Care Ethics Vs Paternalism

Another argument, would be abandoning the utilitarianism theory altogether and looking at virtue ethics instead.Virtue ethics is more concerned with the “heart and personality of the agent–– in his or her character” (Pojman 314). It would also claim that “an action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstances” (Peckham 148). Essentially the idea of virtue ethics looks towards the doctor or vaccine administrator to act in a manner that is respectful and non-malevolent. The doctor should act in such a way that is beneficial towards their patient, even if this means putting individual interests above the collectiveness of society. Which would be in favor of those parents who are anti-vaccinators or are
In this context, this would be deciding whether or not to vaccinate one’s child. Whether a parent chooses to vaccinate or not, most parents mentality is what is in the best interest of their child and how to care for them in the best way possible. This idea manifests itself into the idea known as paternalism. Paternalism is the idea of “acting with the intention of reducing harm or bringing about greater good for a particular individual affected by the action” (Dawson 144). Notice that this is not the act of acting in such a way that benefits the whole society as utilitarianism suggests, but acting in the best interest of the individual alone. Parents who care for their child would be considered to act in “weak paternalism” because they are caring for someone who is “incompetent” or cannot make decisions for themselves (Dawson
They prefer to do the research themselves rather than relying on other opinions and suggestions. Essentially the idea of care ethics is taken in the strict sense, because parents know that at the end of the day they are responsible for taking care of their child, regardless of what happens. And some parents would rather make certain decisions themselves than run the risk of letting someone else decide and ruin their child’s life. The ethics of care “recognizes that human beings are dependent for many years of their lives...and that there are highly important moral aspects in developing the relations of caring that enable human beings to live and progress” (Pojman 478).The idea is to prevent the child from being incompetent and feeble minded. Take for example the story of “The Ones who walk away from Omelas,” by Ursula Le Guin. The Omelas is a town that is filled with happy people and is virtually perfect. The only flaw is that there is a child who is malnourished and impotent. It spends its day in misery, mumbling words and sitting in it’s own pee (Pojman 233). However, in order for the society to maintain its luxuries then the child has to suffer. Although, this exhibits utilitarian ideals, one is suffering for the many, the main focus is on the child. In this situation the child is completly neglected. The level of care is