Pol3207 Quiz

POL3207 Quiz
Student Name: Yu Wing Ki__

Student Number: 56233841
Chosen Question. Number 1 3 and 4
1. Evaluate the argument that adult children have no moral obligation to take care
of their elderly parents because they have not agreed to be born into the world.
Give examples to illustrate your evaluation and provide arguments to defend your
view.
In this era, many children treat their parents as friends and not take care of their elder
parents since they are not asked to be born. However, this argument is against the
confusion thoughts which advocate the indispensable and close relationship between
parents and children.
This view is supported by Jane English since in the view of contemporary liberal, it is
an individual responsibility for taking care of oneself. The child parent relationship is
friend relationship in nature which involved voluntary benefit without binding with
any moral obligation. The child-parents relationship is a contract relationship since
they are reciprocate to each others. The parents sacrifices themself voluntarily to born
and raise a child and do nothing with the willingness of child. They promise to raise a
child and take care of them, resulting in their obligation. Friendship is also without
any obligation in a common situation. Therefore the argument still have supportive
view in certain perspective.
However, according to confusion ideas, since their relationship is not contractor

relationship, they are morally obligated to take up the responsibility of taking care of
their parents. Since parent-child relation is not a contractor relationship, meaning that
not all the stakeholders are voluntarily accepted before engaged in this relationship.
They are bind by some moral value including Heavenly dao or earthly righteousness.
Their relationship is more than normal friends and contractor relationship since it
contains special good accounts which is the interaction between adult children and
parents resulting the special goods. The parents will be safeguard of the interests of
their children which is an assurance. Their moral obligation attach to their names and
roles which may provide reciprocity between each other i.e. the fairness.
Since they have asymmetry power which older generation is higher than younger
generation, the willingness and desire of the elder parents have to be taken into
consideration since they normally want their children to assist them back when they
are incapable of their living in older stage of life. They are obligated to treat them in a
proper way which comply with the rites in serving them. They are therefore obligated
to look after the individuals and assist family to take care of the elder parents.
In Chinese culture, many parents will expect their children to take care of them back
when they get older. One vivid illustration can be a belief namely “raising a child is
an insurance for old age” (養兒防老) They even have the thoughts before they born a
child. They expect their children will take care of them in their remaining life
regardless their choice of choosing to be born of not. Also the birth giving to the
children is a gift and beneficial for them to live. Therefore, it is common for a parent
to born a child for the purpose that they can rely on their children to have a decent
living when they get older and with little financial capability to take care of themself.
Therefore, from the view of confusion and the ideas which prolonged implanted in the
mindset of Chinese, this argument cling to be morally not accepted.
3. Can the individualist ethical requirement of “do no harm” (to any individual)
morally prevent intentionally reproducing disabled human individuals through
the application of reproductive technology? Provide ethical reasons or arguments to
defend your answer.
It is controversial to argue that whether it is morally accepted to prevent intentionally

reproduction of disabled human individuals. From the view of individualist, it is not
universally accepted in any circumstances through the use of reproductive
technology.
It is understandable the secular individualist supports the idea since they believe that
the moral status of early embryos is not same as the moral status of an already
developed and born human beings. It is more important to balance the life of early
disabled embryo and the future possible therapeutic goods since it may cost many
community resources to sustain the living of a disabled individuals which is not
beneficial for the establishment of the society in long term. Although secular
individualist advocate that it is morally accepted to prevent intentionally reproducing
disabled human individuals, it is not reasonable from the view of individual ethical
view and Christian individualist view.
According to the moral principles, it is generally should not be accepted from the
individualist ethical view. Firstly, the moral individualism claims that only individuals
ultimately count and they count equally, meaning that all the individuals no matter
they are disabled or not, they are morally counted as one and equal with every
individual, therefore, their reproduction should not be prevented regardless their
physical conditions. Also, for individual liberty, all the individuals should have
freedom to order one’s own life and society should not interfere it without any
compelling reason, meaning that all the individuals can have its free will to choose its
life and should not be manipulated by others even they are disabled.
Furthermore, from the view of the Christian individualist also agree that the disabled,
even it is an embryo is also valuable and created by God. This is argued they it is
morally wrong since a living embryo is a full member of human species which is
intact and valued by God even it has any disabled. They should not be prevented to be
born since they think destroying the embryo only because they are disabled is same as
killing a child and terminating a life. The parents of the embryo with disabled trait
have no right to give such consent to take the life of the human individuals. They hold
a belief that the moral status of early embryos is the same as the moral status of an
already developed and born human beings in which their life protection is concerned.
Therefore, even some secular individualists agree that it is morally accepted to the
prevention of reproduction of disabled human individuals, it is not accepted when it
comes to Christian view and the individualist ethical perspective.
4. Evaluate the claim that reproductive human cloning is ethically permissible since
a human clone still has two genetic parents. Provide reasons or arguments to support
your view.
Although the liberal view argue that it is permissible even a human clone still has two
genetic parents since it is still a genetic child, it is not permissible for reproductive
human cloning under the view of the confusion.
From the view of liberal perspective, the clone is not the genetic child of the doner
only, but the clone is the twin brother or sister of doner, meaning that the clone is
genetically the child of the nucleus of the parents of the doners and the clone still have
two genetic parents. However, this view of point may against by the confusion
perspective.
From the Confucian view, it is hard to accept reproductive human cloning ethically
and morally since people can determine the human identity of the clone. Confucian
emphasizes on the rationalism since it is indispensable for individuals to expand their
relations with others. An individual essence or personal identity is hard to defined in
absence of the reference to his/her essential relationship with other human beings.
Familism is explicitly important since every human and individuals human essence of
identity has to be characterized by reference to their familial role and relations. They
are born to be in a certain place of a family and accept the socialization and shape of
consciousness in their family. Human relation is of the utmost important since it is
progressive from heaven and earth for existence, from male and female to husband
and wife, then extend to parent and child. Their family position is progressive shaped
and existed.
Beyond the understanding of confusion regarding genealogy of natural work of

human relationship, it also relates to the ideas of normal human relational existence
and moral norms guiding human person relations, actions and institutions.
Although the clone will have two parents and the parents-child relation is essential in
identifying a human person, it is not a natural order of different generations for
identifying human person. The doner and the clone are two individuals and cannot be
identified as same person in the same familial network. The clone has only one social
parent and their real parents does never exist. Even they may be considered have two
genetic parents , their relationship is not taken as normal parent child relation.
Therefore, despite the fact that the clone might be considered to have two genetics
parents, reproductive human cloning is still not permissible under the view of
confusion. Since it is not possible for the clone to form normal familial relations, it is
rightly to be forbidden.

Pol3207 Quiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pol3207 Quiz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pol3207 Quiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POL3207 Quiz

Student Name: Yu Wing Ki__

Chosen Question. Number 1 3 and 4

However, according to confusion ideas, since their relationship is not contractor

It is controversial to argue that whether it is morally accepted to prevent intentionally

Beyond the understanding of confusion regarding genealogy of natural work of

You might also like