PHI FPX 3200 assessment 1

Assessment Overview

What’s Included:

A Complete FPX Sample Assessment available for Free Download
Step-by-step Instructions to write FPX Assessments
References for related Assessments
Best professors to choose from for specific class
(FAQs) related to Assessment.

Sample Assessment Paper

Ethical Theory Matrix

Theory	Decision Criteria	Your Own Example	Strengths	Weaknesses
Utilitarianism	Utilitarianism in healthcare is a policy whereby action is evaluated depending on the overall effect on the welfare and happiness of the people. The choice rule for utilitarianism is maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number (Sola, 2023).	In a scenario where the resources, for example, organs for transplanting are scarce, Decision-makers guided by the principles of utilitarianism seek to ration the available resources in such a way that maximizes the total welfare of the population.	Utilitarianism will therefore favor actions that best contribute to public health and thus guide decisions towards the overall well-being of society. It encourages resource efficiency and maximizes benefits and outcomes for the population (Savulescu et al., 2020).	Utilitarianism may forget the rights and autonomy of individuals, especially if the majority’s advantage requires sacrifices from certain people. Utilitarian calculations rely on predictions of outcomes; hence, uncertainties may emerge, which may lead to problems in getting an accurate assessment of total happiness (Liu, 2023).
Kantian Ethics	Kantian Ethics, put into philosophy by Immanuel Kant, takes a categorical imperative to develop a principle. Health-care decisions are based on maxims that can be applied generally without contradiction and treating humans with ends in themselves and never means to an end (White, 2021).	In the health care scenario where a patient is at a point of decision about critical treatment, Kantian Ethics would advise the professionals to respect the autonomy and dignity of the patient. The decision-makers would consider whether the chosen action, such as the plan of treatment, respects the patient’s autonomy in making well-informed decisions regarding their healthcare. If the chosen action corresponds to principles that are applicable universally to respect autonomy, then it is Kantian Ethics.	Kantian Ethics places great emphasis on respect for the autonomy and rights of individuals and ensures that they are treated as ends in themselves (Esteves, 2024).	Kantian Ethics is sometimes criticized for being rigid since it focuses more on adhering to principles without regard to the specific consequences of an action. There are many healthcare situations where one ethical duty may contradict another, hence creating ethical dilemmas (Clinger, 2022).
Ross’s Ethics	Ross’s Ethics, known as Rossian Pluralism, assumes the existence of prima facie duties, each of which carries moral weight. The criteria for making decisions in health care are balancing prima facie duties and finding the most morally compelling action to take (Drake, 2021).	In a health care system operating under limited availability of sources such as organs for transplantation, