Outline
Introduction
Lenn Goodman- ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective
Challenges to Relativism
Conclusion
Introduction
Relativism is a concept that forges reality advancing assumptions which declare nothing to be absolutely true or valid. This is so because what has been proven true or valid is always based on personal perceptions which may be influenced by various predisposing factors. Often they may be merely subjective sentiments which are not universal since they only represent the view point of a few, the minority, majority or imposition of a dictator (Baghramian, 2004)
When conceptualized within the context of morality it impinges on the framework that truth is applicable only as it pertains to specific guidelines and adaptations. Hence, if morality then becomes as issue in determining truth; it is sieving intentions to decipher purity and whether they are based on justice or outcomes that are beneficial to all.
Therefore, this section of my presentation will focus on Lenn Goodman’s (2010) ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective. Also, a discussion on whether the conceptual framework advanced by this author challenges relativism will be embraced as well as a personal analysis of the themes.
Lenn Goodman- ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective
Lenn Goodman (2010) as any social scientist has to justify the morals of society. To say other wise is to be deemed anti- social and immoral from the point of view of the ruling politic. Hence, his views of ‘some things are wrong’ well deserve agreement, especially, when it appears to be hurting the individual making the judgment (Goodman, 2010)
As such, my opinion on his conceptual framework of ‘some things are wrong’ is yes, they are wrong in his opinion relative to conscience. Further, in examining the social issues he projects validating his notion of ‘some things are just wrong’ he references slavery, genocide, terrorism, murder, rape, polygamy and incest.
If we were to single them out dissecting the wrongness, certainly, there would be such controversy regarding his right to say that they were wrong. In some cultures he might very well be killed for saying such words. From this angle he can be wrong. In essence, I do agree and disagree at the same time.
Challenges to Relativism
Relativism clearly denounces the model which says, exclusively, actions taken by others are wrong. Lenn Goodman (2010) in my perceptions ignores relativity of culture; individuality and prevailing circumstances (Goodman, 2010). While slavery, genocide, terrorism, murder, rape, polygamy and incest from a moral conscience may correctly be wrong within the context it has been projected; there is no evidence to prove that this is a universal consensus
Therefore, questions will always be asked, ‘who said it is wrong?’ From the way modern society functions this has a great influence on whether it will be accepted as wrong or right. Just take a look at ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ paradigms advocated in our twenty-first society governance; who said that drug trading and use is wrong? Who said that illegal immigration in America was wrong? (Mosser, 2010).
Simply, it is the ruling politic known as the political administration. Lenn Goodman (2010) seems to be bypassing this element of relativity when making statements regarding rape, slavery, genocide, polygamy; incest, murder or terrorism (Goodman, 2010)
Popular international views on murder denote it wrong if one person kills another. However, when taken in the light of relativity world leaders are being killed by other world powers under the guise of safety in the world even when there is no evidence to support their threat to the work (Schivone, 2007). This is not classified murder within the context killing was performed. Has Lenn Goodman (2010) considered the murder of Sadam Hussein? Was that wrong?
Conclusion
In concluding this aspect of the discussion it is my task to determine whether universal moral requirements do exist in establishing right and wrong from a perspective of morality. To accurately deliberate on this conceptual framework of morality is to first ask what it is universally, or is there a universal understanding of the concept.
It would be then safe for this writer to assume based on recent research validation that the only universal requirement that exists for deciphering right from wrong is conscience. Since quality of decisions by various states of conscience is still being researched the universality of its function is still obscure.
References
Baghramian Maria (2004), Relativism, London: Routledge
Goodman, L. E. (2010). Some moral minima. The Good Society, 19(1), 87-94
Haidt, Jonathan, Graham, Jesse (2006). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have
moral institutions that liberals may not recognize: ( DOC) Social Justice Research.
Mosser, K (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint
Education
Schivone, Gabriel Matthew (2007-08-03). "On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals".
CounterPunch. Interview
Week 3- Assignment 2 Research Draft of Final Paper on Ethics: Theory and Practice
Week 3- Assignment 2 Research Draft of Final Paper on Ethics: Theory and Practice
Introduction
This section of the assignment is a research draft outlining ethical issues contained in Physical Assisted Suicide. Subsequently, the writer will attempt an application of Virtue Ethics: Classical Theory in providing a resolution pertaining to concerns posed from time to time. Then theoretical perspectives would be collaborated with assumptions advanced by the theory of relativism.
Discussion of ethical Issue or Problem: Physician Assisted Suicide
Background and Statement of the Problem
Physician Assisted Suicide is a very sensitive ethical issue among Americans. Research studies have indicated it is illegal in Canada, Australia, China, New Zealand; South Africa and Germany. However, there is evidence to prove that it is being practiced under other illegitimate circumstances internationally. Netherlands has been reported to be the first country to have any legislature regarding the practice of Physician Assisted Suicide (Kasprak 2005)
To date statistics relating incidences in third world countries is limited. Ethically, it is believed to be giving physicians the right to support ending one’s own life. From a religious perspective this right rests solely with God. As such, it is unthinkable under such cultural beliefs. Physician aided in dying (PAD) is the alternative terminology for physician assisted suicide (PAS) (Schaefer 2009).
Definitively, it describes a medical intervention whereby a physician provides a patient diagnosed terminally ill with a prescription of medication to end his/her life. In societies where this is legislated the medication is prescribed at the request of the patient. This practice subtly forces the patient or relative to make that decision him/herself thereby excluding the responsibility of death from the prescribing physician (Kasprak 2005)
The ‘Death with Dignity’ act was passed in Washington in 1996. It was believed to reflect where the responsibility of suicide should be by creating collaboration between patient and physician (Public Health Division 2010).There are still suspicions regarding accuracy of application because mentally ill people cannot make any sane decisions for themselves. It then puts them at the mercy of family members who can opt to have them killed under this ‘Death with Dignity’ law.
Statistics of January 2011 indicate that even in societies where the enactment of these laws allowing this practice, many are still not utilizing it due to moral implications. For example, in Oregon since the enactment 525 patients have subsequently died after taking drugs prescribed by physicians. These patients had to self administer the treatment which eliminated physicians legally form the process of supporting the suicide as it relates to conscience (Public Health Division, 2010)
Further statistics have shown where in 2010, 96 prescriptions were written; 59 of these parents have died.2 of the 96 patients for whom medication were prescribed actually took the drug but did not die. (Public Health Division, 2010). Here is where ethical values emerge as to how beneficial the practice of physician assisted suicide is to the individual, family or society (Schaefer 2009).
Application of Virtue Ethics: Classical Theory as a Resolution
Clearly, physician assisted suicide predisposes an ethical dilemma for the physician especially, and society too. According to Aristotle, virtue can be considered a habit or quality that offers people opportunities to be successful at their undertakings or its life‘s purpose (Pojman & Fieser, 2009). Subsequent, research questions are- Is Physician Assisted Suicide a virtue? Is it offering opportunities for someone to be successful in achieving life’s purpose? Is it morally correct?
In this research draft the researcher would focus on the application of virtue ethics theoretical perspective towards answering these aforementioned questions. The resolution for this ethical dilemma from this researcher’s point of view lies in deciphering whether it provides an opportunity to better one’s life on earth since virtue ethics scientists do not place their attention on the action itself, but rather whether it is beneficial to the individual (Mosser, 2010).
As such, the outcome is what matters. Ethical arguments for legislating physician assisted suicide in Oregon were that it would reduce the incidence of suicide among terminally ill people affected by AIDS and painful conditions. From a virtue ethics standpoint the outcome justified the means.
Contrast with ethical egoism
Ethical egoism and virtue ethics contrast at the point of decision making. While virtue ethics is a well thought pattern of ultimate beneficial outcome in relieving suffering and enhancing the quality of an experience; ethical egoism thinks selfishly for personal gains only. There may be ethical conflict in physician assisted suicide in relation to virtue ethics and ethical egoism.
Suspicions are that in cases where patients are incapable of making this decision for themselves relatives and health care systems may use ethical egoism to create their demise. Virtue ethics may not be considered. Herein lies the ethical dilemma associated with physician assisted suicide.
Conclusion
Is Physician Assisted Suicide a virtue? Is it offering opportunities for someone to be successful in achieving life’s purpose? Is it morally correct? In concluding this research draft the author would like to remind readers that these questions are worth considering when studying the moral ethics contained in physician assisted suicide.
It is hoped that this study would provide the framework for law makers to reconsider the moral and ethical implications of physician assisted suicide with the aim of designing alternatives consistent with the value for life and living among cultures.
References
Kasprak, John (2003) "Assisted Suicide." OLR Research Report. Retrieved (Sept 9th 2011.) from
Mosser, K (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint
Education
Pojman, L.P. & Fieser, J. (2009). Virtue Theory. In Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (6th
ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Public Health Division (2010) “Oregon Death with Dignity Act” Retrieved (Sept 9th 2011) from
http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year13.pdf
Schaefer, Robert (2009) Sociology: a brief introduction. 8th. London: McGraw-hill. Public
