Introduction
John Doe, unable to have children and unwilling to adopt, chooses to clone himself using a procedure that turns his skin cells into an embryo, creating a genetically identical twin who will grow into his child. At the same time, Jane Doe, 18, has always been attracted to women but struggles with coming out due to her parents’ religious beliefs, which condemn lesbianism. Now a legal adult, she is unsure whether to disclose her identity.
The moral dilemmas that face John and Jane Doe entail complex interactions between personal desires, religious beliefs, and societal norms, all of which have significant ramifications. Examining these inner conflicts highlights the fine line between following one’s moral compass and fulfilling the demands of cultural and religious beliefs. To choose the right moral course of action in these circumstances, one has to have a thorough understanding of the relationship between ethics and religion. One also needs to consider the potential consequences and broader societal effects.
John Doe’s Cloning Dilemma
Religion and ethics frequently collide because one’s religious convictions significantly impact one’s moral judgments. Religious literature does not explicitly address John Doe’s wish to clone himself because he is sterile and has no spouse. However, religious communities frequently debate this and other important ethical issues. The moral course of action would entail taking the child’s well-being, the societal ramifications of cloning, and John’s goals into account (Rachels, 2022a). Making sure that John is ready to provide a caring and nurturing home for the kid and that the child’s best interests are given priority would be an ethical course of action.
On the other hand, it would be immoral to move forward with cloning without adequately taking into account the psychological and social repercussions for the kid or exposing the infant to experimental technology that might pose health hazards. John’s desire to have a biological kid might be justified as an emotional response by an emotivist who sees moral judgments as manifestations of emotions (Rachels, 2022).
They would also be aware of the possibility of strongly unfavorable societal responses to cloning. A proponent of natural law ethics, who holds that there are innate human rules that can be discovered by reason, may contend that cloning is immoral as it upsets the natural order of reproduction (Rachels, 2022a). John’s choice would probably be rejected under divine command ethics, which holds that morality is derived from God’s instructions unless John’s particular religious tradition specifically approved it.
Jane Doe’s Sexual Identity Crisis
The conflict between individual morality and religious dogma is exemplified by Jane Doe’s battle with her sexual identity in the face of her parents’ strict religious views. Jane made the morally correct choice to come out to her parents; it was an issue of sincerity and moral rectitude. Given that it would undermine Jane’s self-respect and psychological well-being, it would be immoral for her to reject her identity in response to outside demands (Hänel, 2020).
Her parents’ rejection of her on the grounds of their religious convictions would likewise be sinful since it would not respect her liberty (Rachels, 2022a). An emotivist would contend that Jane’s moral judgments are primarily influenced by her sentiments about her sexual identity. If coming out as a lesbian feels right to her, then it is the ethical path from an emotivist perspective, despite the potential emotional distress it may cause her parents.
There may be disagreements among natural law ethicists over this issue. While some contend that homosexuality is natural and hence not immoral, others argue that it is terrible since it contradicts the reproductive functions of human sexuality (Lawler & Salzman, 2022). Jane’s sexual preference would probably be viewed as unethical by divine mandate ethics if her faith forbids homosexuality. However, this strategy would also call for a sympathetic comprehension of each person’s unique situation, possibly supporting acceptance and love above rigid obedience to religious precepts.
Conclusion
Ultimately, these situations highlight how difficult it may be to make moral choices when one’s goals collide with cultural and religious expectations. Rachels’ talks on subjectivism in ethics and the reliance of morality on religion offer a conceptual foundation for comprehending these conundrums. These talks highlight the subjectivity of moral judgments and the impact of religious beliefs on moral choices. These complex situations show how difficult it may be to balance one’s ethical principles and those of society and how crucial empathy and understanding are to resolving these disputes.
References
Hänel, H. C. (2020). Hermeneutical injustice, (self-)recognition, and academia. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 35(2), 336–354. Web.
Lawler, M. G., & Salzman, T. A. (2022). Catholic arguments against homosexual acts and relationships: Emotional revulsion or rational argument? Sexes, 3(4), 564–577. Web.
Rachels, J. R. S. (2022). Subjectivism in ethics. In The Elements of Moral Philosophy (10th ed., pp. 33–49).
Rachels, J. R. S. (2022a). Does morality depend on religion? In The Elements of Moral Philosophy (10th ed., pp. 50–65).