Morality and religion are inseparable in numerous constructs, and it is believed that religion can only be understood from a religious context. In the modern non-technical scenarios, ethics and morality can be used interchangeably, with the significant distinction being that ethics is inclined on a theory linked with the practice of several professions such as medical ethics. According to Rachels & Rachels (2019), it is more natural for ethics to be resonated with religion when observed from a religious perspective because the world is not devoid of meaning, purpose, and values. As such, religion encompasses ethics because they are religion’s governing principles (Parboteeah et al., 2008). Additionally, ethics and religion are regarded as a single unit with numerous religions establishing claims regarding their belief systems as the most ideal for people to live, intending to transform unbelievers and also legislating social behaviors on the basis of centralized religious passages. Ethics are universally used in decision-making and, as such, are subject to use by individuals from various religious persuasions (Arthur, 2019). However, whereas religion establishes claims regarding social behavior and other people's ideal treatment, ethics rests on reason and logic rather than tradition.
Adoption would be the ideal ethical conduct for John Doe in consideration of his sterility. However, he acknowledges that he would not love a child that he is not biologically connected. Additionally, he cannot find anyone to marry, which further limits another ethical approach of finding a partner who can help him in decision-making with regard to the subject of adoption. As such, the path of conduct that would be ethical in John’s case is to reflect and adopt other positive and lawful passions that can substitute his desire to have a child while instilling a sense of fulfillment in his life. For Joe and Mary, the ethical path of conduct would be to consider adoption, considering that their religion forbids IVF use.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In contrast, John's unethical path would be to proceed with cloning himself to have a child with a similar appearance as him without exploring other alternatives. Subsequently, the unethical paths of conduct in Joe’s and Mary’s case would be to consider IVF that is opposed by their religion. In their case, it would involve a third party and subsequently hamper the preservation of their marriage and child identity.
Rachels & Rachels (2019) posits that emotivism is a version of ethical subjectivism that views moral language as mere expressions of the speaker’s feelings rather than functioning as factual statements. Since emotivism is used to influence behavior and express feelings, for John Doe, it would state that seeking other passions would be the right and appropriate thing to do. For Joe and Mary, it would state that adoption can be the proper way to handle the situation. As such, emotivism will only provide a person’s beliefs regarding the good or bad of a situation without providing any fact on why it fits the context.
Yes. A natural law ethicist would certainly agree with the above-mentioned ethical forms of conduct for both John, Joe, and Mary. The natural law theory constitutes three constructs that build its definition and which include the fact that it rests on the view of the world as having a purpose and values established on its nature, the laws of nature describing how things should be, and finally, the moral knowledge on the ability to distinguish good from bad (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Natural law theory also states that humans have intrinsic values that direct our behavior and reasoning (Esterez, 2020). For John Doe’s scenario, exploring other passions would be ethical as it serves the purpose of fulfilling John’s desire to have a child despite his limited options, with the cloning option being perceived as crude and inappropriate. On the other hand, a natural law ethicist would appraise the ethical form of conduct in Joe’s and Mary’s scenario as adoption is generally viewed as appropriate from a couple with the intention to provide an equal measure of love to a child.
The divine command theory rests on the basis that God decrees what is right and wrong and must practice or face the consequences. In John Doe’s case, seeking positive passions stands to be an approach that implements divine command ethics as it embodies the aspect of a rule of conduct that is in line with God’s desires (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). As such, the divine command ethics as applied in John’s case reiterates the need for any actions taken at any particular instance to resonate with what God commands as moral or not. Finding other positive passions would be an ideal substitution for him considering that he cannot love a child that he is not connected to; thus, an option such as adoption would possibly result in him having contempt for the adopted child, which is wrong based on God’s decrees. For Joe and Mary, the approach in the previously determined ethical path of conduct is on them considering adoption. According to Go’s decrees, adoption is morally right as it involves showing love and care to a child. It also highlights the desire for the couple to safeguard their family values based on God’s commands. It also is a morally right action that God requires is also ultimately based on God’s character.
References
Arthur, W. (2019). The Difference Between Ethics and Religion. Retrieved 16 March 2021, from https://www.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethical-decision-making/yet-another-test-page/the-difference-between-ethics-and-religion/
Estevez, E. (2020). Natural Law Definition. Retrieved 16 March 2021, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp#:~:text=Natural%20law%20is%20a%20theory,by%20society%20or%20court%20judges .
Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). Ethics and religion: An empirical test of a multidimensional model. Journal of business ethics , 80 (2), 387-398.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
