Ethics

The fight for rights is intense world over and across board. Women want to be given equally opportunities as men, the lesbians want to be acknowledged and some catholic fathers want their marriage allowed. The physically challenged are incessantly fighting for their rights. Heard of the mentally challenged fronting for their rights No. Dont they have rights Are they not prone to any problems that need to be addressed Yes, they do. Why are they not fronting for these rights Within this prelude is underpinned my discourse. A discourse of a vulnerable group, yet so defenseless. This paper endears to address the blight of the mentally handicapped as it analyses their infringement into other people rights.

Indeed, whatever action taken could be aimed at cushioning the general public against the evils of this marginalized group. However, I strongly feel that given their marginalized state, then they should be accorded maximum priority in addressing their blight. Occasionally, the mentally challenged groups will brutally abuse the principle of human sanctity, but do they do it knowingly Such acts are well out of order, but this does not ultimately pave way for blanket condemnation of the whole bunch (Harrison, R. p 156). Whatever perspective of approach taken, the mentally handicapped have sufficient refuge.

In business both the buyer and the seller expect to maximize their utility out of the entire deal. The buyer has to get maximum satisfaction and the seller maximum profit. If this analogy is anything to go by, then whatever act taken should offer utility to both parties. In essence whatever treatment they are accorded should give them ultimate satisfaction. Within the strength of this argument utilitarian approach of philosophical thought offers a basis for handling their issues. In this case, both the perpetrator and the mentally challenged should derive maximum pleasure from the act. Notice that basically the believe in this context is that mental illness may sometime deprive the person the capability of making rational decisions, in which case may not be able to negate responsibility.
   
Further still, I concur with Kants argument that it is morally wrong to lie irrespective of the circumstance. In the same breath, I agree with the argument that if indeed humans were asked to make laws, they will write laws that can only favor them, but the mentally handicapped have now stable conscience to make law ( HYPERLINK httpwww.suite101.comprofile.cfmefta777 Isaac M. McPhee, p 3). This means only those that are capable of making such decision were taken care of in the theory. Within the mandate of this preposition, I feel Kant was lopsided in argument that such vulnerable groups were left to make decision on their own if ever they were.

Ethical egotism on the contrary, offers the least in so far as the mentally challenged are concerned. Perhaps this is resultant from the connotative part of the ego. Then from this point, the mentally challenged have the least reward just as they have the least ego to defend. Ultimately the mentally handicapped have some welfare needs which only a second party can identify fight for them. Definitely, arguing from the mentally challenged persons view, the Darwinian theory of survival is disowned. The mentally challenged are not fit The implication here is that survival of the mentally challenged is strictly left to chance.

The natural law would offer the best, given how automatic the human nature can deduce evil. Religiously, treatment of such marginalized groups promises much for the believer. The church gives the group exceptional treatment given their exceptional reaction to issues. Ultimately, we have to respect the sanctity of human rights, allowing the definition of human remain as universal as ever. This paper dissects the ethics and morality of human behavior subjective to human condition with particular emphasis to the mentally challenged.

Treatment of mental handicaps
Incessantly decision making is becoming increasingly controversial, but vividly it is the eccentricism of human nature that is putting humankind at such crossroads. If the general human populations reverts to the natural law the reducing gap of effective decision making on ethical issues will be considerably be checked. Definitely from Sophocles assertion the natural law is eternal, it could save the strength delving much into ethical and moral solutions. The morality of decision making is further supported by Marcus where he argues that the high reason is basically implanted in the law of nature. Marcus postulates further that these laws are inherent in human forever and are inseparable from man.

Crowning the objectivity of natural law St. t. Aquinas throws his weight behind the law arguing that natural is God given and will always give directions on expectations. Aquinas believed strongly that the laws were firmly implanted in human hearts. Apparently, this is why even those who will want to do evil do it while hidden. But then, the mentally challenged undertake their actions so openly and so innocently (Morris, 1959, p. 44). This natural law translates to human law. This is a pointer that the law that there actually exists is derived from the natural law. With this in mind, it obviously becomes immoral to go against the will of humanity mentally handicapped (Howard P. K., p 116).

