Being Taken Away With Foster Parents
In the case of the child being taken away from her foster parents, it would seem as though there is no way to make a decision without someone getting hurt in the end. On one end, the birth parents made the horrible decision to do drugs and were unable to care for their daughter. While they did become rehabilitated, it took them a very long time to do so. On the other end, the foster parents were only temporarily legal guardians of the girl. So the question I think everyone would ask themselves is “would the child benefit more from being returned to the people who gave her life or would she benefit more from being with the people who have raised her and loved her as their own?” In my opinion, I believe it would have been best if the foster
…show more content…
Using consequentialist theories, the best possible outcome would be the biological parents staying clean and doing whatever it takes to get their child back. Having been rehabilitated means they could create that positive environment for their child to continue to grow up in. Although the child and the foster parents may have a hard time in the beginning, this allows the foster parents to be able to care for other children that need to be placed in loving homes and positive …show more content…
Using deontological theories, the biological parents are basically strangers to this child and her real parents would be her foster parents who raised her and loved her as their own. Because the child was being taken away from the loving parents that have raised her for nine years, the judge in this case was focused on the fact that the biological parents were rehabilitated and not their integrity as parents to the child.
ARISTOTLE’S VIEW
In Aristotle’s view, “moral principles exist in the daily activities of human life and can be discovered by examining those activities.” (Ruggiero, 2011). Aristotle believed that moral virtue could not be achieved through theory alone, it requires moral action in a social environment. In this case, I do not feel that Aristotle would have approved the outcome of the parents regaining custody of their child since the choice they made were not moral or ethical. The best possible outcome in Aristotle’s view would have been for the child to have continued to be raised in the loving home of her foster
Using consequentialist theories, the best possible outcome would be the biological parents staying clean and doing whatever it takes to get their child back. Having been rehabilitated means they could create that positive environment for their child to continue to grow up in. Although the child and the foster parents may have a hard time in the beginning, this allows the foster parents to be able to care for other children that need to be placed in loving homes and positive …show more content…
Using deontological theories, the biological parents are basically strangers to this child and her real parents would be her foster parents who raised her and loved her as their own. Because the child was being taken away from the loving parents that have raised her for nine years, the judge in this case was focused on the fact that the biological parents were rehabilitated and not their integrity as parents to the child.
ARISTOTLE’S VIEW
In Aristotle’s view, “moral principles exist in the daily activities of human life and can be discovered by examining those activities.” (Ruggiero, 2011). Aristotle believed that moral virtue could not be achieved through theory alone, it requires moral action in a social environment. In this case, I do not feel that Aristotle would have approved the outcome of the parents regaining custody of their child since the choice they made were not moral or ethical. The best possible outcome in Aristotle’s view would have been for the child to have continued to be raised in the loving home of her foster