Discussion 1: Advantages and disadvantages to Social Contract Moral Theory
Based on the social contract of moral theory, morality can be viewed as a practical problem’s solution which arises for human beings who are self interested. This is because morality helps people live lead good lives in cooperative social order and peace. To attain these objectives, there is a dire need for rules to govern and guide people to benefit from social living. This is what helps human beings understand ethics. Ethics has benefits as well as demerits on human beings and their surroundings. As much as the theory of social contract moral helps us understand and accept ethics as the only way to live a good social life, it also makes human beings have bad attitudes and characters.
This theory is advantageous because it gives us direction on what kind of rules we are bound to abide by and how justifiable those rules are to humans. Based on this theory, the good rules are those that foster harmony and social life. They prohibit bad habits and actions like murder, theft, assault and cheating. These rules are justified since they foster harmony in society.
The theory also explains the rationality of following moral rules in society. This is explained through the benefits human beings derive from the peace and harmony resulting from a good society. Furthermore, people could simply be afraid of getting punished for wrong doing. The theory also explains when the rules can be broken such as when other people break the same rules. This is a justification as to why lawbreakers should face punishment. Finally, the theory gives an outline on the amount of morality expected from people. People should consider their own interests as much as they consider those of other people around them.
However, the fact that the theory is based on historical fiction puts it into perspective and renders its validity into doubt. The theory gives examples that are fictional hence its practicality is always disputed. Furthermore, the theory is false because there is no real social contract. Individuals are not bound to abide by the contractual terms because it is non-existent. People naturally look after their interests more than those of others, which is not the case in the theory. Therefore, this theory is simply a historical event description rather than an analytical tool.
Discussion 2: Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism theory advocates for self interests for an individual. However, the fact that some people have branded the theory as one that justifies wickedness is not true. It is true that there are individuals who need help all over the world from those who are well off. Ethics require that human beings must always try to look out for one another and help when needed. It is the duty of the rich people to help the needy such as the starving, disaster ravaged and the poor. However, the theory of ethical egoism states that people have to act in their own interests exclusively.
This implies that individuals cannot be compelled to help other people when they are not interested in doing so. The interests of people differ depending on their background, interests and personal objectives. One cannot be blamed for spending their own wealth on luxuries rather than helping the poor. This is because it is ethical to protect the interests of oneself at the expense of helping the needy. It is only when one’s interest is to help the needy that they can decide to do so. This is because they are doing it for self satisfaction.
Ethical egoism is justified n three ways. First, if people are required to look out for others, the privacy of both parties would be intruded. An individual cannot just decide that someone needs their help and go ahead and offer them something. More so, making other people your interest is degrading because it shows that they are vulnerable and cannot fend for themselves. This will affect their ego and make them worse off in the future. Finally, everyone can only pursue their interests without being forced to look out for others. That is because each individual knows what they need. Someone who comes to help you might not know your needs.
The Nash Family tried everything they could to save the life of their little daughter. This is remarkable, it shows they value life and appreciate it. The only contentious issue is that they used other lives to save one life. The fact that Adam was conceived only after 30 more embryos had been conceived but their lives ended because they had defects are unacceptable. Life is sacred and must never be used as part of tests regardless of its objective. In this case, the Nash family used 30 lives to save one life. This is quite discouraging and can only be explained as misuse of technology and disregard of human life. Ethically, it can be considered that the doctors denied thirty people their right to live just because they had defects.
This case can be related to abortion in that there are lives that were taken away before they were born. Thirty embryos were not allowed to live because they had health defects. This is unethical and unacceptable because the technology was misused at the expense of thirty lives. The doctors and the Nash family must have faced legal action for that. On the other hand, it can be argued that all this was done to save Molly’s life, which is understandable. If the doctors felt that was the only way to save Molly and also help the Nash family get a healthy child then it was absolutely ethical.
Based on the statements released by the pro choice and pro life Christian groups, Rachel’s assertion that there is no clarity and consistency about abortion among Christians is true. Rachel believes that even in the Christian faith, there are people whose position on abortion and life is not entirely based on their faith. People have different backgrounds and experiences which influence their opinions rather than just their religion. Two women groups can all be regarded to be correct with what they stand for because in both cases, they aim to protect human life.
The Pro life group tends to be totally opposed to abortion regardless of the circumstances the mother of the baby is undergoing. This group believes that since life is sacred, it must never be stopped intentionally for whatever reason. The Pro choice group is a liberal group that supports women regardless of the decisions they make about abortion. Technically, this group supports abortion since they respect the decisions made by women regardless of what the decision is.
In the pro life statement, the women failed to consider the circumstances in which an individual may be undergoing before an abortion. At times, it is legitimate that abortion is done to save the mother’s life at the expense of the unborn. The pro choice group fails to recognize that although abortion is an unethical practice, it should be allowed in certain circumstances. However, this group supports all women who make decisions to abort regardless of the reasons behind the abortion. Therefore, they are in support of illegitimate practices.
Rachel argues that morality and religion are independent of one another. In most cases, morality tends to clash with religion on many issues in human life. Religion is any theological system that identifies itself with certain values and practices. Usually, religion is made up of beliefs that are not proven to be fact; they are simply believed to exist. In religion, there are no explanations behind some of the assertions. However, religion’s validity is never questioned because it has some truth. The fact that all religions are sacred and must be respected makes religion a valid and respectable.
On the other hand, morality is a set of ethically desirable rules and practices that every individual in society is expected to demonstrate. Morality, unlike religion, is proven to be true and usually depends on reality, facts and logic rather that belief. Moral values in society take an upper hand over religion because of several reasons. Morality is based on fact, logic and reality hence; it carries more weight when compared to religion. Furthermore, religion varies from one society to another while morality is universal and can be used by different religions because of its consistency. However, there is no way religion and morality can be compared because they are totally different things.