What was and what was not natural or in keeping with our natural inclinations in this case of Maureen and Steven Kass and what difference does that make in terms of the moral questions at issue here?

[1] Maureen Kass and Steven Kass were arguing over whether to destroy or save the fertilized frozen eggs for future use. From a natural law perspective, the desire to produce and care for a child is a natural inclination, and thus Maureen’s desire to save the fertilized eggs is in keeping with this natural inclination. The contract between the two parties, however, stipulates that the fertilized eggs must be destroyed.

The difference in moral issues is how you view the situation of fertilized eggs. It would be wrong to destroy fertilized eggs if one believed that they have the same status morally as an individual. If you believe that fertilized eggs have not reached the status of persons yet and are only property, it is permissible to destroy them.

Maureen’s desire to preserve the fertilized egg aligns perfectly with her natural instinct to have a child and to care for it. In terms of their status, the fertilized frozen eggs are considered to be the potential property of no one since they have been deemed as human beings.

The implantation of an egg fertilized in the womb changes its status to that of a real human with moral standing, so it cannot be considered as property.

[2] The natural law ethic is founded on the notion that going against nature, and human instincts and natural processes is wrong. Staying alive, caring for and producing a child (and learning truth), living in harmony with others, and learning and understanding the truth are four of our most fundamental natural human inclinations.

John Locke’s natural law ethics influenced the claims and wording of the U.S.’s Declaration of Independence, particularly the idea that individuals have certain natural rights such as the right to life, liberty, and property.

They agreed with my question about how they felt on the subject of natural law. According to them, natural law ethics is a reflection of their convictions that certain actions are right or bad by nature. The person I spoke to agreed that natural law ethics align with their beliefs about what they believe are inherently right or wrong based on natural order or natural laws.

[3] The Heinz Dilemma asked two people how they would solve the problem where Heinz steals the drug in order to help his dying wife. Heinz was told to steal the medication because it’s his husbandly duty to do all he can to save her. She suggested Heinz not steal the drugs because stealing was morally wrong and that he should instead look for help elsewhere.

Gilligan’s ethics of care as a feminist moral theory emphasizes the importance of relationships and care in moral decision-making, particularly in contrast to the traditionally male-focused approach of justice. Individualism, independence and rationality are traits generally associated to a male perspective, whereas empathy, compassion and caring for other people is associated to a woman’s perspective.

I think Gilligan’s ethics of care provides a valuable perspective in moral decision-making, particularly in recognizing the importance of relationships and care in ethical dilemmas. This approach should not replace the more traditional, male-focused view of justice but be seen rather as complementary to it.