Name: Piolo Julius G.

Cabagnot Offering Number: M728

Course and Year: BSME – 3 Class Schedule: MWF – 9:00-10:00

Ethics Final Term Paper

Module 1

Abortion is an intense subject of controversy and the laws related to it differs around the world.
In some countries, abortion is a legal option made available as part of their quality reproductive
health care service for women. However, in the Philippines abortion is considered totally
outlawed. The concern on the usage of the COVID-19 vaccine, which requires the use of cell
cultures from aborted fetuses to be manufactured, is a complex moral dilemma at a structural
level given that any decision to be made by the President of the Philippines will affect the people
in the country itself.

With the current situation, there are two viable options which are either to approve or disapprove
the use of the said vaccine. Either of the options has its own share of advantages and
undesirable consequences. Deciding on which option to choose is indeed difficult especially that
the pandemic that we have now is a race against time in the middle of death and devastation.

With the overwhelming number of people losing their lives and the continued increase in the
spread of the COVID-19 virus in the Philippines, we can say how the pandemic is indeed far
from over. We badly need the intervention of vaccines that would safely and effectively enable
our immune system to fight against the virus. Suppose the President chooses to approve the
use of the vaccine, more communities in the Philippines will be protected and the rate for severe
cases will be reduced. Roughly 75% of the country’s economy was shut down due to the onset
of lockdowns brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The approval of the vaccine will lead to the
continued reopening of the economy. It will relax the quarantine restrictions and therefore,
make way for the labor market, in general, to slowly go back to its pre-pandemic levels.
However, knowing that the Philippines is a conservative country with deep Catholic faith, such
an option will outrage those who are in strong opposition to abortion particularly the religious
leaders who have been in the frontline when it comes to expressing doctrinal disapproval on
abortion.

On the other hand, suppose the President chooses to disapprove of the use of the said vaccine
in the Philippines. In that case, the President honors consistency to our identity as a Christian
country and as well as to our established laws. As a country that does not legalize abortion,
using abortion-derived vaccines is a strong contradiction and violation of our rule against
murder. However, this disapproval could also mean a delay in the availability of vaccines. In this
global crisis, a tremendous amount of the population is eyeing a vaccine. With or without the
President’s disapproval, the possibility of not having the choice but to acquire readily available
vaccines would be inevitable especially that it is expected that the demand for vaccines will
vastly exceed supply in no time.

Whatever the President chooses, this dialogue alone shows the importance for us to come
together to openly discuss things that matter to us. Circumstances like this concern the welfare
of the public. Thus, it should not be taken lightly and a decision that meets all possible
considerations has to be made.

Module 2

Among the many attempts of the search for the true meaning of morality is the philosophical
paradigm called cultural relativism. This certain school of thought claims that culture is the
primary arbitrator for morality. Culture itself serves as an identity that makes a group of people
unique among others. In the approach of cultural relativism, the diverse nature of culture is
being taken into account in the development of a moral belief which asserts that no single moral
law applies to every situation at every time. In this section of the final paper, I will attempt to
address the dilemma from the perspective of the main decision-maker—the president of the
Philippines—in light of the situation I established in my module 1 assessment. I will present
hypothetical arguments based on culture as a source of morality.

In the given article being discussed, the main concern lies whether it is moral or ethical to use
fetal cells-derived COVID-19 vaccines. Analyzing the issue with the cultural relativism approach
would not give us a definite answer but rather would yield to a varied set of perspectives based
on the different existing cultural backgrounds. Abortion is an intense subject of controversy and
the laws related to it differs around the world. In some countries like China and Ireland, abortion
is a legal option made available as part of their quality reproductive health care service for
women. China being open in the promotion of abortion is vivid on its previous practice of one-
child policy used to solve a then-overpopulation problem. This might not be the same case in
other countries, as there are some which find abortion totally outlawed. These varying
perspectives illustrate the moral reality of cultural relativism that what is not immoral in one
country may be immoral to others and vice versa. Countries which liberalize abortion are most
likely to be the ones who would find acquiring the said vaccine to be moral or ethical especially
now that people are desperate of slowing or stopping the threats of the COVID-19 virus. On
contrary, those countries who have strong disapproval against the practice of abortion would
probably find it extra challenging to decide on this issue. This includes the Philippines which is a
conservative country.

