.

Friday, March 8, 2019

Ethics Munson’s 5 Ethical Theories Essay

Ethics is a branch if philosophy that plow with ideas about what is mor everyy good and bad. Ethics act as tools, heavy(p) us counsellinging when we need to make important decisions in own(prenominal) and professional situations. there ar biblical inferences that can relate to al virtually if non all situations that we come across in our daily lives. divinity fudge will not put us in any situations that we cannot be triumphant in. If the rule book is an absolute in all of these theories, so is rescuer delivery boy. The first ethical hypothesis is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that describes how the moral appraise or worth of an action is determined by how much emolument is gained from that action. It is mea certain(predicate)d by not only the meat of upbeat gained solely also the amount of people with benefits in the process. This theory hopes to provide guidance when choosing a course of action. Utilitarianism is divided into two groups based off of how they present the theory. A Rule Utilitarian believes that the action is just if it results in enjoyment of great benefit (Munson, 2009). For example, the commandment, thou shall not obliterate is very satisfying foregoing and doesnt leave room for interpretation. Some unmatched who follows Rule Utilitarianism would stringently follow this rule by never committing murder or cleanup spot any living creature.An set Utilitarian would decipher the commandment gibe to its greatest benefit. Act utilitarianism is the belief that an action is right if it is better than all of the differentwise options as long as it yields the best results. In other words, there may be situations in which breaking the rules may be the best option. Breaking the commandment, thou shall not kill may search wrong when looking at it from the surface, solely if it is done to save the actions of others it may yield the best result. The absolute that applies to Utilitarianism is the script . 2 Corinthians 97 says, Each one must give as he has decided in his heart not reluctantly or to a lower place compulsion, for divinity loves a cheerful giver. This theory is about the best benefit and focuses on the amount of benefit as well as the amount of people it benefits. In enjoin to achieve this, the reason for giving cannot be selfishly or self- motivated. Immanuel Kants deontological theory is the comp allowely opposite of Utilitarianism. Kantian Ethics believes that right and wrong argon not depended on their consequences but on whether the concern or task at hand is fulfilled.Kant theory is also reliant on the view that humans, unlike anyother creature, produce the capacity to rationalize. He believes that a someones feelings and inclinations should not play any part in motivating a elect action. This theory does not work well in the playing bea of healthc atomic number 18. Feelings and inclinations ar a necessity when working with human beings. Healthc atomic number 18 workers are not reading step by step instructions as if they are putting a car together, but instead are fondness for a patient role whose case is different and patient specific. Patients cannot be handle like a checklist. Although this theory eliminated any of the categories under the Bible commandments, guidelines, inferences, and convictions extremity is a big topic in the Bible. perfection completed the base of the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day. In John 174, Jesus said to them, My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to carry done His work. W.D. Ross believed that there was not one rule or principle that one must abide by. Instead he believed that we can progress through moral duties. Ross proposed that we have self- patent prima facie moral duties and that there are some things have intrinsic value (Ross, 2002).He believed we have the employment of fidelity or the calling to keep our pro mises, the duty of reparation or the duty to pay for harm done to others, the duty of gratitude or the duty to return favors, the duty of beneficence or the duty to maximize the good, and the duty of non- wounding or the duty to refuse harm to others (Ross, 2002). For example, it is generally wrong to kill a soul because it causes pain and is one of the 10 commandments. In order for it not to be wrong to kill, a person must have an over unloosening reason to do it such(prenominal) as saving the lives of others. Rosss belief in overriding reason is very similar to that Act Utilitarianism. The Bible is an absolute in this theory as well. Ross puts emphasis on the duties we must uphold. The Bible lays out many duties given to Christians. One of the most popular lists is the Ten Commandments. Virtue Ethics is the approach that deemphasizes rules and duty, focusing on a persons character (Munson, 2009). Character is an important focus when choosing employees in the Healthcare field. I h ave worked in many health care areas and have worked with many people who truly were not in the field for the right reasons. Passion is a necessity when working with human beings. There are many workers who lack this characteristic and are simply in the field for monetary benefit.Although it may be impossible to completely rid thehealthcare field of bad seeds, providing an overflow of kindhearted, loving employees would definitely help. The Bible is an absolute in this ethical approach. Matthew 1235 says, The good person out of his good treasure bring forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. As a Christian we must make sure we are living our lives in deitys image. We are walking billboards for Christ and need to make sure that we act accordingly. As a Christian, this walk will definitely be hard and there will be many temptations along the mood but our character will help us to choose the right path. Care Ethics argues that some duties cannot be j ustified by theories of right, justice, and gain (Velasquez, 2002). Care ethics believe that the most important factor is the concrete relationship with a person or persons (Velasquez, 2002). This theory is very evident in the healthcare field and I find this theory most appealing. I have worked in the healthcare field for most of my rush and realize that it is my duty to take care of and provide for each patient I serve.Through experience, I also realize that there are certain patients that I have been drawn to, and that I feel juxtaposed to. At my last job, I worked on the spinal cord injury unit. virtually of my patients were fully depended on what I did for them. The interaction could be viscous as I was performing tasks such as showers, bowel programs, and table napkin changes. I felt it my duty to make them feel comfortable and to let them know that I care. For a lot of my patients, I was the only family they had. No one ever came to visit them so our conversation was so mething to look forward to. As I worked with a patient every day, special bonds were formed. We renowned any and all progress made. Whether it is something as small as travel a pinky for the first time or taking a first step after, everything should be celebrated. Both Jesus Christ and the Bible are absolutes in this theory.This job has also taught me to be more thankful of the things I do have. It has taught me to stop complaining about little things. Most of my patients lived regular lives just as I do, and in an instance it was taken away from them. Most people unknowingly take things for granted such as being able to walk, talk, brush your teeth, and clothe yourself. Instead, we feel that the things are owed to us and that we are deserving of these things. The Bible and Jesus Christ are definitely absolutes in this theory. We as Christians yearn for a strong, deeper relationship with God and the best way to attain this is bystudying the word of God daily. Proverbs 817 says, I Love those who love me And those who diligently strain me will find me.ReferencesHoly BibleKant, I. (1785) First Section variation from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Munson, R. (2009). Intervention and reflectivity Basic issues of bioethics (9th ed.). Ross, W.D., (2002). The Right and the Good. Edited, with an Introduction, by Philip Stratton- Lake. New York Oxford University Press rpt. of original 1930 edition. Velasquez, M.G., (2002). line of merchandise Ethics Concepts and Cases. Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.

No comments:

Post a Comment