Modern Ethical Issues

Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Introduction

Ethics has been a fundamental aspect of the contemporary human society. Indeed, they have been considered as some of the most crucial aspects that should guide the human relations in almost every aspect of their lives. This should explain the immense incorporation of the same in almost every aspect of the society, with almost every institution coming up with a code of ethics aimed at guiding human relations. Needless to say, a wide range of ethical issues come with considerable controversy revolving around their ethical nature. Indeed, there are differing views on how these behaviors or aspects of the society may be. Nevertheless, the ethical and unethical nature will always be determined by the goal the particular issue is about to serve.

Abortion

Abortion comes as one of the most controversial issues as far as ethics are concerned. Like any other modern issue, abortion comes with an ethical, as well as unethical side. One of the ethical aspects pertaining to abortion revolves around the rights of an individual to make choices pertaining to their bodies and what happens to them. It is worth noting that women are require to carry the baby to full term, an aspect that is not only tedious but which also weighs heavily on them. Indeed, pregnancies weigh don heavily on their health, shapes of their bodies, as well as their capacities to undertake certain activities (Kaczor 28). The constitution guarantees that human beings have certain fundamental and inalienable rights, one of which revolves around determining what happens to them or their bodies. In this case, the ethical debate pertaining to abortion revolves around guaranteeing or safeguarding an individual’s capacity to make decisions pertaining to her body and what he or she does with it (Kaczor 33). In addition, it is evident that there are some instances where such pregnancies would be detrimental to the health of the psychological health of the mother (Kaczor 33). For instance, in instances where the pregnancy has resulted from rape, there is high likelihood that the mother will never be at ease with the child and may even end up tormenting him or her upon giving birth.

However, abortion comes as unethical especially considering the fact that it touches on the life of another human being. Indeed, abortion, irrespective of the logic and reason behind it, involves the termination of the life of a human being (Watkins 26). This, undoubtedly, touches on the inalienable or fundamental rights of human beings. Just as the mother may have the right to make her choices pertaining to her body, the kid has the right to live to full term, a right that is inalienable and guaranteed right from the time that he or she is conceived (Watkins 29).

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment also draws considerable controversy especially with regard to the ethics and unethical sides. One of the ethical aspects pertaining to death penalty is based on the utilitarian argument. Indeed, the society is morally obligated to safeguard the welfare of its citizens. Criminals threaten the welfare and safety of the citizens, in which case only by eliminating them would society ensure that they do not trouble the society again (Mandery and Evan 13). In addition, capital punishment comes as one of those things that bring the greatest balance of good over evil. This is especially considering its capacity to deter violent crime. Indeed, common sense dictates that individuals that know the consequences of certain courses of actions will be unwilling to undertake them (Mandery and Evan 15).

However, capital punishment also has an unethical side. This is especially considering that the society is morally obligated to protect human life. Indeed, taking human life would only be permissible in instances where it is a necessary condition to the achievement of the greatest balance of good over evil for all concerned parties (Jacquette 27). Considering the value that he society has placed on life, as well as its obligation to minimize pain and suffering in all possible cases, human beings are duty-bound to look for a less severe alternative to death penalty that would achieve the same goal. In addition, there has been controversy over the criteria used in sentencing people to death (Jacquette 34). Scholars have outlined the fact that capital punishment is not necessarily given to individuals that commit the most heinous crimes rather, in most cases, it is awarded to people that commit crimes against white people. This introduces the aspect of racial discrimination, which brings into question the fairness of the system. Moreover, questions have been raised on the use of a criminal act to punish another criminal act.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia, like other issues touching on human life comes may be considered ethical or unethical depending on the side of the debate. Euthanasia refers to a legal term that underlines medically assisted mercy killing, usually for individuals that hate terminal illnesses that bring immense pain to them. This is, essentially, one of the ways of preventing an individual from suffering unnecessarily (Paterson 32). One of the ethical aspects pertaining to euthanasia revolves around the right of an individual to make decisions pertaining to their lives. Indeed, a large number of people that undergo euthanasia already indicate or give their consent to the termination of their life in order to end their suffering (Paterson 34). In addition, one would examine the quality of life that an individual leads. Life would only be preferable in instances where pain does not supersede or is not more than the happiness that the individuals have. Unfortunately, most patients with terminal illnesses have immense pain that supersedes their happiness. On the same note, these individuals would undoubtedly be dying within a short time, with the remaining time only being filled with suffering and pain (Paterson 37).

