St. Augustine in the 5th Century held that we are free ✓ Solved

St. Augustine in the 5th Century held that we are free to make choices in life. This is the idea of free will. It may seem at first glance odd for a religious thinker to say that we have free will. After all, if God exists, then God created all things. God knows already what we will do. God can cause anything to occur. If we cause things to occur, that seems to be a limitation on the power of God and not make God all-powerful.

There are also religious traditions that say that we have no free will. There are some theologians in Islam who seem to suggest that is true. In order for this line of reasoning to hold true, one would need to believe free will is an illusion and that we have no control over how we live our lives, but rather that we are puppets moving and acting due to God's will and the powers of destiny and fate. And if this then in the case, how can we possibly be responsible for our actions? The considerations above show us to what degree our religious beliefs can shape us.

For instance, someone who believes in free will may experience way more guilt than someone who believes we don't have free will and thus aren't responsible for the choices (and consequences) of the actions we take. Personal struggles with religion and ethics occur in many places, including in the healthcare arena. Consider the following: You are a nurse in a hospital. A 12-year-old was brought to the hospital by an ambulance. The parents have just arrived at the hospital. This 12-year-old has lost a large amount of blood and requires a transfusion. The parents happen to be members of a religion that believes that blood transfusions are immoral. They want to remove the child from the hospital and prevent the transfusion even if it means the death of the child.

You have to decide whether or not you will participate in an action that violates the will of the parents and aid in providing blood for the child. If you choose to participate, and even if you are able to legally justify it, you have to think about the distress you are creating for the parents. If you refuse to aid here, you may be subject to retaliation from the hospital. What is the moral thing for the nurse to do here?

For the initial post, address the following questions: 1. What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why would they say that? Do you agree with the divine command ethics? Why or why not? 2. Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not? 3. Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play here in determining what is ethical?

Paper For Above Instructions

The issue of free will versus divine determinism is a profound one, particularly in the context of the moral dilemmas faced in healthcare. St. Augustine posits that humans possess the ability to choose, which is foundational for moral responsibility (Rachels, 2003). However, this claim brings about complications when paired with theistic beliefs, particularly regarding God's omniscience and omnipotence. The moral predicament faced by the nurse in the given scenario exemplifies the complexities involved in moral decision-making influenced by religious beliefs.

Divine Command Ethics

A divine command ethicist would indicate that the moral thing to do in the case of the 12-year-old patient is to save the child by administering the blood transfusion, as preserving life aligns with God's will and purpose (Rachels, 2003). Divine command theory posits that moral obligations derive from God's commands; for example, saving a life is a paramount ethical duty that aligns with the belief in the sanctity of life, which can be viewed as a reflection of divine will. In this situation, the divine command ethicist prioritizes the immediacy of the child's life over the parents' religious convictions.

While I understand and appreciate aspects of divine command ethics, I find myself at odds with the rigidity of the approach. Relying solely on divine commands can lead to challenging and conflicting situations, especially when human interpretation of these commands varies. Additionally, scenarios such as this raise questions about the morality of superseding parental rights, making the ethical landscape more complex.

Natural Law Ethics

A natural law ethicist would approach the dilemma by weighing the principles of human dignity, natural rights, and the common good. According to natural law ethics as articulated by Thomas Aquinas, moral actions are rooted in human nature and can be discerned through reason (Rachels, 2003). In this case, the natural law ethicist would argue that the nurse should administer the blood transfusion because it serves the child's best interest and upholds the fundamental principle of preserving human life.

I find agreement with the natural law perspective due to its emphasis on the intrinsic value of human life and reason as guides for ethical behavior. While the parents hold religious beliefs against blood transfusions, the immediate moral obligation to save the child overrides these beliefs, as the moral law is centered around achieving the common good and preserving life.

Emotivism and Subjectivity in Ethics

Emotivism posits that moral judgments are expressions of emotional responses or attitudes rather than objective truths (Rachels, 2003). From an emotivist perspective, my position advocating for the blood transfusion could be seen as a mix of both emotional conviction and reasoned analysis concerning the value of saving a life. Emotivists would likely argue that my judgments reflect a personal emotional standpoint that recognizes the significance of human life and empathy towards the child and their family.

This subjectivity plays a crucial role in determining ethical behavior, as individual emotions and societal values determine what is perceived as morally right or wrong in varying contexts. The nurse's decision could be influenced by personal beliefs about life and death, causing conflict between adhering to divine command ethics, natural law principles, and emotional responses.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the moral framework applicable to this scenario hinges upon the delicate balance between respecting parental authority and fulfilling the moral obligation to protect and save lives. Through the various ethical lenses of divine command ethics, natural law, and emotivism, it becomes evident that ethical dilemmas arising in health care environments require a nuanced approach that integrates rationality, empathy, and respect for individual belief systems.

References

  • Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

  • Keshen, A. (2019). A philosophical examination of healthcare ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics.

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.

  • Gert, B., Culver, C. M., & Clouser, K. D. (2006). Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals. Oxford University Press.

  • Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.

  • McCormick, T. (2017). The moral implications of blood transfusions: A theological perspective. Theology and Medicine.

  • Lindemann, H. (2015). Holding and Letting Go: The Social Practice of Personal Decision Making in Healthcare. Springer.

  • Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Harcourt.

  • Cuddy, A. J. C., Wolf, E. B., & Glick, P. (2011). Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance. Psychological Science.

  • Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2006). Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine. McGraw-Hill.