A divine command ethicist would argue that the moral thing

Posted: April 4th, 2019

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: Assignment Homework Sample Boom Essays: Free of Plagiarism and AI, Original Custom Research Essay Pro Papers Writing – 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.

_______________________
A divine command ethicist would argue that the moral thing for the nurse to do in this situation would be to provide the blood transfusion for the child, regardless of the parents’ religious beliefs. Divine command ethics holds that moral obligations are derived from the commands or will of a divine being, typically God. According to this ethical framework, God’s commands are absolute and binding, and it is our duty to follow them.

In this case, a divine command ethicist might argue that preserving human life takes precedence over religious beliefs. They would view the duty to save the child’s life as a higher moral imperative than respecting the parents’ religious convictions. By providing the necessary medical treatment, the nurse would be fulfilling their moral obligation to uphold the value of human life.

As for my personal opinion, I do not fully agree with the divine command ethics perspective. While I acknowledge the importance of saving lives and the moral responsibility of healthcare professionals to provide necessary treatment, I also believe in respecting individuals’ religious freedom and autonomy. It is a complex ethical dilemma where the nurse must balance the duty to save the child’s life with the duty to respect the parents’ religious beliefs.

A natural law ethicist, on the other hand, would argue that it is morally right for the nurse to provide the blood transfusion to the child. Natural law ethics holds that there are objective moral principles derived from the nature of human beings and the natural order of the world. According to this perspective, human life is intrinsically valuable and preserving it is a fundamental moral principle.

From a natural law perspective, the nurse would consider the inherent value of human life and prioritize the well-being and survival of the child. They would argue that the moral duty to protect life outweighs religious beliefs that may hinder the child’s chances of survival. The nurse’s actions would align with the objective moral principle of preserving and promoting human life.

Regarding my agreement with natural law ethics, I generally find its emphasis on the value of human life and the pursuit of the common good to be compelling. However, in this particular case, I believe that a more nuanced approach is needed to balance the ethical considerations involved, such as respecting religious freedom and considering the long-term effects on trust and cooperation with the parents.

An emotivist would likely view the positions and judgments of the nurse and others involved as expressions of subjective attitudes and emotions rather than objective moral truths. Emotivism is a metaethical theory that holds that moral statements are simply expressions of individual preferences or emotional responses and do not carry objective moral value.

From an emotivist perspective, the nurse’s position and judgment on what is morally right would be seen as personal subjective expressions of their own values, emotions, or societal influences. The emotivist would argue that ethical decisions are based on subjective inclinations rather than objective moral standards.

Subjectivity plays a significant role in determining what is ethical in this scenario. The nurse’s personal values, beliefs, and emotions would influence their decision-making process. Additionally, the subjective beliefs and religious convictions of the parents also come into play, as well as the potential subjective responses and judgments of others involved, such as hospital administrators or colleagues. The ethical evaluation of this situation is influenced by a combination of subjective factors, making it a complex and challenging ethical dilemma.