However, euthanasia also comes as unethical especially considering the sanctity of human life. Indeed, opponents of euthanasia state that the society has the duty of preserving human life and only having it terminated by natural causes. In any case, if the individuals are terminally ill, it only means that they would not have to suffer for a long time, in which case their lives should be preserved so they can die naturally (Keown 22). In addition, there have been instances where the terminally ill individuals do not have the capacity to make such decisions or even give their consent for the performance of such actions. This is even in instances where they may have insinuated in the past that they would not want to undergo the suffering (Keown 28). Of course, the question remains as to how the doctors would know the point where such pain is unbearable as to necessitate euthanasia.

Human beings and free will

Free will has been one of the most fundamental rights or rather inalienable rights in the contemporary human society. Of particular note are the nature of decisions that they are required to make and the limited nature of their capacity to make them. Free will, as a term, is taken as underlining the fact that human beings have the capacity and freedom to do, fee and think whatever they want irrespective of their age, experience, place of birth, race, creed, religion, personality or other aspects (Wundt 58). On the ethical side, individuals have the freedom to determine the course of their lives and the actions that they take as guaranteed in the constitution. Indeed, human beings have certain fundamental and inalienable rights even in instances where they may be incarcerated (Wundt 60). They should be allowed to make fundamental decisions as to what happens to their bodies, an aspect that underlines full control for everything that happens to them.

On the unethical side, free will is not so free after all. Free will is a creation by man rather than a donation (Markovits 70). It is not something that human beings were born with rather it is their most crucial and deepest task in the middle of the world, as well as the social structure within which man is implicated to attain self-guidance, self-direction and self-independence for himself (Markovits 72). In addition, it is worth noting that there are limits to freewill especially considering the interconnectivity of human actions, in which case, an individual would only be free to undertake certain decisions or activities to the extent that they do not cause harm to other human beings.

Ethics in gay rights

Homosexuality has drawn considerable controversy from numerous quarters. The ethical basis of gay rights revolves around human needs. Human beings have certain needs that must be met prior to other needs (Murphy 32). If heterosexuals meet these needs through meeting the opposite sex, it is hypocritical to deny homosexuals of the opportunity to meet the basic need pertaining to love and a sense of belonging through meeting a person of the same sex that they can marry (Murphy 32). In addition, it gay rights touch on the fundamental human rights pertaining to the capacity of individuals to make decisions on how they should lead their lives.

However, gay rights are unethical especially with regard to their effect on the continuity and sustainability of the society. First, it is noteworthy that homosexuality is in all respects unnatural especially considering that the union of individuals is primarily aimed at forming families, after which those families would interact and make a contribution to the society within which they live (Corvino 44). Indeed, gay rights would not naturally make this contribution to the society. In addition, same sex marriages are primarily against the biblical or religious teachings as to the intentions of God for humanity.

In conclusion, Ethics has been a fundamental aspect of the contemporary human society. Indeed, they have been considered as some of the most crucial aspects that should guide the human relations in almost every aspect of their lives. A wide range of ethical issues come with considerable controversy revolving around their ethical nature. Nevertheless, the ethical and unethical nature will always be determined by the goal the particular issue is about to serve. Indeed, the ethical and unethical nature of gay rights, euthanasia, capital punishment and abortion is subjective as it depends on the goals that they serve.

Works cited

Markovits, Daniel. A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print.

Wundt, Wilhelm. Ethics: The Facts of Moral Life. New York: Cosimo, Inc., Jun 1, 2006

Paterson, Craig. Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2008. Print.

Keown, John. Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument against Legislation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.

Mandery, Evan J, and Evan J. Mandery. Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. Print.

Jacquette, Dale. Dialogues on the Ethics of Capital Punishment. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Print

Kaczor, Christopher. The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print

Watkins, Christine. The Ethics of Abortion. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2005. Print.

Murphy, Timothy F. Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Print.

Corvino, John. Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Print.