What is the best way to reason about a moral question?

  

In this paper, you willPresent a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.InstructionsWrite an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style.The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:IntroductionYour first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem.Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position.Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.Explanation and Demonstration of Moral ReasoningThis section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your rough-draft, but your discussion here should be more refined.For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.Objection and ResponseAfter explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.ConclusionProvide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.Resource RequirementYou must use at least four scholarly resources.For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.
Running head: ETHICAL QUESTION
Question
Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized?
Introduction
I will be dealing with topic called End of Life Medical Issues. Specifically I will be
dealing with physician-assisted suicide. According to Wankel, and Malleck, (2010), physicianassisted suicide happens when a patient administers a lethal drug in his or her system, with direct
or indirect help by a physician. The help may be in form of a lethal drug or advice on how to use
the drug. This occurs when the physician feels that it would be better for the patient to die
because of the problems they are undergoing caused by some illness which is terminal or very
painful for the patient to handle. This topic is significant in the current day whereby everyone
has rights with regard to their lives and also people have grown to know about all these rights. It
is significant because this issue has the same number of supporters and people who oppose it.
The issue of physician-assisted suicide is as old as is the medical profession. It was there
and even the physicians of the old days had to swear that they would not take part in this kind of
practice in the course of their work. In the United States for example, physician-assisted suicide
is legal (Jeffrey, 2009). In some countries it is illegal and if a physician is caught doing it they
risk to suffer some serious consequences which could even be imprisonment. In these countries,
the citizens and the leaders are concerned and this is why it is still not legalized.
Position Statement
Physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized.
1
ETHICAL QUESTION
2
Supporting Reason
The reason why I feel that physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized is because I
feel that it is both unethical as it is immoral. I feel that for someone being in a position to end or
help another persons life is not something that is justifiable. I feel that only God is in the
position to take another persons life.
There are different explanations as to why I feel that for a physician to end or help end
the life of a patient is unethical and immoral. One of the explanations as to why I feel it is wrong
is the motive the physician has at the time of committing the act. Their motive is to end a life and
this will never be moral. If something is not moral, then such a thing should not be legalized.
Opposing Reason
The reason why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized is because it is not
unethical or immoral. If someone is in a position to help someone end their suffering it is
justifiable. Mostly, the people who undergo physician-assisted suicide are people who do not
have a chance of recovering but may be in that position for a long time and this would mean
pains with each passing day.
The explanation as to why physician-assisted suicide is not immoral is because morality
is different and is not uniform to everyone. What a particular group considers immoral to another
group is moral and using a law to make these kinds of opinions to relate would be unfair. It is
moral to help someone by ending what is causing them to suffer. Going by this, it is therefore
moral and hence ethical to legalize physician-assisted suicide.
ETHICAL QUESTION
3
References
Jeffrey, D. (2009). Against physician assisted suicide: A palliative care perspective. Oxford:
Radcliffe Pub.
Wankel, C., & Malleck, S. K. (2010). Emerging ethical issues of life in virtual worlds. Charlotte,
N.C: Information Age Pub.
Running head: CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICAL THEORY
1
I have chosen the topic of euthanasia referring to a painless death under the assistance of
doctors when the medical situation or condition of the patient does not seem to be improving and
death seems to set patient free of pain and suffering. This topic is highly contentious in
contemporary times, for the people who are in the favor and against physician assisted deaths
have strong arguments to support their point of view. Utilitarian theory asks to take any action
whether moral or immoral if consequences are generally good for the individual or group of
individuals. In other words, utilitarian theory asks to ignore ethics and morality and focuses on
the outcome of action. If the results are producing more happiness or pleasure in any sense, the
actions are justified. Hence, this theory favors the physician-assisted death as the result would be
no more suffering of the respective patient, but if it is allowed to happen every immoral and
unethical action can be justified on the basis of outcomes (Hutcheson, 2002).
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were the fore-bearers of this idea. Jeremy proposed
