The most ethical argument among Lagman, Santiago, Villegas and Garcia is Garcia’s. Although she presented her stands on the issue using her personal view as a mother, she was able to convey her consequentialist stand. According to her, “right to reproductive health” does not just boil down to the contraceptives and other artificial family planning devices that the government would distribute when the RH Bill would be passed. Also, she mentioned using an anecdote about her friend that making contraceptive pills that can enhance a woman’s skin and such promotes a mentality of “coolness” in the youth.
This means that although the RH Bill does not promote to the youth the use of these pills, this exactly becomes the case. Another argument she presented was the meaning of “right to freedom of choice. ” Freedom is still subjective to the consequences or the effects of our actions, and, thus, should not be exploited. She cited the RH Bill’s goal of “protecting women’s rights.
” The rights promoted by the RH Bill are not the same rights that are more important for more women which could bring a more “fruitful love. ” The highlight of her arguments was the one about contraceptives and how they do more harm than help.
She also addresses the issue of sex education through saying that it is the duty of the parents to educate and guide their children about the matter. All in all, Garcia has presented her premises against the RH Bill through discussing the unethical consequences if the bill was ever to become a law.
Do you think people should just leave it to the hands of our policy leaders namely Lagman and Santiago the decision to approve and implement this bill Hobbes suggested that the citizens should not argue against their leaders?
Why or why not? (10 pts) As an essential part of a democratic country, Filipinos should have a say in the issue. The Reproductive Health Bill is a national concern. Each Filipino will be affected by its passage as law. The consequences do not just affect women, but their husbands and children as well. Thomas Hobbes is not right in saying that the people should not argue with their leaders. If they did not make themselves heard, how then could the country’s leaders know what they need? Justice will not be distributive as it should be.
In turn, if the Filipinos do not voice out their opinions about the RH Bill and just let the Congress pass this, the government would not know if their constituents could benefit from it or not. What could be the guarantee that all the bills passed by our Legislative Branch will be beneficial for most, if not all, Filipinos? This is a question that will be left hanging without the voices of each Filipino. Again, opinions do matter in a democratic country. That is what makes us what we are.
Given the four arguments stated above, what is your stand on this issue? Present your arguments in three (3) philosophical ground namely: 1. On Views of Human Nature (10 pts) Personally, I am against the RH Bill. First, based on the philosophical views of human nature, particularly the religious view, each one of us is made in image and likeness of God. The implementation of the RH Bill would then be violation against this. The God-given life endowed upon us may now be legally hindered through the use of condoms, contraceptive pills and IUDs.
Life would then be thought of as less sacred; it would not be a blessing to parents but just as a choice. Although this may sound pleasing to others, questions arise. What about those unexpected pregnancies? Are their lives less of a blessing than those expected ones? Also, our value as human beings would be drastically lessened. Since Filipinos now have contraceptives within their reach, they wouldn’t need to use much of their self-control. Sexual intercourse would just be an act, without commitment or “strings” attached.
Is that a kind of life we’d want for ourselves? 2. On Ethics (10 pts. ) Next philosophical ground is on ethics. Situation ethics, according to Joseph Fletcher, states that we should act in such a way that our action produces the most Christian love. This is a consequentialist’s standpoint, wherein the consequences of actions would positively affect other people according to the teachings of the Church. Christian love may mean two things, which are love for God and love for neighbor. Both of these would be lacking if the RH Bill is implemented.
Since our respect for life is absent, our respect for the One who gave it to us would be nonexistent too. Love for neighbor would seem to dissipate when we don’t need to love the person we are with. Sexual affairs without commitment greatly violate Christian love. 3. On Social Philosophy (10 pts. ) Lastly, on the philosophical grounds of equality, justice should be distributed equally to all. The implementation of the RH Bill then goes against this through the apparent unequal treatment of those expected and unexpected pregnancies.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment