In my last thread, I explained the two metaethics I believed to be the most applicable methods in today’s society. The first of these was Moral realism, the belief that moral principles are an immaterial part of reality that exists even though they cannot be seen or felt (Jones, 102). The other system of belief that plays a determining role in how we act and think morally is Utilitarianism. This system states that an act can be judged as moral or immoral by looking at its consequences for everyone affected (Jones, 76). I believe these specific theories can be applied to any world issues, past or present. For the purposes of this particular assignment, I will draw direct correlations between Moral Realism and life and also between Utilitarianism and health care.
We all have heard them, the sayings that are passed down from generation to generation. “What you put out comes back to you tenfold”; “You reap what you sow”; “What goes around comes around”. All of these old adages convey the same theory, that the universe has an objective moral code called karma. Whether we are devout followers or not most of us have engaged in its belief system. Karma along with Moral Realism cannot be proven nor is there evidence for it, yet people still believe in it.
Moral values are not invented but discovered by the subject. Moral realism argues that values are open to perception and experience and that moral subjectivity must be portrayed in how moral values are discovered and perceived by the human subject. Moral values may exist independent of the particular subject’s interpretative evaluations as a part of reality.
In the utilitarian approach, decisions are chosen based on the greatest amount of benefit obtained for the greatest number of individuals. This can also be referred to as a consequentialist approach since the outcomes determine the morality of the action. Practicing this approach could help to minimize harm for some individuals while still yielding the greatest good. This process relies on previous relative results to provide a projected outcome and help create parameters for the transition.
As highlighted in our text, an example of the utilitarian approach with regards to health care is the much-debated topic of The Affordable Care Act, or popularly known as Obamacare (Jones, 70). The ACA would provide universal health care to all American citizens. This policy would even be inclusive to preexisting medical conditions that may not be covered under the current health care platform.
The argument in favor of the ACA would be the benefits from everyone having health care would greatly outweigh the negatives. Some of the major benefits were a plan to lower health care costs by limiting out of pocket costs for individuals and families; streamline insurance shopping into a central exchange; allowed children to be added to their parents insurance plans until the age of 26, which lowered costs by adding the premiums to insurance company revenues, and required companies with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance (Amadeo, 2018). The ACA also offered tax credits to small businesses and non-profits that offered health care benefits.
These above benefits were established as important amendments to our current health care system and were likely key points that the Obama administration pointed out would have a greater benefit for the large portion of the population versus the negative impact.
Jones. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing, Co., 07/2017. VitalBookfile.
Amadeo, K. (2018). What You Will and Won’t Lose If Obamacare Is Replaced.
DIRECTIONS: Reply: After reading your classmates’ threads, choose one to which you will respond, then write a reply that interacts with your classmate’s thread and presents a well-reasoned alternative to your classmate’s approach to the issue. You do not have to defend a position that is diametrically opposed to your classmate’s position, but you do need to critically evaluate your classmate’s position in a way that points out strengths and possible weaknesses.
The goal of this is to help your classmate to improve his or her ability to logically and consistently apply his or her metaethical theory to an issue in applied ethics. Hence you should make your criticisms constructive. Be charitable – don’t assume that your classmate is making stupid mistakes, but instead where multiple interpretations are possible, assume that you classmate meant whichever interpretation would make more sense. However, don’t hesitate to point out disputable assumptions, faulty arguments, and alternative possibilities if you are convinced that they exist. In short, criticize politely. If possible, you must reply to a classmate to whom no one else has yet replied. Treat your classmate’s opinion with sensitivity and respect.
This is a university-level writing assignment. Therefore it must be carefully proofread, free of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Do not use slang, emoticons, or abbreviations (as if you are texting or sending an email to a friend).
Your reply must be 500–600 words. You will be penalized for falling short or exceeding the word count. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself (including your classmate’s thread) must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian and will not count towards the total word count.