If faced with a case involving the mentally handicapped the jury will definitely look at the extent of control the assailant had on the crime. Definitely the jury is being dictated by the natural law. Natural law will have the least to do with satisfactions of an individuals desire. It takes into account the rights of the mentally challenged vis--vis the community. The idea of natural law is hereby evidenced even in real practice in human law, other factors notwithstanding. As if in the shear support of the universality of natural law even the American law is purely based on the natural law, this offers the least room for protracted prepositions of the effectiveness of natural law.    

Natural law traverses any bounds in its balancing of evil against good. Natural law is independent from both time and culture. It is unfortunate that some philosophical thought term it as absolutist, but the theory enviably addresses issues that are quite salient in making of ethical decisions. Natural laws considers the importance of circumstance in decision making and takes the other factors as mere supportive elements of the entire process. Within this pretext, it is arguable that in meting decisions on the mentally challenged their circumstance overrides the other accompanying factors.

Generally the consequent of any act tends to dictate its decision trend. The utilitarian have always used this as a yardstick for the best option decision making. The utilitarian believe that human actions should bring out the best likely result from a decision process. While the philosophers here look at the issues from two perspectives the egoist perspective and the utilitarianism perspective, both address the satisfaction derived from the act. The exception is the major beneficiary of the act. Egoism believes in oneself. It postulates that the person carrying out the act should derive maximum satisfaction from the act. In the case in question apparently, the egoism does not work as the act is done without intention. On the contrary the utilitarian believes both the actor and the recipient should derive equal satisfaction from the act.

The issue of satisfaction may turn out to be relative. Relativity may not however apply to the mentally challenged. Conversely if their satisfaction can be assigned some measure, then the measure could not be well defined. The ideal postulated by the utilitarian that happiness is san indicator of satisfaction is arguably baseless given the case of a mentally challenged person. There are cases where even after performing s bizarre act, the mentally challenged exhibits a high sense of happiness. This is indicative that satisfaction should not be restricted to happiness. Evidently the utilitarian make a deliberate attempt to move away from the self as a basis for determining the ethics of a decision. Critically however, Christian perspectives will tend to term this unethical. The Christian tend to move closer to the natural law. The Christians however, appreciate that the utilitarian attempt to move away from the ego self. If this aspect is looked at in the light of the mentally handicapped, the utility they derive may not be valued or they may not derive any at all. However the ultimate scorecard given by the Christians to the utilitarian is a fail. The scorecard is based on the fact that this may only perpetuate the blight of the minority and leverage the majority.

The Christians site a case of a mentally challenged child being used for an experiment. Indeed the experiment would satisfy thousands of people, very high utility. However, the child does not derive any utility from the experiment. Probably the utilitarian calculus would be used to justify this act. Ultimately the principle of utilitarianism is based on satisfaction rather than morality. A decision is at its best if it is subjected to all dimensions and gives the highest ranking in terms of ethics and morality. If the shortfall is captured in any of the dimensions, it follows that utility is not at its maximum.
   
The utilitarian parameters used may so much look appealing, however, it does not only look repugnant in a Christians eye but in the eyes of an atheist. A Christian holds that every person has some worth and value. Christians strongly feel the preservation of the public order should not be used as reason to treat persons unjustly neither should it be a reason for sacrificing their very fundamental right (John Stuart Mill p 2 ). Within the mandate of this argument I have strong conviction that utilitarian approach ought to be disowned within ethical systems, particularly Christian systems.

Kant believed that there are sometimes obvious cases that dont need discourse to make a decision. He did classify statements into two a priori analytic, posteriori synthetic. Kant asserted that moral statements are only known through reason. Further, Kant believed the highest moral thing was for one to perform the responsibility. Unfortunately the mentally challenged may not be able to identify their responsibility. Within the precincts of Kants argument, Kant believes that there were some codes that were to be followed in decision making. The theory asserts that there are prerequisite to a high level in decision making.

Kant identified three classes of the categorical imperative theories. Firstly he believed that there should be a general law which should apply to every one. However he believed exceptions can be the drawn from this general case. This, Kant called the universal law. This assertion takes care of the marginalized such as the mentally challenged. Kant further believed in the treatment of people as ends in themselves and not means to an end. Kant postulated this with an aim of bridging equality in the human race.

