This paper will examine two of The Three Primary Schools of Ethics. The consequentialist and care-based theories are used to solve the dilemma. The dilemma: A married couple, both addicted to drugs, are unable to care for their infant daughter. She is taken from them by court order and placed in a foster home. The years pass. She comes to regard her foster parents as her real parents. They love her as they would their own daughter. When the child is 9 years old, the natural parents, rehabilitated from drugs, begin court action to regain custody. The case is decided in their favor. The child is returned to them, against her will.
In this case the courts used the rule-based theory of The Three Primary Schools of Ethics to solve the problem. However, I would have chosen the care-based and consequentialist theories. The care-based theory is about putting yourself in someone’s shoes. In this case this is what all adults need to do in order to understand all parties’ perspectives. The adult parties need to compromise. If that’s not possible, putting the love of the child first and allow the child to make the decision. In this method, the child might want to be with the foster parents and potentially have a relationship with the biological parents. All adults should put themselves in the child’s shoes and make a decision. If you were the child how would you feel and what do you think is best for me?
The consequentialist theory is about assessing the consequences and determining which decision will result with the greatest benefit. In this case the consequences of sending the child back with the biological parents must be weighed. Some factors that must be taken into account include: possible relapsing or potential abuse toward the child. Another factor that must be considered is how the child may react if the situation is not handled properly. For example, the child may become rebellious towards the biological parents. All options must be viewed and the one that...