Five Moral Principles
Word Count: 405
The five moral principles of bioethics are autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility and justice. I believe the list is complete; if not, a little over capacity. I am confused on how much due care (under nonmaleficence) differs from utility. In both instances, we are trying to minimize harm as long as it benefits the person. As long as utility exists, I don't know if nonmaleficence is necessary. I think utility covers the same bases. A principle we could add would be a principle where a guardian or caretaker has sort of an autonomy over another person. If someone is unable to make decisions for themselves, or understand information before making a decision, someone who has their best interest could make it. Another …show more content…
I think there might be groups who don't have the option to have self governance over their own life (autonomy). Also, some religious people leave it to God to make their decisions for them. I watched a show once where these religious parents wouldn't seek help for their sick baby, because they believed God would heal him if he was supposed to be healed. This situation leads me to believe some groups might neglect all of these principles, and follow something similar to the divine command theory.
I think the two principles that could easily conflict each other would be autonomy and utility. The utility principle is trying to benefit others to the maximum, even if it causes some harm to the person. Someone trying to follow the autonomy principle might reject that because they believe the benefit does not outweigh the harm. Another two principles that could conflict each other would be justice and nonmaleficence. My reasoning is, what if in the act of trying to follow the justice principle you are in fact intentionally hurting someone? If someone is being punished for their past wrongs, you are intentionally hurting them. I think there are a lot of hidden conflicts between these
The five moral principles of bioethics are autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility and justice. I believe the list is complete; if not, a little over capacity. I am confused on how much due care (under nonmaleficence) differs from utility. In both instances, we are trying to minimize harm as long as it benefits the person. As long as utility exists, I don't know if nonmaleficence is necessary. I think utility covers the same bases. A principle we could add would be a principle where a guardian or caretaker has sort of an autonomy over another person. If someone is unable to make decisions for themselves, or understand information before making a decision, someone who has their best interest could make it. Another …show more content…
I think there might be groups who don't have the option to have self governance over their own life (autonomy). Also, some religious people leave it to God to make their decisions for them. I watched a show once where these religious parents wouldn't seek help for their sick baby, because they believed God would heal him if he was supposed to be healed. This situation leads me to believe some groups might neglect all of these principles, and follow something similar to the divine command theory.
I think the two principles that could easily conflict each other would be autonomy and utility. The utility principle is trying to benefit others to the maximum, even if it causes some harm to the person. Someone trying to follow the autonomy principle might reject that because they believe the benefit does not outweigh the harm. Another two principles that could conflict each other would be justice and nonmaleficence. My reasoning is, what if in the act of trying to follow the justice principle you are in fact intentionally hurting someone? If someone is being punished for their past wrongs, you are intentionally hurting them. I think there are a lot of hidden conflicts between these