1. Freewill and Conscience
Conscience is an ethical term. It means personal judgment of the rightness or wrongness of action of the basis of general moral principles. When we are not certain about moral judgments they are said to be having double conscience. The 'conscience' comes from the Latin 'conscentia', which means knowing with. Conscience sometimes called the voice of God, but this expression to be understood metaphorically, not literally. Conscience is not a special faculty distinct form intellect. Conscience is but the intellect itself in a special function, the function of judging the rightness or wrongness of our own individual acts. Conscience may therefore be defined as practical judgment of reason upon an individual act as good and to be performed, or as evil as to be avoided. Thus the personal judgment about the rightness or wornness of action on the basis of general moral principles is called conscience. It is also inner capacity to feel a moral obligation. For factors in the formation of conscience are past experience, demand for faithfulness to group or society, religious experience and reason and reflection. In a given circumstance, the intellect must apply the knowledge of basic principles which affect the circumstance in some way and determine whether it fits in with the final human end and goodness or not. This is the role of conscience. It results from a judgment of practical reason that reflects the Universal Natural Law.
Human beings have the ability to choose and can choose not to follow the laws which will take them to their ultimate goal. To this extent, their will is free. Human beings are destined for happiness. Their will is not free to choose or not to choose happiness as a goal. It is the object of their will which seeks the good. Form a moral point of view; human beings are no forced to follow a particular moral principle to reach their goal. They are free either to accept or to reject it. Then human attainment of happiness results forms human choice. The freewill of human being lies in their ability to choose the means to happiness, but not to choose whether he\she want happiness or not. Free will does not mean that human beings can do whatever pleases them with a kind of absolute moral independence. Free will is not synonymous with 'licentiousness'. Human beings can protect their freewill through acquisition of knowledge and the conscious practice of virtues. In fact, freewill is fundamental to ethics because it is through that humans can choose the means to the goal. While the intellect provides knowledge, particularly of right and wrong in the case of morals, the will is needed to determine actions and to carry them out. Without the will little can be accomplished. This will need to trained so that it will choose what is good, so as to attain the ultimate happiness.
2. Distinguish among moral, immoral, amoral and non-moral
When we speak of a person as moral or ethical, we usually mean that he/she is a good person. Moral actins or events those areas of interest where moral categories do apply and of are such a kind as to be good, right according to some cods or theory of ethics. Telling the truth is an immoral action. A Moral action can be defined as obedience of a rule or code of ethics. Moral action is a right action
When we speak of a person as immoral, we usually mean that he/she is a bad person. Immoral action is a wrong action. Immoral actions or events those areas of interest where moral categories do apply and of are such a kind as to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to some cods or theory of ethics. Telling a lie is an immoral action. An immoral action then can be defined as a violation of a rule or code of ethics.
Amoral means having no moral sense or being indifferent to right and wrong. In these areas of interest exhibits indifference to and not abide by the moral rules or codes of society. Amoral can be applied to a very few persons. Babies are yet to develop a moral sense. There are a few human beings, who despite moral educations, have remained or become amoral. They have no sense of right and wrong. It should be noted that amoral is sometimes used in ordinary language in the same way that non moral is used. Many dictionaries indicate the terms are synonymous. They define amoral as having no moral quality and non-moral as unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. But there is a distinction between amoral and non-moral. Amoral actions would be without concern or intention as to moral consequences. But non-moral actions may have some intention as to moral consequence.
Non-moral means something that is outside the realm of morality altogether. We cannot apply moral categories in these areas of interest. In animate objects such as cars and guns are neither moral nor immoral, they are non-moral. A person suing the car or gun may sue it immorally, but the things themselves are non-moral. Many areas of study are non-moral, but since human beings are involved in these areas, morality may also be involved. Maths use to make hydrogen bomb. Generally speaking, statements in the sciences are considered to be about non moral issues as well. Yet there are circumstances where such actions could have moral consequences.
The immoral person knowingly violates human moral standards by doing something wrong or by being had. The amoral person may also violate moral standard but not knowingly, since he\she was no moral sense. Something that is non-moral can neither be good or bad nor do anything right or wrong because it simply does not fall within the scope of morality.
3. What are the basic assumptions of a valid ethical system?
(a) Rationally based
It should be rationally based, yet not devoid of emotion. Humans are both rational and emotional. Reason should guide the emotions but recognize the prominent role they play. Reason is a power and reasoning is the exercise of that power. There are formal rules for reasoning that all can learn to support decisions we make. Reasoning implies logical argument, logical consistency, detachment form feelings and a common means to arbitrate differences.
(b) Logically consistent
It should be as logically consistent as possible, but not rigid and inflexible. There should be logical consistency with flexibility. Similar claim\ obligation\right in like circumstance but this should not become an absolutism divorced from complexity of reality.
(c) Universal able
It must have universality and general application to all humanity, and yet applicable in particular contexts. It should have universality and particularity. Moral system must be broad enough to include as many as possible. It should not be so general as to not apply to particular situations and individuals.
(d) Should be teachable
It should be able to be taught and promulgated. Ethics is not only a theoretical science but also a practical science. The principles of theories must be taught and executed in society so that the theory will have a practical dimension. So it should be easy to be taught and promulgated in the society.
(e) Have the ability to resolve conflicts
It must have the ability to resolve conflicts among human beings, their rights and duties. If a system cannot decide between interests then not a good theory. If not capable of resolving conflicts then not much use to people. So the theory must be applied in the real life situation.
These are the basic assumptions of a valid ethical system.
