It Is A Mistake To Reject Religious Principles In Favour Of Secular/Ethical Principles
“It is a mistake to reject religious principles in favour of secular/ethical principles for guidance in medical ethics.”- Examine and comment on this claim, with reference to the topic you have investigated. (50 marks)
Ethics are moral beliefs and theories which people can choose to abide by in order to judge an action as either right or wrong. Medical ethics needs a set of moral guidelines to act upon in serious cases and dilemmas because it usually involves deciding the consequences of a person’s life. Secular principles are outside of religion (or a God of theism), hence its ethical guidance would be based upon rationality, personalism, the situation and other properties.
Some people argue that morality and religion are intertwined, and as medical ethics is under morality’s wing, it would appear that religion must be intertwined within medical ethics.
Most ethical principles derive from religion and thus people may say that morality is existential to faith in God. St Thomas Aquinas stated that acting morally is proof of God’s nature and we are reflecting it through ourselves. He sought to provide a rational basis of Christianity and was heavily influenced by Aristotle. They believed in Natural Law theory which argues that morality is a quality given to humans by God for rational …show more content…
and logical thinking. This stresses God’s importance for his creation of us and therefore defines our purpose to think rationally. Secularism is not belonging of religious principles so in this case, is argued to not provide any set guidelines for ethical thinking. Acting morally is undoubtedly linked to thinking rationally (in most cases) therefore we cannot reject religious principles.
Religious teachings would teach the universally believed ethical principles such as all creation is made by God and therefore to destroy (murder) his creation would be sinful and punished by going to hell. Some argue that religion reinforces the a priori principles we already know. An example would be in Islam, they believe ensoulment happens 120 days after conception and so abortion is wrong however can be permitted in really extreme circumstances, but the further in the pregnancy the person is, the more wrong it is.
Different religions teach morality within their own ways. The Decalogue is an example of Christianity providing moral guidelines that must be obeyed by Christians. They believe its God’s example of the perfect human being and gives guidance in our complex world. A god of theism is argued to be an omnipotent and omniscient therefore he would have supreme intelligence of what is right so God would decides what is right and wrong and there for is the only source of moral guidance (Divine Command theory).
Of course following these principles can only suggest that religious teachings must be the only form of guidance for medical principles. Northern Ireland is a Catholic country and believes all life begins at conception, therefore they are fully against its artificial termination no matter the circumstances. However its religious guidance for the case of Savita Halappanavar arguably did not lead to the desired outcome. She suffered a miscarriage and then contracted septicaemia as a result. She inquired for an abortion many times but was turned down because of the Irish law, thus died because of those causes. This cases questions whether medical principles were the best form of guidance because of the high possibility of it being avoided.
To add to this, the disadvantages of the Irish Law in particular are that it is absolute and therefore lacks consideration for extreme cases and appears unsuitable for modern life because of the vast improvement in medical treatment and diagnosis. This links to the development of Situation ethics created by Joseph Fletcher who looked at the story of Christ and the Sabbath day. He wanted to find a balance between legalistic views which maintained the unconditional love of God in Christian faith whilst not being too strict and inflexible, an antinomianism (abandonment of any set rules). Situation ethics is always subjective to the situation and so has no set rules except that “everything is done (out) of love” – 1 Corinthians 16:14. So in the case of Savita, an abortion would be permitted to save her life. This ethical theory shows consideration, flexibility and suitability for the modern day, therefore arguably this ethical theory is better suited for medical ethics compared to absolute religious principles.
Another ethical theory that would qualify as more suitable is Utilitarian ethics, proposed by Jeremy Bentham. Acts should be judged upon the amount of happiness produced through the amount of pleasure and pain given in the outcome. It is a practical and systematic theory and again could be used in the case of Savita to save her life for not just her happiness, but her family and husband too. Bentham devised the Hedonic Calculus which quantifies the amount of happiness that can be predicted to assess whether an action is morally good. This also shows flexibility and subjectivity which is useful in medical ethics because nearly all causes are specific and so it shows consideration to the individual case. However of course if medical ethics were to act accordingly to this simple reason of greatest happiness, then many wills of abortion, and other medical dilemmas, would probably be permitted. This can cause problems if there is too much flexibility as it can undermine the sanctity of life, which is a firm belief with religious and some non-religious people.
Some people believe that all life is sacred because of the intrinsic worth felt within. Peter Singer is a philosopher and atheist and believes “each life if of equal value,” thus if a person wants an abortion because the baby is unwanted, it would be seen as ethically unsound. It’s argued that moral guidelines are derived from religion and so religion has a strong significance with all ethical thinking, therefore it cannot be neglected. Some argue religion is necessary to implement these ideas otherwise without there would be too much antinomianism which leads to too many situations being treated subjectively.
However this is where Rule Utilitarianism applies as an evolved form of Act Utilitarianism.
It was devised by John Stuart Mill who argued that there are universal principles which all people agree up, such as murder is wrong, and there was the Harm Principle which took into account that sometimes immoral acts have to happen at the expense of the minority. It too is practical when creating guidelines for medical ethics. Some religions have taken into account of the changed common views and values felt amongst society and have acted accordingly, such as the Church of England. The Synod has permitted abortion in cases when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, such as Savita’s
case.
However although a person may be against abortion and murder, they may not necessarily believe that life begins at conception. This question as to what “life” is and what makes it so “sacred”, leading onto ideas of personhood and when ensoulment starts.
Some argue that life begins at conception, such as the Church of England, however does that still mean the foetus has the same qualities as a person? Singer states "Human babies are not born self-aware...They are not persons...” - Practical Ethics (1978). This shows the idea that a person qualifies when they have distinctive features of a human being mentally. A potential person is not equal to a person. This suggests that “abortion is murder” could be reconsidered because murder is the killing of another person but a foetus may not be equal to a person, showing that rejecting religious principles may not be a mistake.
Yet this view can be rejected as religion can be argued to encourage positive moral teachings of life and reinforce the valued and cherished worth people hold.
Nonetheless, the fundamental concept of religion can be argued to encourage a “slave morality”, an idea introduced by Nietzsche. He was a psychologist who believed that acting morally in accordance to what “God” teaches can suppress the effects of injustice and make it more tolerable. This can be used in reference to abortion where a mother may refuse to have an abortion because of the possible discrimination and punishment in the afterlife if it were to happen although terminating the pregnancy would be a more suitable option, for example she may not have the emotional or physical capacity to raise a child.
Overall it could be argued that religious principles are not the best form of guidance within medical ethics when taken in a literal and legalistic sense however it can be said to be a mistake to reject them totally as they present the main ideas about preservation of the sanctity of life. Yet secular and ethical principles need to be implemented into medical ethics as they provide a better consequence than religious principles and are more considerate to the situation which is needed in modern society.
Ethics are moral beliefs and theories which people can choose to abide by in order to judge an action as either right or wrong. Medical ethics needs a set of moral guidelines to act upon in serious cases and dilemmas because it usually involves deciding the consequences of a person’s life. Secular principles are outside of religion (or a God of theism), hence its ethical guidance would be based upon rationality, personalism, the situation and other properties.
Some people argue that morality and religion are intertwined, and as medical ethics is under morality’s wing, it would appear that religion must be intertwined within medical ethics.
Most ethical principles derive from religion and thus people may say that morality is existential to faith in God. St Thomas Aquinas stated that acting morally is proof of God’s nature and we are reflecting it through ourselves. He sought to provide a rational basis of Christianity and was heavily influenced by Aristotle. They believed in Natural Law theory which argues that morality is a quality given to humans by God for rational …show more content…
and logical thinking. This stresses God’s importance for his creation of us and therefore defines our purpose to think rationally. Secularism is not belonging of religious principles so in this case, is argued to not provide any set guidelines for ethical thinking. Acting morally is undoubtedly linked to thinking rationally (in most cases) therefore we cannot reject religious principles.
Religious teachings would teach the universally believed ethical principles such as all creation is made by God and therefore to destroy (murder) his creation would be sinful and punished by going to hell. Some argue that religion reinforces the a priori principles we already know. An example would be in Islam, they believe ensoulment happens 120 days after conception and so abortion is wrong however can be permitted in really extreme circumstances, but the further in the pregnancy the person is, the more wrong it is.
Different religions teach morality within their own ways. The Decalogue is an example of Christianity providing moral guidelines that must be obeyed by Christians. They believe its God’s example of the perfect human being and gives guidance in our complex world. A god of theism is argued to be an omnipotent and omniscient therefore he would have supreme intelligence of what is right so God would decides what is right and wrong and there for is the only source of moral guidance (Divine Command theory).
