Week 2: Religion and Ethics
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?
In this case, the moral thing to do is to abide by the parents’ wishes. The family’s religious belief
is no blood product, and we should abide by the religion that they are following. Looking at it
from a religious point of view. They believe that God will heal their child, and because of that
belief, not many healthcare workers can intervene. I can't entirely agree with the divine
command ethics because when a child is not old enough to always understand what is going on.
2.
Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them?
Why or why not?
The natural law of ethicists would agree with what the parents want because it is their religion
that they are following; at the same time, they would disagree because they are putting the
child’s life in danger by not allowing them to get the blood transfusion. I disagree with them
because allowing the child to get the blood product will save the life of the child.
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?
My position would be for the patient to get the blood in order for them to survive. This doesn’t
go with what the parents want, but giving the child the blood transfusion will save their life, even
if this goes against the parents' religion.
