Philosophy
Morality is a very important concept in human life. It is a guiding principle on what is right and wrong. Without ethics, life can be so challenging because everyone will have to behave the way they want without thinking about the interests and welfare of others. In medicine, it is essential for each and every practitioner to comply with the standard ethical requirements expected of this profession. This should be done in compliance to the Hippocratic Oath which they commit themselves to, upon the completion of their training. Thus, it is true that without ethics, the medical practitioners will not act in the interest of the patients.
In the medical profession, it is upon the practitioners to be benevolent in their services. Meaning, they should always know that they are there to serve other people. As Schudin (2003) states, they should do their best to ensure that the ‘patient is given the necessary assistance to help in saving their lives’ however critical their conditions might be (P 74). However, in order to achieve such moral standards, the physician should be guided by the moral principles put forth to guide their work. This will enable them to handle any situation despite the magnitude of its requirements. For instance, without morality, a physician will engage in unethical activities which are not aimed to helping the patient. If the physician fails to acknowledge the contributions of the patient while making important decisions regarding their health, they may just act without consulting them.
It is the moral principles which act as the foundation of moral reasoning. Without it, the nurse or doctor can not be in a position of making concrete and reasonable decisions which can be of importance to the patient. In the case of treatment, the physician may be confronted with different situations that may call for consent of the patient. For example, for the controversies surrounding issues like confidentiality to be resolved, it is paramount for the physician to apply the appropriate principles of morality. If the physician wants to safeguard the secret information about the patient, it is recommended that they apply the principle of confidentiality. It is morally right for the physician to keep all the private information about the patient secret to him. At no one time should such information be leaked to any other third party. This is unnecessary and should not be condoned at all. It is quite detrimental and can compromise the rights of the patients and in turn make them ‘lose confidence in the physician and the entire organization with which they are associated’ (Schudin, 2003).
Such scenarios can be used to indicate how the context determines the utility of these moral principles. However, I would like to point out that they do not compete. They often get along and need to be wisely applied. Whenever anyone is confronted with such situations, it is important to take time and think before making the final decision. For instance, when handling case which requires informed consent, it is important for the physician to seek permission from the patient who is rightfully qualified to give such authority. However, the use of this principle is quite complex and depends on the nature of the patient. In case of any restriction regarding age or mental capacity, such consent can be got from the parents, family members or close friends. However, this may need a thorough evaluation especially if the patient is in a critical condition and needs to be subjected to euthanasia or physician aided suicide. In such a context, it may require the knowledge of moral principles to make ethical and reasonable decisions.
The Concept of Individual Well Being
An individual’s well being simply refers to what is ultimately good for a person. It is a very importance concept in philosophy which can not be separated from morality. However social human being might be, it is paramount to acknowledge that each person often has special interests which uniquely apply to them. In this case, they will seek to do something which can help them to accomplish personal satisfaction. Naturally, such interests may conflict that of other people or the general society. This implies that the fulfillment of these interests can enable a person to be more contented and much happier in life.
Indeed, individual well being can be accomplished if a person is free to make autonomous decisions without unnecessary influence from any other external force. If a person independently makes his own decisions, there are higher chances that they will satisfy their interests. In this case, they will only do what benefits them. Obviously, no sane person can make decisions which act against them. This implies that autonomy is an integral root to achieving individual well being. As a hedonist creature, man will always strive to seek for pleasure. However, no such pleasure can be achieved if a person is not free to make independent decisions. Moreover, this is demonstrated when people apply the principles of utilitarianism as they pursue to extend such benefits to others.
It is indeed very difficult to weigh individual well being against common good. Both of them are very important in promoting satisfaction of everyone. To begin with, individual rights are important in promoting individual well being. Each person is free to be given an opportunity to pursue for their satisfaction. In this case, they should be allowed to enjoy their rights without any interference. Meaning, they can autonomously look for ways of making them to realize their well being and be happier in life. For instance, the government may decide to allow individual citizens to own guns to defend themselves in case of any attack. However, even if many people may argue against such a policy to be a compromise to public security, the government may be obliged to make such a decision because it should guarantee the safety of individual citizens. Meaning, it will seek to satisfy the well being individual gun owners even if the public may feel threatened. This demonstrates how individual rights can be upheld and triumphs over the common good.