this theory and John Stuart Mill further extended the idea. The theory of utilitarianism is a theory
that pertains to normative ethics and contends that actions are moral if they are aimed at
maximizing the utility. Utility is illustrated in multiple ways. However, it is mostly associated
with the well being of different related groups of individuals. Jeremy stated utility as the
remainder of pleasure after eliminating suffering of the individuals who are victims in any given
incident. John Stuart Mill further added the component of quality along with the quantity of the
pleasure and happiness derived from the outcome. He invited to concentrate on the rules and
asked to ignore the moral actions of individuals involved. In other words, the utilitarian theory is
a theory based on consequentialism. The only yardstick for utilitarian theory is the consequence
of the action. The theory of utilitarian asks to overlook the morality and ethics of action. The
CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICAL THEORY
2
society as a whole should be focused on the fruits of the actions. Justification of actions is solely
based on what is achieved at the end. The utilitarian theory is only concerned with the overall
impact (Rosen, 2003).
Considering the issue at hand, the theory deviates from ethics and morality of taking
ones life even at own will. The application of theory can be understood in the context that
because the outcome is liberty from the pain for the sufferer. Therefore, there is nothing wrong
with committing this action of murder at the hands of physician. Thus the suffering of the
patient who would die as a result of this action should be deducted from overall gain and costs to
quantify the utility of the action. Take another perspective; if the patient were administered death
through the assistance of physician, it would also result in no further treatment cost. Moreover,
the family of the patient would also not have to attend the patient in future, and they would also
not suffer. Similarly, the cost of medication would also be eliminated. Adding up all these factors
is explicitly beneficial for everyone and for society as a whole. Hence, the utilitarian theory
favors ending the life of patient. Utilitarian theory holistically justifies actions on the basis of
weighing the result of the incidents on such basis.
Utilitarian theory is short sighted and myopic in nature. It ignores that every individual in
the society has a very unique and distinct place. This theory seems to be short sighted on the
premise every action cannot be taken on the basis of common good and ignoring individual. In
broader perspective, murdering anyone, breaking a promise or lying and all the other immoral
actions should be carried out by just eyeing the resultant benefits. The suffering of even single
individual cannot be ignored. Additionally, while talking about happiness or pleaser, Bentham
and John Stuart Mill ignore the suffering of the victim or victims. If this is allowed to happen
society could only turn out to be ruthless and people would ignore ethics and morality in their
CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICAL THEORY
3
actions to justify the outcomes. For instance, inflicting torture on few individuals to gain the
larger economic or other benefits would also be justified on the basis of this theory. This theory
in its application to the patient assisted murder is more concerned about the nominal sufferings
of the individuals involved and ignores the very basic right of a human being to live more. If this
approach is allowed to flourish, the society would be devoid of emotions and every action would
be calculated on the basis of economic benefit or mundane utility concept. The basic beautiful
tenets such as truth, loyalty, keeping up the promises, and saving the lives will vanish for the
sake of selfishness and economic and other worldly gains. In my opinion, the basic fabric which
holds society together would cease to exist literally. No utility, no saving of money and
alleviation of trivial suffering in the context of healthcare can justify taking human life
(Bentham, 2005).
In brief, Different theories of ethics have been proposed in the preceding centuries and
years. This philosophical debate goes on to reflect how the societies and individuals should
behave for the better functioning. Euthanasia has long been debated. The utilitarian theory in
application to the physician assisted patient death calls for death of the patient as the individual
suffering is not central to the utilitarian theory. Similarly, this decision is utility centric as
physician, the family of the patient and other individuals are also suffering. There is another
allied cost factor involved due to the continuous medication and treatment of the patient. The
patient should die as various individuals would not have to suffer and the economic benefits
would surpass the loss of one life. To me, utilitarian theory seems inhumane and a manifestation
of callousness. Human life is beyond numerical calculations as there can be no price tag on
human life.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICAL THEORY
4
References:
Hutcheson, Francis (2002). “The Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue”. In Schneewind, J.
B. Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant. Cambridge University Press. p. 515
Rosen, Frederick (2003) Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 32
Bentham, Jeremy; Dumont, Etienne; Hildreth, R (2005). Theory of Legislation: Translated from
the French of Etienne Dumont. Adamant Media Corporation. p. 58