Thirdly, Kant believed that any rational being ought to deduce the difference between evil and moral. In his theory he asserts that all humans should be able make similar conclusions provided they were rational enough. He asserts that humans should be given a chance to make rational decisions. However the theory prohibits immoral acts such as theft and sexual abuse. Kant admonished the utilitarian on the issue of deriving maximum satisfaction from an act at the expense of the minority or the marginalized. Kant gave meaning to duty and inclination which consequently showed the extent of individual responsibility over others. On inclination Kant asserts that the inclination should not be used in any decision making process.

While this theory offers the best decision making bases. I have indisputable conviction that the theory, much as it looks defensive of the marginalized, if doesnt offer them any sure refuge. The mentally challenged who are not capable of making any meaningful distinctions are left to both chance and the selves to make the decisions. This is unfortunate particularly given the state of the mentally challenged.

The theories offer elaborate generalization that may not assist much in the welfare of the marginalized groups. While natural law may offer a relative tangible basis for addressing the marginalized, it still leaves humanity with vast approaches to the entire issue. The natural law assumes that every humankind is capable of making decisions that will remain above board. Well, a large proportion of human kind will attempt to make such decisions (Herbert J. P, p 21).

The mentally handicapped may just require to be medicated. This decision may not be accepted by the patient. But the theories leave the determination of moral good to the individual involved. Where the person involved takes it the individual should not be given medication when asked leaves the person in charge to determine morality and pick the course of action. I feel rightly so that the theories good as they appear, were lopsided and only gave links to solutions and never offered solutions.

The need to institutionalize the mentally challenged is on the increase. While the utilitarian postulated that the individual can be separated for the good of the community but I strongly feel this should not be the motive behind this decision. I feel convinced beyond treasonable doubt that the satisfaction of the mentally challenged ought to have been considered. In this matter I concur in both principle and fact to critique the utilitarian approach to decision making. Ultimately both parties should derive satisfaction from the act. Within this context I feel the utilitarian present a case of self contradiction. Moving the mentally challenged to an institution may just be separating the mentally challenged from their families and equally subjecting them to conditions out of their likely choice.

There are cases where the mentally challenged person may cause injuries to an individual. In such cases the circumstance Watson Douglas, argues that here the issue of control over the issue takes center stage rather than the morality of the act (Watson Douglas, p 9). Douglas believed that if cases are done under such circumstances consideration should be given first ht extent of control of the perpetrator to have avoided the act. Further he does assert that we should make distinction between influence and control in making such judgment.

It is important to draw a distinction between..control on the one hand and what I propose some what arbitrarily to term influence upon the other. Essential in the idea of controls a condition of definiteness the controller(s) and definitely make something happen or definitely preclude its happening. But there are also the prospects of what by way of contrast with control-we shall call influence vis--vis., the capacity to make something happening more likely or less likely
Cited from Watson Douglass 9      

Within this argument Watson asserts that definiteness of control negates responsibility. He argues that the idea of the agent lacking control does not therefore surface. Further he feels where an agent lacks control, it does follow that he has no responsibility for the action. Here, Douglas feels the only additional prerequisite is for the psychiatrist to show the individuals extent of influence on undertaking the decision. Apparently, Kants postulation of distinction between influence and control is captured here by Douglas. Ultimately the mentally challenged has the least control over his action except where the mentally challenged (Watson Douglas, p 4).

If the mentally handicapped have no control over their acts then talking about whether or not they should receive a less or bigger sentence should not arise. The comparison should not arise because their acts can not be rationalized against a mentally robust person. In as much as the length of their imprisonment of charge is concerned, this issue should not arise provided they are confirmed to be having mental problems. Similarly capital punishment is out of consideration if indeed the person is proved insane (Leadership ethics). Basically, if the utilitarian approach is any thing to go by, the mentally challenged can be treated and rehabilitated this will offer both the community and the person maximum satisfaction.

Conclusion
Mentally handicapped people are generally overlooked in terms of decision making and policy formulation. But then there existence in society is here to stay. The theories postulated offer sufficient solution and sure links to decision making. However it is and will remain unfortunate if research is not done into dealing with the blight of the mentally challenged. The theories available offer solution strictly to the privileged in their course of making choices and decisions.

Within the tenets of humanity, I feel the theories have the least there are offering for the mentally challenged. If the is any offer for them then it is so negated to address any of their many blights. However, if the utilitarian approach is reviewed and the natural law looked at with least pessimism towards the mentally handicapped, a solution would just be identified just maybe the lack of peace of mind may be aggravating the state. It may change suddenly.