Introduction
John Doe, being sterile and unable to find a partner, plans to clone himself using a procedure that transforms his skin cells into an embryo, creating a twin-child with identical genetic information. Jane Doe, an 18-year-old attracted to women, struggles with whether to come out to her religious parents, whose beliefs condemn lesbianism and warn of divine punishment. The moral problems raised by John Doe’s decision to create clones of himself and Jane Doe’s struggle to accept her sexual orientation in the face of her religious convictions provide fertile ground for investigation of the connections between ethics and religion, ethical paths of conduct, and emotivist and natural law ethical perspectives. Religion and ethics have a nuanced and intricate interaction.
Ethical Case Analysis
Ethics is a set of moral rules that direct people’s behavior or activities. Contrarily, religion is a specific kind of belief and worship. It frequently offers a moral foundation for its adherents’ actions. However, the ethical standards that arise from religion are not always agreed upon and might range greatly across various religions. It is clear from John and Jane’s difficulties that there may be a clash between human goals, scientific progress, and religious convictions.
The moral course of action in John Doe’s situation would be to respect his autonomy and his freedom to procreate. It is a very personal desire to have a biological kid, and if the technology is accessible and secure, he should be permitted to use it. However, it would be immoral to move on without considering how the kid, who would be born as John’s genetic twin, could feel.
One can contend that John’s desire to create himself through self-cloning reflects his intense yearning for a biological connection from an emotivist perspective, which holds that ethical assertions essentially represent emotional attitudes. However, this does not necessarily equate to it being morally correct or wrong. Cloning would disturb the natural order of reproduction, according to a natural law ethicist who holds that moral standards are drawn from the nature of humans and the universe (Mboutngam, 2021). Others, though, could counter that using technology to overcome biological constraints is human nature.
In Jane Doe’s situation, the moral course of action would be to accept her sexual orientation and her right to live an authentic life. It would be wrong to hide her identity because of her religious convictions. According to an emotivist, the urge to live truthfully reflects Jane’s emotional commitment to truth and integrity, who may also claim that Jane’s attraction to other women is a deeply entrenched emotional reaction. The ideas of a natural law ethicist could be different. While some would contend that homosexuality is against the laws of nature, others might argue that it is a natural aspect of human sexual variation.
A divine command ethics perspective, which holds that whether an action is morally righteous is comparable to whether it is God’s command, would rely on one’s interpretation of religious scriptures in both situations. If John’s faith opposes cloning, cloning would be immoral in his eyes. Being lesbian would be unethical for Jane if her religion forbids homosexuality (Vito, 2020). This method has drawn criticism since it relies on personal readings of religious texts and has the potential to legitimize destructive behaviors committed in the name of religion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, these moral conundrums show how intricately human preferences, religious convictions, and ethical standards interact. They emphasize how crucial it is to maintain individual autonomy while also considering our choices’ more significant social and psychological repercussions. Additionally, they draw attention to the many viewpoints presented by emotivism, natural law ethics, and divine command ethics, serving as a helpful reminder that making ethical decisions is frequently a complex process with many facets.
References
Mboutngam, I. (2021). Ethical principles under the challenge of enhancing medicine. Clinical Science, 7(1), 7-13. Web.
Vito, M. P. (2020). Factors influencing homosexuality in men: A term paper. International Journal of English, Literature and Social Science, 5(6), 1968–1973. Web.
Loading...
