Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Although there are many commonalities between normative ethics and applied ethics, the latter focuses on more specific dilemmas that are already present in real-world circumstances. In contrast, the former focuses on the rationale behind making a decision and uses comparable theories in terms of its rationalization. Specifically, applied ethics examines the moral choices faced in everyday situations, such as attitudes toward consuming livestock, abortion, and theft. Theories that lay out broad principles for right and wrong conduct, such as Utilitarianism, are the primary emphasis of normative ethics.
Rawls’s original position is an agreement scenario in which neither party has access to knowledge that would allow them to craft principles of justice more amenable to their particular interests (Rawls & Kelly, 2001). For example, neither party can learn about the other’s societal position or specific complete ideology in the original position. Within the typical range, they are unaware of a person’s racial or cultural background, sexual orientation, or innate abilities like strength or intellect (Rawls & Kelly, 2001). However, the “veil of ignorance” is a moral thinking device that prevents biased judgment calls by shielding decision-makers from knowledge about who will profit most and least from the choices on the table (Rawls & Kelly, 2001). Naturally, the veil of ignorance implies that the parties in the original position do not have access to specific knowledge, but those establishing justice as fairness do.
It is essential to ensure that moral judgments do not attribute a person’s misconduct to moral luck. To give someone credit or blame for their actions, one must first assume they had some degree of agency over them. The reason for this is that it is not fair to judge someone ethically for something that was not their negligence or was caused by circumstances beyond their authority. Do you concur that there would be no such concept as moral accountability for one’s deeds if moral luck is not taken into account?
Nurses would be neutral, creating a new society with their own justice under the veil of ignorance. Thus, access to quality care would be fair irrespective of race, gender, income, schooling, image, or sexual identity. The original position would inform a sustainable distribution of transparency and autonomy for nurses, where patients decide how much diagnostic knowledge they want; nurses utilize clinical judgment to share it in the most considerate way.
Reference
Rawls, J., & Kelly, E., I. (2001). Justice as fairness: A Restatement (2nd ed.). Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.