Barbara Mackinnon's View On Ethics And Ethics

By definition, ethics is what is and isn’t morally acceptable, and religion is a designed set of standards used to “worship” higher powers (“Ethics;” “Religion”). For centuries, people have argued about what it takes to be considered morally just and if it is related to religious beliefs or if it is a skill that all humans have adapted. After deep analysis of several different sources and examples were religions have tested the boundaries of morally acceptable behavior, it is clear that one doesn’t have to practice a religion to make ethical decisions.

Barbara Mackinnon wrote the book titled, “Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues.” This book is described to help readers comprehend how ethics plays a big role in everyday life as well as in

Rather than relying on holy books or religious revelations, philosophical ethics uses reason and experience to determine what is good and bad, right and wrong, better and worse. In fact, even those people for whom morality is religiously based may want to examine some of these views using reason. (Mackinnon 3).

In this segment, Mackinnon is basically saying that philosophers agree that religious beliefs can be similar to morally just practices, but they don’t always coincide. Actually, Mackinnon is basically saying be wary of falling into a religion blind because doing so without proper reasoning and deep thought could lead to someone participating unethical acts (Mackinnon

For instance, Carlo Petrini, a writer for the National Center for Biotechnology Information, wrote the article called “Ethical and legal aspects of refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses, with particular reference to Italy.” In his Article, Petrini discusses that Jehovah’s Witness refuses these life-saving treatments because of scriptures in their bible; Petrini writes, “The Society leaders based their conclusions on parts of the Scripture” (Petrini). Some might automatically concur that it’s the Jehovah’s Witness’s choice to refuse a blood transfusion, however, when the patient is a baby or a minor instead of a consenting adult the line of whether or not it’s ethical for the parent to refuse this treatment for their children gets blurry. Petrini also says in his article, “The problems associated with the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses are emblematic of the conflict that can arise between divergent moral values of equal merit” (Petrini). In other words, Petrini is saying that the moral views of the Jehovah 's witnesses of blood transfusion symbolizes moral issues divided by religions