Having culture as the primary basis for my decision as the president of the Philippines will make
me favor option 2 which is to disapprove the use of the said vaccine in the Philippines because I
honor the conservatism of my country. In the Philippine context, there is such a strong negative
stigma and stereotypes among those women who are associated with abortion. Women are
expected to preserve purity until marriage, and thus those who go against this norm, including
those who practice abortion, are considered immoral. Filipinos have such a deep Catholic faith
that our laws are said to be based on the morals of the Old Testament outlined in the
Commandments. We wire our moral judgments in the will of God in which abortion is among the
things that are considered a sin. Our religion is strongly embedded in our culture to the extent
that our perspectives towards morality are mainly influenced by such. We honor what the church
has to say and we are bound to follow them because it is through our religious leaders that our
relationship with the divine entities is being strengthened. As the president, I will take the lead in
strengthening our established cultures in the country and I believe that one way to do so is by
giving due respect towards the church’s infallibility. Thus, disapproving vaccines that costed the
lives of the aborted fetus is the best option to choose.

Having presented the speculative arguments above, it is vivid how basing on culture alone
cannot make a strong and sound ethical decision towards the presented issue relating to the
COVID-19 vaccines. For this reason, it is critical to familiarize oneself with the other ethical and
rational frameworks that will be presented in Module 3.

Module 3

Because arguing from the source of morality presented in Module 2 was insufficient, it is now
necessary to apply the various reason-based ethical paradigms presented in Module 3 to arrive
at a sounder solution to the dilemma. In this section of the paper, I will be employing natural law
ethics, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism.

Applying the natural law ethics, I will choose option 2 which is to disapprove the use of the fetal
cells-derived COVID-19 vaccines. Naturally, people are believed to get inclined with doing what
is good and avoid what is evil. It is a mentality that was developed as a person growing towards
highly intellectual adulthood. It was defined according to the Natural Law, that there are basic
characters in our nature as humans which are vaguely considered similar to animals. Among
these are to share with our same species, and to take care of our offspring. This alone justifies
the need to disapprove of the said vaccines as such defeats the human inclination towards
procreation. In the perspective of a natural law ethicist, it is unethical to utilize the aborted
fetuses for any COVID-19 vaccines- related laboratory experiments regardless of any reason
there is. Doing such will violate the natural law, thus would consider me immoral and worse than
an animal. As the president of the Philippines and an intellectual being, I am bound to choose
the best action out of every situation and that is to give the pursuit of preserving the life of the
aborted fetus of paramount importance.

Considering that the approach of virtue ethics is applied, arriving at the middle ground of the
dilemma is quite challenging. But as a president, I will most likely favor option 2 (disapprove the
usage of the mentioned COVID-19 vaccines). It was stated in module 3 that the development of
virtue is essential in guiding a human being to arrive at happiness or eudaemonia. In the
presented dilemma, the desired end is to basically provide the much-anticipated COVID-19
vaccine that would put an end to this global pandemic at the cost of the aborted fetuses. If I
were to approve such, that can be implied that I disregard the right of these fetuses to live which
is the reverse of virtue, failing the first step to achieve happiness. My decision to favor option 2
does not mean that I do not wish for this pandemic to end, but rather simply means to seek
another option to manufacture a vaccine without involving an aborted fetus. For this to happen,
my virtue of courage to speak up as a president is important to bring people together to discuss
and pursue better solutions that do not make a motive of obtaining happiness out of the
suppressed rights and freedom of the unborn fetuses.

The principle of utilitarianism will demand me as a president of the Philippines to choose option
1 or the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines derived from fetal cell lines. The notion of utility, or
producing more pleasures than pain, is the central idea of utilitarian ethics. This is shown in the
points provided in Module 1 which state that the advantages for the Filipino people from the
usage of such vaccine far outweigh its undesirable consequences. Not utilizing these vaccines
will put everything in delay which will risk more Filipino lives. It can also give rise to the
pandemic debt of the Philippines in the long run. In this dilemma, the utilitarian is more
concerned with the society as a whole from which happiness is achieved or lost rather than the
interests of the fetus unborn. With this, it can be inferred that even if the COVID-19 vaccines
involved aborted fetuses, they are still ethical because they bring the greatest amount of
pleasure and common good to a large number of people.

Conclusion

In my own understanding, the approach of utilitarianism provides the best perspective essential
in achieving a solution on the COVID-19 vaccine issue out of the three ethical paradigms
discussed in Module 3. Considering that the presented dilemma involves a great number of
populations, the point-of-view of utilitarian ethics is the most practical to apply as it seeks to
serve the greater good. However, this does not discredit the value of other ethical paradigms. It
is also important to study the other rational ethical frameworks, such as the Natural Law and
Virtue Ethics, to examine the situation from different perspectives, be able to weigh all possible
consequences, and eventually come up with the best solution. With all this being said, it can be
inferred how much reason plays a great role in critically assessing our decisions in life. We must
take enough time for self-evaluation to justify and reflect on our values and decisions especially
in situations that involve many parties other than our own personal interests. I believe that only
then we can have a meaningful life.