Introduction
Breastfeeding in public is a subject of public debate in many societies. Breastfeeding in public has even been politicized in some societies. There are sections of the society arguing in favor of breastfeeding in public. On the other hand, there is also a growing public opinion that has rendered breastfeeding in shared spaces a societal concern. Sexualisation of the breast in most societies has been the main cause of the call for prohibition of breastfeeding in the public space. Some mothers, as a result, find breastfeeding in the common space uncomfortable, and at times embarrassing. Breastfeeding in the shared space remains a divisive subject today and there is urgent need to arrive at a permanent fix.
Where is it appropriate to Breastfeed?
Regardless of what different sections of the society hold, there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public. The benefits of breastfeeding to both the mother and her baby are way much significant compared to what the society has to say about where it is appropriate to breastfeed. Research has shown that breastfeeding minimizes chances of contacting cancer of the breast (Victora et al., 2016). In addition, breastfeeding helps improve birth spacing, protects nursing mothers against cancer of the ovary and diabetes type 2 (Victora et al., 2016). To infants, breastfeeding helps with the development of strong body immunity, faster growth rates, reduces instances of overweight babies, reduces chances of contacting diabetes and malocclusion, and increases intelligence (Victora et al., 2016). Breastfeeding also helps with bonding between mother and child (Victora et al., 2016). The value of breastfeeding cannot therefore be underestimated. Hence, it is justifiable to deduce that a mother has the right to draw as well as pass the benefits of breastfeeding to her baby whenever she wishes and at whatever place she wants to.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Normative theories applicable to Breastfeeding in public
Utilitarianism
The concept of utilitarianism is based on the determination of whether an action is wrong or right after analysis of the costs and benefits of the action (Sheng, 2012). The theory of utilitarianism affirms that the consequences of an action should be evaluated before arriving at conclusions. The utilitarianism theory also avows that an action that bears desirable results is right even when it was molded for wrong reasons (Sheng, 2012). This theory is applicable to breastfeeding in public. Analysis of the benefits of breastfeeding is necessary when applying the utilitarianism theory to breastfeeding in public. Additionally, the negative consequences related to breastfeeding in public also need to be evaluated. Conclusions are then made after matching the benefits and costs of breastfeeding in public. One such conclusion according to the utilitarianism theory could be that breastfeeding in public is right. This could be probably because it is a baby’s right to be provided with breast milk until when they are old enough to be capable of utilizing other sources of nutrients. Besides, it could be right to breastfeed anywhere because a mother has the rights to draw the benefits of breastfeeding whenever she wishes to.
Stoic Virtue Codes Theory
This theory holds it that virtue as a value is significant to all the other values (Skorupski, 2010). Moreover, this theory provides the definition of virtue. It describes virtue as possessing substantial evaluative beliefs, having emotions based on these beliefs and acting in accordance to what one believes in (Skorupski, 2010). This theory just like the theory of utilitarianism, is also applicable to breastfeeding in public. According to the theory of stoic virtue codes, it would be appropriate to breastfeed in public as long as this action is not motivated by ill intentions like wanting to expose one’s body to the public. Instead, the action would be legitimate if the main drive behind it is to satisfy the baby’s nutritional needs and perhaps help one relieve herself from the discomfort caused by accumulation of milk within the glands.
Pros and Cons of Normative Theories as means of Making Moral Decisions in Practical Cases
Pros
The main advantage of using normative theories as a means of arriving at moral decisions in practical cases is the fact that normative theories help with deeper understanding of moral concepts of different societies (Gold, 2011). Normative theories also helps one understand the circumstances under which moral principles can be breached (Gold, 2011). Through this, normative theories have helped create peace and stability in different societies since members of the different societies come to understand their societal measures or wrong and right, as well as do’s and don’ts.
Cons
There are several limitations attributed to the use of normative theories as modes of making moral decisions in practical situations. To begin with, the utilitarianism theory may cause overemphasis on either the benefits or the harms of an action (Al-Hassan, Mohd & Kamil, 2013). Since ethical concepts are acceptable to majority of the members of a society, people are likely to do whatever it takes so as to promote the ethical concepts. As a result, minority populations within these societies that buy into particular ethical principles are likely to be disrespected or harmed.
The application of the stoic virtue codes theory is also prone to shortcomings. The theory is based on the existence of a necessity and necessity may vary from one person to another, and from one society to another. The stoic virtue codes theory however, classifies necessities in a manner that hints to the fact that there exists a universal reason (Slingerland, 2011). Besides, it is not clear everyone would believe in a universal reason if in case it did exist. Different people may opt to do the same thing but for different reasons and with varied intentions.
What Normative Theory works best?
The stoic virtue codes theory makes more sense. The stoic virtue codes theory confers the powers to make ethical decisions to individuals as opposed to the utilitarianism theory that bestows these powers to the society. What the society thinks can at times be wrong since the assumption may involve ignoring what the differing minority believe is right. For example, some societies do not approve of same sex marriages. The utilitarianism theory in this case will maintain that it is wrong for the same gender to marry due to a number of reasons and as a result, completely disregarding the sentiments of some sections of the society. The stoic virtue codes theory in comparison, affords every member of the society the right to make varied decisions as long as nobody is hurt by their choices. With regards to same sex marriage, the stoic virtue theory will therefore, not prohibit marriages between identical sexes and instead allow members of the society to marry who they chose to as long as they deem it right to do so, and nobody is affected by their resolves.
References
Al- Hassan, A., Mohd, S.F., & Kamil, I. (2013). Ethics and ethical theories from an Islamic
perspective. International Journal of Islamic thought, 4, 1-13.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/40998e67ca7aa7264439faf848c68321/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=2037658
Gold, N. (2011). Normative theory in decision making and moral reasoning. Behavioral and
brain sciences, 34(5), 256-258.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1b87/8f275bb4b54af3e7bad51665d09a49d1fe9a.pdf
Sheng, C.L. (2012). A new approach to utilitarianism: a Unified utilitarian theory and its
application to distributive justice. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Skorupsi, J. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge companion to ethics. London, UK: Routledge.
Slingerland, E. (2011). The situationist critique and early Confucian virtue ethics. An
International Journal of social, political, and legal philosophy, 121(2), 390-419.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/658142
Victora, C.G., et al. (2016). Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and
lifelong effect. The Lancet Breastfeeding Series Group, 387(10017), 475-490.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7
