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] In the case of Maureen Kass vs. Steven Kass, the main question was whether the frozen fertilized eggs should be destroyed or saved for future implantation. 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. On the other hand, the contract signed by both parties stipulated that the eggs should be destroyed.

In terms of the moral questions at issue, the difference lies in how one views the status of the fertilized eggs. If one believes that the fertilized eggs have the same moral status as a person, then destroying them would be morally wrong. If one believes that the fertilized eggs are not yet persons and are merely property, then destroying them would be permissible.

Based on natural law or natural inclinations, Maureen should have won this case since her desire to save the fertilized eggs aligns with the natural inclination to produce and care for a child. As for the status of the frozen fertilized eggs, they are not considered the property of anyone since they are seen as potential human beings.

Implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb would change its status from a mere potential human being to an actual human being with moral status, and therefore cannot be treated as mere property.

[2] Natural law ethics is based on the idea that nature and natural processes of life are good while going against nature and natural human inclinations is bad. The four central natural inclinations of human beings are staying alive, producing and caring for a child, learning the truth, and living amicably with others.

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.

When asked about their feelings on natural law ethics, the person I spoke to agreed that natural law ethics align with their beliefs that some things are inherently right or wrong based on natural law or natural order. They also agreed with the criticism that what IS should not be confused with what OUGHT TO BE, as what is natural or in keeping with natural inclinations may not always be morally right or wrong.

[3] In the Heinz Dilemma, two different people were asked how they would resolve the dilemma where a man, Heinz, steals a drug to save his dying wife. The male respondent suggested that Heinz should steal the drug since it is his duty as a husband to do everything in his power to save his wife. The female respondent suggested that Heinz should not steal the drug since stealing is morally wrong, and instead seek help from other sources.

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. Traits generally associated with a male ethical perspective include individualism, independence, and rationality, while traits associated with a female ethical perspective include empathy, compassion, and caring for others.

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. However, it should not be seen as a replacement for the traditional male-focused approach of justice, but rather as a complement to it.