Summary
The choice in favor of the second and third ethical dilemmas was made because they demonstrate how a person can be in a similar situation for reasons of religion. It is by it that many people determine what is morally justified and what is not. In case number two, Jane Doe is a lesbian, while her parents, being believers, cannot accept this fact. In case number three, Joe and Mary stand between choosing their personal happiness and religious dogma that forbids them from having children with IVF.
Jane Doe’s Dilemma
Given the position in which Jane is, it would be correct if she nevertheless admitted first of all to herself and already to her parents about her actual orientation. It’s hard to say whether her parents will accept her, but since she’s already an adult, she has the right to decide for herself. Also, since lying is a sin in many religious beliefs, being dishonest to yourself or anyone else is unethical. Moreover, Dr. Messerly believes that moral language lacks a cognitive component and is more often subject to emotions (Messerly, 2016). Her parents only reflect what they believe in, depending on how their religion reacts. From an emotivism point of view, Jane’s confession would be morally justified, but it would be ethically wrong for her parents.
Do not forget about the theory of natural law, which assumes that people, being social and conscious beings, will follow the social norm that exists in society. Only after that did they set their moral and ethical framework based on what they saw, lived, and so on (Rachels, 2018). Of course, many religions may recognize Jane’s orientation as immoral, but if social norms recognize her as expected, then the natural law theory will have to be followed. In this case, no religion has the right to discredit a person on any factor, be it his gender or sexual orientation.
Joe and Marie’s Ethical Dilemma
In the case of Joe and Marie, natural law theory also demonstrates that ethically the IVF procedure is morally justified for several reasons. Firstly, this procedure occurs without interference from other people. Secondly, in implanting sperm into an egg, there is no need to spend more on the necessary attempts. Thus, according to the interpretation of religion, life is not wasted (Focus on the Family, 2019). Moreover, do not forget that in the modern world, many denominations and significant religions have recognized IVF and do not consider this process sinful (Eunjung-Cha, 2018). The most critical factor here will be the absence of a third party, which from the point of view of many religions, will not be considered a sin. After all, married couples are supposed to keep their word to their partner and God.
Thus, it becomes clear that many moral dilemmas are not as complex as they might seem at first glance. Any tough ethical decisions, limited by religious dogmas, will soon change, as a society also does not stand still. Religion itself provides for the fact that any action aimed at the good is morally justified. The dilemmas described above are a vivid example of how society is moving towards new moral norms and principles, becoming open to everything new. Religion is also moving in this direction, but there is still much to be reconsidered, and such problems will often make humanity think about the justification of specific actions.
References
Messerly, J., (2016). Emotivism. Reason and Meaning: Philosophical reflections on life, death and the meaning of life. Web.
Eunjung-Cha, A., (2018). How religion is coming to terms with modern fertility methods. The Washington Post: Democracy Dies in Darkness. Web.
Focus on the Family, (2019). IVF: Moral and Ethical Considerations. Web.
Messerly, J., (2016). Emotivism. Reason and meaning: Philosophical reflections on life, death and the meaning of life.Reason and Meaning.
Rachels, J. & Rachels S. (2018). The elements of moral philosophy (9th Edition). McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US).