The principle of double effect suggests that it is morally permissible to carry out an action which has two effects; one being positive, while the other is negative. With this in mind, there are certain criteria that need to be met. First, the act should be considered good or permissible. Any negative effects cannot be avoided in the event that the good criteria or action is carried out. Lastly, the negative effect is said to be a side effect of the positive or permissible aspect. Overall, the good should outweigh the bad effect. If the bad effect is heavier than the good, the action should not be carried out. With this in mind, these aspects of the principle of double effect should be considered and applied to these cases. In the first case, …show more content…
However, in this case, if the woman does not take the medication, she will die. If the woman dies, then her baby will also die. According to natural law, taking this drug is permissible. The act, aside from the consequences would save the young woman’s life. Considering the next criteria to the rule, the negative effect of aborting the fetus cannot be avoided. If the woman wants to survive and cure her disease, the only way that she can accomplish this is to abort the fetus. Lastly, the negative effect is lesser than the positive effect. Although aborting the fetus sounds harsh, the baby will not survive in either case. If the young woman who is pregnant does not take the medication to cure her disease, she will die, resulting in the death of the baby as well. On the other hand, if she does take the medication, she will survive, but the fetus will be aborted. As difficult as this may be to consider, this is the better option. In this case, one life would be saved, rather than losing …show more content…
We all know there is right and wrong, and that we should focus on doing what is right. However, in many cases such as these two provided to us for this assignment, choosing good has some serious consequences. Unfortunately, life gives us difficult situations, and some cannot always avoid the negative outcomes or side effects that come with the positive action. As individuals, we should strive to avoid evil, and seek good. Although the situations had some negative consequences, in these cases, the good actions were taken according to the principle of double
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
There are two basic kinds of ethical judgments. The first have to do with duty and obligation. For example: "Thou shalt not kill, lie, or steal." "You just keep your promises." These judgments often uphold minimal standards of onduct and (partly for that reason) assert or imply a moral ‘ought.’ The second kind of judgment focuses on human excellence and the nature of the good life. These judgments employ as their most general terms "happiness," "excellence," and perhaps "flourishing" (in addition to "the good life"). For example: "Happiness requires activity and not mere passive consumption." "The good life includes pleasure, friendship, intellectual development and physical health." I take these to be the two general types of ethical judgment, and all particular ethical judgments to be examples of these. The main contention of this paper is that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgments, and not try to understand the one as a special case of the other.
...s driven by non-maleficence, or the intent to “do no harm”. They know that withholding treatment for religious beliefs will potentially be fatal to both. While Maria is acting out of loyalty to her religious beliefs, the medical staff is acting out of loyalty to the patient’s well being and that of her unborn child. It would be unfair if no party were acting on behalf of that child. In conclusion, providers in this case must pursue every option in delivering life saving treatment for this child. This may involve legal action. If it were just Maria providers may attempt to influence her decision, but ultimately it would be up to her to refuse suggested treatment. Since her decision affects the life of the baby providers are called upon to save that child .
Abortion, like any other medical procedure, carries some risks. When one considers, however, that “the risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion” (“Know the Facts”), the threat of abortion suddenly does not seem as perilous. Additionally, contrary to popular misconception, abortion does not contribute to future infertility or development of breast cancer. It is therefore safer and more prudent to have an abortion than an unwanted pregnancy.
moral decisions, we will be analyzing why this scenario poses a dilemma, possible actions that
We can use the principle of double effect to analyze this case. There are four criteria for an act to be ethical according to the principle of double effect (Garrett et al., 2001):
One of these ethical issues is regarding the use of fertility drugs. These drugs such as Pergonal, can trigger ovulation and increase the production of eggs which will increase a woman’s chances of conception. Often, these fertility drugs escalate the chances of multiple births that can lead to possible risk for both the mother and fetuses. Possible risk for carrying more than one fetus includes premature birth; long periods of hospital stays after birth as well as a higher risk one or more of these children will have some kind of serious disability or brain damage. In Greg Pence’s essay “The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?” Pence says “the human uterus did not emerge in evolution to bear litters and that large multiple births are unnatural” (87). Doctors often recommend “selective reduction” (88) of all but a couple of the embryos to reduce the risk to the mother and fetus however many mothers refuse instead believing that the end results are “God’s will”. He makes a good point saying if it were “God’s will” then there would be “no need for fertility...
The subject of abortion has created some of the most controversial, social, and moral debates in United States history. On Jan. 22, 1973, in the case Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion during the first trimester of the pregnancy (The Ruling). Still other interest groups argue that human life begins at conception and having an abortion is murder to an unborn child. These opposing viewpoints create a delicate political and social debate in which the lives of unborn children are placed in the center. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the RU 486 “abortion pill”, citing that the “overall safety of the pill is excellent”(Food and Drug). This scientific development has the potential to make abortions much more accessible and private to American women. I believe that the abortion pill harbors great qualities for women who choose abortion, yet is an enormous medical setback because it will cost the lives of so many more unborn children.
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles; utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact on an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed. This paper primarily focuses on how a strict utilitarian and a strict deontologist would respond to George’s scenario. The arguments will be based on the
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).
Therefore, neither evil nor good can exist without the other being implicated (Yamamoto, 1998). Evil and good is often manifested in the social environment because they exist to compliment each other. In the student’s social environment, maximization of utility appears as an intrinsic
right to prevent a life if it is known that the baby will have what is