4. Explain the hospice alternative in the context of widespread euthanasia.
The end of the twentieth century has observed a remarkable upsurge of interest in the care of dying patients and their families. This is most evident in the work of the hospice movement. Hospice is a philosophy, not a facility. It is an approach to the giving of care. The hospice concept views death not as a failure but as a normal and natural stage of life, to be approached with dignity. The philosophy of the hospice staff is to 'extend the quality of life' when we cannot extend the quantity of life. Hospice affirms life. Hospice exists to provide support and care for persons in the last phases of incurable disease so that they might live as fully and comfortable as possible. And this care is opposed to the legalization of euthanasia.
Hospice is derived from the Latin word 'hospitium', which was a place in which a guest was received. Hospice is a concept of providing care for the terminally ill. It began as a formal program in Great Britain and spread to the United States during the 1970. Psychological and spiritual counseling for both the patient and the family is included as an integral fact of the heath care services. Counseling with the family continues after the patient's death. The ultimate goal of any hospice is to assist families in their acceptance of and coping with the loss or death of a lived one. They may be offered by hospitals, home health agencies or nursing homes. The following elements are common to all hospices: service availability, including medical and nursing care, to home care patients and institutional inpatients on a 24-hour per say, 7-day per week, on call basis.
The hospice approach recognizes chronic pain, is a complex phenomenon that involves the mental or emotional, the social or sociological and the spiritual or religious aspects of patients as well as the physical. This is another reason why the hospice approach utilizes a team and this team includes the doctors, nurses, clergy, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, psychologists or psychiatrists and volunteers. We can that fundamental to the hospice concept it's the interdisciplinary team approach.
The hospice philosophy affirms life, not death. The hospice concept views death not as the enemy, as a kind of aberration and the care they give to the dying reflects that with dignity. Hospice neither hastens nor postpones death. Their first aim is to manage pain of all sorts: physical pain, mental pain, social pain and spiritual pain. Beyond that they try as much as possible to include the dying person as taking an active part in his own care and decision making. In addition, they help the family to understand the dying person's experience and needs and also keep communication lines open so that the dying member will feel less isolated. In this moment all the five principles of ethical application are fulfilled. If more terminally ill patients and their families have knowledge about the concept of hospice, certainly there would be less concern about euthanasia which is immoral as well as a grave sin.
Critics:
Sometimes, in spite of the entire assistance to end the patients, whether at the hospice or at home, life may not become meaningful. They may look for meaning only in a life if is without suffering. In such cases, they may not opt for hospice meaningful life.
5. How is the "right of life" issue reflected in the abortion discussion?
There are two major issues:
- Whether the fetus is a human being with a right to life as strong as that of people already born.
- What implications there are for the moral permissibility of abortion of whatever right to life the fetus has?
The question that deontology must consider first is that of 'fetal humanity'. Some argue that the fetus is a human being with the right to life from the first moment of conception. Some others argue that a fetus becomes a human being only at the moment of birth. Of course there are many other intermediary positions.
Fetal humanity can be proved by Genetic view. It presents the position that human life begin to exist at the moment of conception. This position is based on the scientific evidence that the genetic make up of a human being is made when the sperm and ovum are united through fertilization. As further genetic development is determined by the combination of 23+23 chromosomes at fertilization, the essential make up of a human being is already present. Hence, an abortion is always impossible.
If the fetus is a human being with the same right to life as all other human being, the abortion would not be morally permissible even to save the life of the mother. Form deontologist point of view form the very early stage abortion is not permitted.
6. Explain the "right to die with dignity" as an argument to justify allowing
someone to die.
Individuals have the right to decide about their own lives and deaths. What more basic right is there than to decide if you're going to live?
The period of suffering can be shortened. If you have ever been in an ICU you might have experienced that it's grim but enlightening. Anyone who's been there can know how much people can suffer before they die. It's not just the physical suffering. The emotional, even spiritual, agony is often worse. Today our medical hardware is so sophisticated that the period of suffering can be extended beyond the limit of human endurance. What's the point of allowing someone a few more months or days or hours of so-called life when death is inevitable? There's no point. In fact, it's downright inhumane. When someone under such conditions asks to be allowed to die, it's far more humane to honor that request than to deny it.
People have a right to die with dignity. Nobody wants to end up plugged into machines and wired to tubes. Who wants to spend their last days lying in a hospital bed wasting away to something that's hardly recognizable as a human being, let alone his or her former self? The very thought insults the whole concept of what it means to be human. People are entitled to dignity, in life and in death. Just as we respect people's right to live with dignity, so we must respect their right to die with dignity. In the case of the terminally ill, that means people have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment when it's apparent to them that all the treatment is doing is destroying their dignity, and reducing them to some subhuman level of humanity.
One of Dignity in dying main arguments is that their proposals for a comprehensive strategy around the issue of assisted dying would provide safeguards and protection for an individual from. Dignity in Dying argue that at the moment not only can unscrupulous people do this in a relatively unchecked way, but that the legal authorities can generally carry out investigations only after a person's death, whereas under their plans there would be safeguards and checks upfront to ensure a person was fully informed and counseled as to their rights and options and additionally protected from possible malign influences.
Dignity in Dying also state that their proposals would alleviate a great deal of the stress and worry that approaching death can bring to a person, particularly one suffering significant pain from a terminal illness. The use of Advanced Decisions can help significantly but they also believe that if a right to an Assisted Death is available then the very knowledge of this fact can alleviate many of the worries an individual might have.
