Activity Sheet

GEC18: ETHICS

Group case analysis

1. Using John Rawls’ Theory of justice as a moral framework, evaluate and give a
plausible position regarding the issue on establishing a separate public toilets for the
member of the LGBT Community.

2. Using Immanuel Kant’s Deontology as a moral framework, evaluate the given

moral issue below and provide the best and plausible moral decision.

Heinz’s wife was near death, and her only hope was a drug that had been
discovered by a pharmacist who was selling it for an exorbitant price. The drug cost $200
to make and the pharmacist was selling it for $2000. Heinz could raise only $1000. He
offered this to the druggist, and when his offer was rejected, Heinz said he would pay the
rest later. Still the druggist refused. In desperation, Heinz considered stealing the drug.
Would it be wrong for him to do that?

JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE

-----

People around the world face violence and inequality because of who they love, how
they look, and who they are. Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of
ourselves and should never lead to discrimination or abuse.

Being gay in the Philippines is no issue at all, in fact we value the LGBT community
members as they are one of the assets our country has to offer, they have lots of talents and
are known to the industry, we treat them as same as how we treat straight people, although
there are some instances that some of our LGBT community members are abused and
discriminated sometimes by those traditionally inclined cultures of our country, but in the
macro scale and the generation progress we love the LGBT community members and
respect them.

The issue of the gay people wanting to have their own kind of toilets are a bit
exaggerated for me, the part where gay people still has to use their designated comfort
rooms is still has to be respected; referring to the LGBT members that are male, they still
have to use CR’s designated for them because of the simple fact that people with bad
intentions can take it as an advantage to the female society, a man can easily cross-dress
and pretend gay as he go inside the females comfort room and harass women, other than
that, even gay people are disgusted of how male CR’s environment, they can still use the
comfort room designated for PWD’s. I have no grudge over gay people, I have friends that
are gay and I really find them great and wonderful, I respect them and they respect me, but
due to what happened we can’t overrule the fact of what is must for everyone.

However using John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, distributive justice must consider
what is socially just in everyone in context. The theory of Justice would simply agree to
what the LGBTQ community is trying to propose. It would justify equality between and
conform the LGBTQ community’s justice they want, noting that only LGBT community
toilets are just for the LGBT and for the male and female is excluded and vice versa.

If the LGBTQ thinks that having their own toilet gives them the relief or pleasure
that they need then somehow it shows justice between social parties, knowing that other
genders want to conform of what the LGBT community wants.

It has been argued upon that the theory of justice is making decisions based on
moral considerations and without use of talents, abilities, tastes, social class and positions.
As Rawls put it, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor
does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities. This just says
that if the LGBT community wants to have their own toilet and why won’t we give it to
them. The government has a lot of funds they cater in their pockets and if it would suffice
the fairness for our society it should be done.

End

IMMANUEL KANT’S DEONTOLOGY

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong,
deontology is often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical
actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t heat.”
 Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do
their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t
ethical.

According to deontology, we should never inflict wrong onto anyone, or thing

because no matter the circumstances, it will always be wrong. No matter what wrong you
do, no matter the circumstances, whatever you do that inflicts damage to others or
anything, it is immoral and you should feel deprived about the situation.

People, who practice deontological ethics, think that morality is a matter of duty.
People have moral responsibilities that are right, and don’t do things that are immoral.
Whether something is correct or incorrect doesn’t depend on its penalties or magnitude.
Rather, a deed is right or wrong to itself. The only thing that should rive the human beings
is to do the right thing.

In Heinz’s situation, there are certain things to consider, because in terms of duty
Heinz need to maintain the life of her wife both as a husband and as a human, and stealing
that drug will be considered moral, however the main rule of Deontology which is to cause
harm is immoral) is overruled because as Heinz steal the drug to save her wife he also
would cause the pharmacist harm. Regarding how kind of an asshole the pharmacist was
by selling the drug very expensive.

But what Heinz proposed that he would pay the remaining thousand for the rest of
his life is the best option to solve the situation it’s too bad that the druggist denied his offer.
Deontological law suggests that doing things that can harm anyone in the cause of that
action is immoral so Heinz should never ever steal that drug.

This shows that Deontological rules only is good for our practice as humans, we
have to seek or always do good things for everyone.

But if it were up to me, I would want Heinz to steal the drug, I will consider it
immoral because in the first place, the druggist made the drug very expensive, that for me
is very wrong and should be countered, and Heinz stealing that drug is the kind of justice
the druggist deserves.