On the other hand, common good is a very essential aspect of every society. It advocates for the welfare of the collective society. According to Solomon (2000), ‘the interests of the general public should prevail over individuals’ (P31). Even if the law guarantees individuals fundamental rights, they may at times be shielded for the sake of the entire society. Meaning, concern will be put on the well being of the society. This concept can be witnessed when the society comes up with utilitarian policies aimed at achieving optimal good for optimal population. In other words, the government may decide to come up with a policy aimed at satisfying the all the people. However, while doing this, it will put aside individual rights which, to critics, will have been violated.
One example of common good can be deduced from the US Gun Control Act. Even if the government initially allowed individual Americans to own riffles, it has become necessary to rethink such decisions. A time has come when individual safety can be put aside to pave way for public security. Meaning, individuals owning such weapons should surrender them to the relevant authority because they threaten the security of non-gun holders. This implies that different situations can compel the government to strip-off individual rights in favor of common good. In this circumstance, common good prevails. It complies with the principles of utilitarianism which advocates for the maximum possible common good. This is a justified action because many people may abuse their rights. Instead of using the guns for their own security, they can instead use them for illegal purposes such as robbery or homicide. However, this may be so dangerous because it may threaten national security as has been witnessed amongst the school going teenagers and other irresponsible adults across the country.
Despite a clear mark between them, individual well being and common good are important philosophical concepts in the society. They help in determining collective satisfaction and that of individuals. However, none of them is more important than the other since this can be determined different contexts in which they are applied. Both of them have contributions to make in the lives of people. In this regard, it is paramount to appropriately use them without compromising the interest of another party. In order to achieve this, everyone should be guided by the principles of morality. This is the only way through which they can make rational decisions not only to benefit them, but also others. This can promote harmony since no happiness can be achieved in a disintegrated society.
As already highlighted, morality is an essential concept in the society which helps in determining what is wrong and right. Indeed, it is very complex universal principles which govern the conducts of every person. There are many theories which can be used to explain morality. These include moral subjectivism; cultural relativism, ethical egoism and utilitarianism. They are essentially important in understanding more about morality. Since it is a universal concept, morality applies to all human beings from all sorts of cultural and geographical backgrounds. While the theory of moral subjectivism argues for individual conscience, cultural relativism safeguards the proposition of cultural traditions in determining what is right or wrong for them. To a moral subjectivist, morality simply refers to what is accepted by an individual as right or wrong. On the other hand, the theory of cultural subjectivism states that morality should be determined by the culture of the concerned people. Meaning, it may mean different things to different cultures.
According to the theory of ethical egoism, morality refers to an act which satisfies individual interest. It is a hedonist principle which asserts that amoral act should be able to satisfy the interests of an individual and give him pleasure. This is contrary to the theory of utilitarianism which advocates for a common good. To a utilitarian, an act is moral if it produces the maximum possible benefits to the maximum number of people. Therefore, it means that a moral act should not be based on selfish demands, but should focus on the larger society. Its role is to satisfy as many people as much as it can.
These theories are very important in the understanding of morality. They can enable a person to know that morality is a very complex thing which should not be confused. For instance, the understanding of the theory of cultural subjectivism can be of great significance in appreciating other people’s culture. According to Solomon (2000), it can sensitize a person to know that morality ‘is not restricted to their culture, but is also used by other people as well’ (P 111). Moreover, it can make them know that it means different things to different people. Such a person can become flexible and can fit anywhere because he will not compromise other people’s culture, but learn to adapt and conform to their moral codes of conduct. At the same time, the theory of utilitarianism can help one to shield their personal interests and learn to be accommodative. Thus, they will be able to act in favor of common good.
In conclusion, these theories are related to principles the principles of morality. The knowledge of these principles can help a person to make rational judgments. This implies that the understanding of morality is alone is quite inadequate without understanding the principle guidelines regarding them. Despite their competition, these principles still play a significance role in guiding an individual to make decisions on what is right and wrong. Since they act as a bench mark, morality can not be fully applied without using knowing these principles. For instance, without them, it can be so challenging for a person to know that morality is a universal concept which vary from person to person; culture to culture and context to context.
Works Cited
Schudin, Verena . Ethics in Nursing: the caring relationship (3rd Ed.). Edinburgh: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.Print.
Solomon, R.C. Morality and the Good Life: An Introduction to Ethics Through Classical Sources, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2000. Print.
