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?
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside scholarly source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
POST I NEED TO REPLY TO
Hi Class and Professor,
What would a divine command be moral because God said the opposite is immoral? ethicists 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?
This situation would be a big ethical dilemma and put the nurse in a difficult situation based on what she chooses to do. As Elhence, P. (2006) states, there are a number of ethical issues when it comes to blood transfusions because blood comes from other human beings and is considered a precious resource. The divine command ethicist would most likely argue that the moral thing to do in this situation would be to leave the situation in god’s hands and let the parents proceed how they see fit based on their religion. Personally, I do not agree with this perspective simply because I think it should be based on the person’s choice with their safety in mind versus a religious higher power. However, I do see the importance of respecting one’s religion and other perspectives as that is equally important.
Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
The natural law ethicist would probably say that the right thing to do would be similar to the divine command ethicist, of allowing nature to take its course in the situation and not violate the purpose of the situation. As Rachels, S. & Rachels, J. (2023) states, this perspective says that violation of purpose of something is considered immoral. I do not agree with this perspective because I believe in some circumstances, intervention is necessary, especially if it means saving a life. Especially in this circumstance we are discussing, this boy could potentially lose his life if intervention doesn’t happen.
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?
I believe that the emotivist would say my perspective and judgment of the situation is based off moral judgment with the involvement of emotions, not beliefs. I do not completely agree with that. Subjectivity does have its involvement many times, especially in this situation since the nurse (me) would need to base the decision to participate with her own feelings aside and what is the best fit for this patient.
References:
Elhence, P. (2006). Ethical issues in transfusion medicine. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 3.https://doi.org/10.20529/ijme.2006.033Links to an external site.
Links to an external site.Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2023). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
