this case will have the same genetic information as John Doe. John Doe and his child will be twins.

2. Jane Doe is eighteen. For as long as she can remember she has been sexually attracted to other females. Her parents belong to a religion that has a religious text stating that God forbids one to be a lesbian. This religion goes on further to say that lesbians will be punished in the afterlife. Jane Doe is debating whether she should tell her parents about her sexual attraction. She has not yet decided if she should come out to her parents and live as a lesbian now that she is a legal adult.

3. Joe and Mary are a couple. Before becoming sterile, they had a child. This child died of a rare disease. Joe and Mary miss their child terribly. They have heard that there is a new IVF procedure that can ensure that they can have another child. However, their religion forbids using IVF.

Instructions:

Select two of the situations above and then address two of the following questions:

• What is the relation between ethics and religion? Formulate and investigate the relation.
• For each case, determine the ethical path of conduct. Then, determine what paths of conduct would be unethical.
• For each case, what would an emotivism say to appraise what you determine is the ethical form of conduct?
• For each case, would a natural law ethicist agree with what you say is the ethical form of conduct? Why or why not?
• Articulate, explain, and evaluate in each case an approach that makes use of divine command ethics.

Use the resources assigned for this week and additional research.

Paper For Above Instructions

Selected Scenarios and Questions

This paper examines scenarios 1 (John Doe cloning himself) and 2 (Jane Doe contemplating disclosure of her lesbian orientation). It addresses two questions: (1) What is the relation between ethics and religion? and (2) For each case, determine the ethical path of conduct and paths that would be unethical. The analysis uses moral theory and religious considerations to provide reasoned guidance.

Relation between Ethics and Religion

Ethics and religion overlap but are distinct domains. Ethics concerns reasoned reflection on right and wrong, obligations, virtues, and consequences (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Religion often supplies moral norms, narrative frameworks, and communal sanctions grounded in divine authority and sacred texts (Adams, 1987). While religion frequently motivates ethical behavior, ethical reasoning can be secular and independent of religious belief (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Scholarly literature treats the relation as complementary in many societies: religion provides moral motivation and community, while philosophical ethics offers critical tools to evaluate and justify prescriptions (Sandel, 2007; Habermas, 2003).

Importantly, moral pluralism implies that religious norms do not automatically determine universal ethical truth. A healthy relation is dialogical: religious convictions should be open to ethical scrutiny, and secular ethics should acknowledge the social and existential goods religion supplies (Rachels & Rachels, 2019; Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). This balanced approach is necessary when personal autonomy and communal religious authority conflict, as in the chosen scenarios.

Case 1 — John Doe (Cloning Himself): Ethical Path and Unethical Alternatives

Ethical Path of Conduct: From a secular ethical standpoint focused on wellbeing, autonomy, and harm, John should prioritize the prospective child's welfare. Cloning that risks physical harm, identity confusion, or social harms to the child would be unethical; procedures that meet safety standards, ensure informed parental commitment, and provide psychological and social support could be morally permissible (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; Robertson, 1994). John’s desire for genetic continuity is understandable, but ethical conduct entails considering whether a cloned child would have conditions of flourishing comparable to naturally conceived children (Sandel, 2007).

Therefore an ethical path would include: seeking independent ethical review, counseling, and ensuring that any reproductive technology used minimizes risks and secures the child’s best interests (ASRM, 2018). If cloning cannot be performed safely or would create foreseeable, serious harms to the child, refraining would be the ethical choice.

Unethical Paths: Proceeding with cloning chiefly to satisfy John’s psychological need without regard to the child’s welfare, hiding risks from regulators, or treating the clone as an object or mere replica would be unethical (Kass, 2002; Habermas, 2003). Using cloning to create a “replacement” for a lost partner/child or to instrumentalize a person violates respect for persons and the child’s dignity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Case 2 — Jane Doe (Coming Out to Religious Parents): Ethical Path and Unethical Alternatives

Ethical Path of Conduct: Ethical analysis of Jane’s situation prioritizes autonomy, authenticity, and nonmaleficence. Ethically, Jane has a right to self-determination about whether and when to disclose her sexual orientation; there is no moral requirement for her to confess if doing so would predictably produce severe harm (emotional, financial, or physical) from her parents (Rachels & Rachels, 2019; Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). A prudent ethical path is informed, context-sensitive disclosure: assessing risks, seeking supportive resources, and choosing the timing and manner that maximize safety and relational repair if feasible (Herek, 2009).

Unethical Paths: It would be unethical for Jane to live deceptively if deception causes serious betrayal and preventable harm in relationships where honesty is expected and safe (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Conversely, pressuring or coercing parents to accept an identity against their deeply held convictions without dialogue may be counterproductive; however, moral justification rests primarily on preventing harm and respecting autonomy rather than placating parental religious beliefs that sanction punishment (Adams, 1987).

Integrative Conclusion

In both cases the ethical relation to religion requires careful balancing: religiously motivated norms merit respectful consideration but do not automatically trump secular ethical concerns about harm, autonomy, and dignity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019; Rachels & Rachels, 2019). For John Doe, the ethical imperative is to protect the prospective child’s welfare and dignity; cloning may be permissible only where safety and flourishing are ensured. For Jane Doe, the ethical imperative is to protect her autonomy and minimize harm; the decision to come out should be informed by safety and supportive resources. The dialogue between ethical reasoning and religious commitments should aim at mutual understanding while prioritizing the practical moral requirement to avoid harm and respect persons (Sandel, 2007; Habermas, 2003).

Practical Recommendations

• John should seek multidisciplinary ethical, medical, and psychological review, and prioritize the child’s welfare before pursuing cloning (ASRM, 2018; Robertson, 1994).
• Jane should assess safety, access supportive networks (counselors, LGBTQ+ support), and make a disclosure decision that protects her wellbeing while allowing for gradual relational work where possible (Herek, 2009).
• Both cases benefit from reasoned ethical deliberation that respects religious perspectives but places primary weight on autonomy, nonmaleficence, and dignity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

References

• Adams, R. M. (1987). Theories of Ethics. In R. M. Adams (Ed.), Finite and Infinite Goods. Oxford University Press.
• Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.).
• Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. Gollancz.
• ASRM Ethics Committee. (2018). Ethics Committee Opinion: Ethical issues in assisted reproductive technologies. American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Habermas, J. (2003). The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press.
• Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice. In Contemporary Perspectives in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology.
• Kass, L. R. (2002). Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. Encounter Books.
• Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Harvard University Press.