ETHICAL REASONING AND MORAL DILEMMAS

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
What is the best way to reason about a moral question?
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Introduction:

The problem of moral and ethical dilemmas has intrigued the humankind for centuries. Every civilization has its own set of ethical and moral values which may differ from others. The modern world is also grappling with a plethora of moral and ethical issues ranging from environmental sustainability, social justice, and health care to name a few. This paper aims to present a revised formulation of an ethical question while demonstrating the best way of reasoning about the problem. Moreover, it will highlight how reasoning supports a particular position and will raise an objection while responding to it.

Description:

Moral dilemma demands careful and thoughtful analysis of the problem and the ethical values at stake. The constantly changing social and economic conditions create new ethical challenges that require careful reflection. For this reason, ethical reasoning is essential to navigate through moral dilemmas. One of the critical components of ethical reasoning is understanding the various ethical theories available. Therefore, this paper intends to explore and demonstrate the various ethical theories and the best possible way of reasoning about the problem.

In the first section, the paper will present an ethical question and establish a thesis statement along with a brief description of the primary reasons supporting the position. Then the paper will enter into an explanation and demonstration of moral reasoning while discussing the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that support concrete judgments. Furthermore, this will also involve the references of at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course and should utilize at least one resource of each approach. However, this discussion needs to be much more refined than the previous rough draft.

In the next section, this paper will raise an objection and respond to it. This section will demonstrate how the arguments could be weak or problematic while also bringing out the weaknesses in the objections. The aim of this section is to respond in a way that would be understandable to individuals who disagree with the paper’s premise. Finally, the paper will conclude by summing up the arguments presented in the paper and offer some final reflections.

Overall, this paper intends to present an articulate and relevant picture of ethical reasoning and moral dilemmas by demonstrating and examining different ethical theories, raising objections and responding to them, and summing up the arguments presented in the paper. This paper will not just scratch the surface of various moral issues but will delve deep into understanding, analyzing and responding to moral and ethical dilemmas.

Keywords: Ethical reasoning, moral dilemma, ethical theories, objection and response.

Objectives and Learning Outcomes for Ethics Final Paper

Objectives:
– To formulate a revised and focused ethical question that addresses a relevant moral problem.
– To demonstrate an understanding of at least two ethical approaches (deontological, utilitarian, virtue-based, etc.) and explain how they support a position on the chosen question.
– To raise and respond to objections to the position taken on the ethical question.
– To utilize at least four scholarly resources in constructing and supporting arguments in the final paper.

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of the Ethics Final Paper, students should be able to:
– Construct a clear and concise introduction that reformulates a broad ethical question to one that is concrete and relevant to a particular moral problem.
– Articulate a clear and well-supported thesis statement that states a position on the ethical question.
– Demonstrate an understanding of at least two ethical approaches and explain how they support the chosen position on the ethical question.
– Draw upon at least four scholarly resources to support arguments and integrate them effectively into the final paper.
– Raise and respond to objections to the position taken on the ethical question in a way that demonstrates a nuanced understanding of opposing viewpoints.
– Write a coherent and well-organized paper that conforms to APA style guidelines.
– Sum up the main arguments of the paper in a thoughtful and reflective conclusion.

Two Possible Solutions for Writing a Final Paper on Ethical Reasoning

Solution 1:

Introduction
The revised ethical question for this paper is “What is the ethical reasoning behind physician-assisted suicide?”, which is a relevant moral problem that has been controversial for many years. In this paper, I propose that physician-assisted suicide should be allowed for terminally ill patients who have made a rational decision to end their suffering. The primary reason supporting this position is that individuals have the right to autonomy and the ability to make decisions regarding their own lives and deaths. Furthermore, this paper aims to explain the kind of reasoning that is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position taken.

Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
The best way of reasoning about physician-assisted suicide is the utilitarian approach, which states that actions are morally right when they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In this case, physician-assisted suicide benefits terminally ill patients who are suffering by allowing them to end their pain and suffering. Utilitarian reasoning supports this position because it promotes happiness, and in this case, happiness is defined as the absence of pain and suffering.

The deontological approach, which states that actions are morally right when they adhere to certain moral rules, can also be used to support the position. A moral rule that supports physician-assisted suicide is the right to autonomy, which gives an individual the ability to make decisions about their own life and death. However, the principle of non-maleficence, which states that one should not cause harm to others, could be seen as an objection to physician-assisted suicide, as some may argue that it causes harm to others, such as the patient’s family.

Objection and Response
The objection to physician-assisted suicide is that it violates the principle of non-maleficence, and that it may lead to abuse or the giving up on patients prematurely. In response to this objection, it must be noted that physician-assisted suicide is only allowed for terminally ill patients who have made a rational decision to end their own suffering. In addition, the safeguards and regulations in place ensure that physician-assisted suicide is only carried out in cases where it is the last resort and all other options have been exhausted.

Conclusion
In conclusion, physician-assisted suicide should be allowed for terminally ill patients who have made a rational decision to end their suffering. Utilitarian reasoning supports this position because it promotes happiness and the absence of pain and suffering. While the principle of non-maleficence may be seen as an objection to physician-assisted suicide, the safeguards and regulations in place ensure that it is only carried out in ethical and moral situations.

Solution 2:

Introduction
The revised ethical question for this paper is “What is the ethical reasoning behind animal testing for medical purposes?”, which is a relevant moral problem that has been ongoing for many years. In this paper, I propose that animal testing for medical purposes should be allowed because it is necessary for the development of life-saving medications. The primary reason supporting this position is that animal testing is a crucial step in ensuring the safety of drugs before they are tested on humans. This paper aims to explain the kind of reasoning that is the best way to approach this question and how that reasoning supports the position taken.

Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
The best way of reasoning about animal testing for medical purposes is the utilitarian approach because it ensures that the greatest number of individuals benefit from the development of life-saving medications. Utilitarian reasoning supports this position because it promotes happiness through the development of these drugs, which benefits human and animal life alike.

The virtue-based approach can also be used to support this reasoning. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the person making the decision, and in this case, the character of those who carry out animal testing must be virtuous. The development of life-saving medications requires a certain level of care and compassion towards animals, and if done correctly, animal testing can promote the flourishing of both human and animal life.

Objection and Response
The objection to animal testing is that it is cruel and inhumane towards animals. While this objection is understandable, it must be noted that animal testing is only done when necessary and after non-animal alternatives have been exhausted. Animal testing is done with the utmost care and compassion towards animals, and the regulations in place ensure that it is only done for medical purposes that will ultimately benefit animal and human life.

Conclusion
In conclusion, animal testing for medical purposes should be allowed because it is necessary for the development of life-saving medications. Utilitarian reasoning supports this position because it ensures that the greatest number of individuals benefit from the development of these drugs, while the virtue-based approach emphasizes the importance of compassion towards animals in the process. While the objection to animal testing is understandable, the regulations in place ensure that it is done ethically and morally.

Suggested Resources/Books:

1. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala.
2. The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels.
3. Contemporary Moral Arguments: Readings in Ethical Issues by Lewis Vaughn.
4. An Introduction to Ethics by John Deigh.
5. The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.

Similar asked questions:

1. What is the deontological approach to morality?
2. How does utilitarianism define moral decision-making?
3. What are some criticisms of virtue ethics?
4. Is it possible to reconcile different moral approaches?
5. How do cultural differences impact ethical decision-making?

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
× How can I help you?