Ethical Versus Unethical Tracks of Conduct: A Conduct for Decision-Making in the Three Cases

Ethical Versus Unethical Tracks of Conduct: A Conduct for Decision-Making in the Three Cases

The ethical track of conduct in the first case is to acknowledge that cloning a human being develops significant ethical issues required to be contemplated accurately. John Doe should contemplate the possible risk to the cloned child’s health and the psychological effect on the child of being developed solely for their genetic material, including the broader societal suggestions of cloning (Hamann-Rose, 2021). With the risk and unpredictability connected with cloning, John Doe must contemplate choices like adoption, surrogacy or sperm donation. Developing a child through cloning solely to meet his desire for a biological relationship is unethical if it harms the child. For the second case, the ethical truck of conduct is for Jane to be honest to herself, embracing her sexual orientation. Jane should live in a way that keeps her happy and fulfilled, discrimination and judgment-free. Admittedly, her parent’s religion must not hinder her from living her life. In case her parents reject her because she is a lesbian, this would be unethical for them to range their religious beliefs over the love they have for their daughter. It would be brutal and unfair to subject their child to emotional destruction and rejection due to their own beliefs. For the third case, the path of conduct is for Joe and Mary to contemplate the possible benefits and risks of IVF and range them against the principles of their religion. They may also desire to explore other choices, like adoption or fostering. Nevertheless, if they decide to seek IVF, it would be unethical for their religion to hinder them from acquiring this medical treatment, bringing them immense joy and healing (Okechukwu & Emeribe, 2021). Hindering them from acquiring medical treatment and assisting them in having another child would be brutal and unfair, specifically provided the emotional pain and loss already suffered. It would be a contravention of their sovereignty and an obstacle to their ability to develop decisions in their own lives.

Emotivism’s Assessment of the Ethical Path of Conduct in Each Case

Emotivism is a meta-ethical hypothesis stating that moral judgments are not truthful statements but quite the appearance of an individual’s emotions and attitudes towards a specific action or circumstance. An emotivist inspection of the ethical conduct in each case would explore the emotional response of the individuals relatively than objective moral principles. For John Doe’s case, an emotivist would acknowledge his wish to have a biological child and the emotional relationship he pursues with that child. They may also consider the possible ethical concerns surrounding cloning and its implications on society. In Jane Doe’s case, an emotivist is likely to support her right to live her life as if she is okay and express her sexuality flagrantly. They would also recognize the emotional record hiding her sexuality from her parent may have on her and may motivate her to contemplate coming out. In Joe and Mary’s case, an emotivist would acknowledge their deep emotional pain and demand another child. They may also contemplate the possible outcomes of going against their religious beliefs and the effects it could contain on their connection with their faith community. Comprehensively, an emotivist perspective to such cases would range the emotional encounter of the individuals included and recognize the complexity and subjectivity of ethical decision-making.