Of course following these principles can only suggest that religious teachings must be the only form of guidance for medical principles. Northern Ireland is a Catholic country and believes all life begins at conception, therefore they are fully against its artificial termination no matter the circumstances. However its religious guidance for the case of Savita Halappanavar arguably did not lead to the desired outcome. She suffered a miscarriage and then contracted septicaemia as a result. She inquired for an abortion many times but was turned down because of the Irish law, thus died because of those causes. This cases questions whether medical principles were the best form of guidance because of the high possibility of it being avoided.
To add to this, the disadvantages of the Irish Law in particular are that it is absolute and therefore lacks consideration for extreme cases and appears unsuitable for modern life because of the vast improvement in medical treatment and diagnosis. This links to the development of Situation ethics created by Joseph Fletcher who looked at the story of Christ and the Sabbath day. He wanted to find a balance between legalistic views which maintained the unconditional love of God in Christian faith whilst not being too strict and inflexible, an antinomianism (abandonment of any set rules). Situation ethics is always subjective to the situation and so has no set rules except that “everything is done (out) of love” – 1 Corinthians 16:14. So in the case of Savita, an abortion would be permitted to save her life. This ethical theory shows consideration, flexibility and suitability for the modern day, therefore arguably this ethical theory is better suited for medical ethics compared to absolute religious principles.
Another ethical theory that would qualify as more suitable is Utilitarian ethics, proposed by Jeremy Bentham. Acts should be judged upon the amount of happiness produced through the amount of pleasure and pain given in the outcome. It is a practical and systematic theory and again could be used in the case of Savita to save her life for not just her happiness, but her family and husband too. Bentham devised the Hedonic Calculus which quantifies the amount of happiness that can be predicted to assess whether an action is morally good. This also shows flexibility and subjectivity which is useful in medical ethics because nearly all causes are specific and so it shows consideration to the individual case. However of course if medical ethics were to act accordingly to this simple reason of greatest happiness, then many wills of abortion, and other medical dilemmas, would probably be permitted. This can cause problems if there is too much flexibility as it can undermine the sanctity of life, which is a firm belief with religious and some non-religious people.
Some people believe that all life is sacred because of the intrinsic worth felt within. Peter Singer is a philosopher and atheist and believes “each life if of equal value,” thus if a person wants an abortion because the baby is unwanted, it would be seen as ethically unsound. It’s argued that moral guidelines are derived from religion and so religion has a strong significance with all ethical thinking, therefore it cannot be neglected. Some argue religion is necessary to implement these ideas otherwise without there would be too much antinomianism which leads to too many situations being treated subjectively.
However this is where Rule Utilitarianism applies as an evolved form of Act Utilitarianism.
It was devised by John Stuart Mill who argued that there are universal principles which all people agree up, such as murder is wrong, and there was the Harm Principle which took into account that sometimes immoral acts have to happen at the expense of the minority. It too is practical when creating guidelines for medical ethics. Some religions have taken into account of the changed common views and values felt amongst society and have acted accordingly, such as the Church of England. The Synod has permitted abortion in cases when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, such as Savita’s
case.
However although a person may be against abortion and murder, they may not necessarily believe that life begins at conception. This question as to what “life” is and what makes it so “sacred”, leading onto ideas of personhood and when ensoulment starts.
Some argue that life begins at conception, such as the Church of England, however does that still mean the foetus has the same qualities as a person? Singer states "Human babies are not born self-aware...They are not persons...” - Practical Ethics (1978). This shows the idea that a person qualifies when they have distinctive features of a human being mentally. A potential person is not equal to a person. This suggests that “abortion is murder” could be reconsidered because murder is the killing of another person but a foetus may not be equal to a person, showing that rejecting religious principles may not be a mistake.
Yet this view can be rejected as religion can be argued to encourage positive moral teachings of life and reinforce the valued and cherished worth people hold.
Nonetheless, the fundamental concept of religion can be argued to encourage a “slave morality”, an idea introduced by Nietzsche. He was a psychologist who believed that acting morally in accordance to what “God” teaches can suppress the effects of injustice and make it more tolerable. This can be used in reference to abortion where a mother may refuse to have an abortion because of the possible discrimination and punishment in the afterlife if it were to happen although terminating the pregnancy would be a more suitable option, for example she may not have the emotional or physical capacity to raise a child.
Overall it could be argued that religious principles are not the best form of guidance within medical ethics when taken in a literal and legalistic sense however it can be said to be a mistake to reject them totally as they present the main ideas about preservation of the sanctity of life. Yet secular and ethical principles need to be implemented into medical ethics as they provide a better consequence than religious principles and are more considerate to the situation which is needed in modern society.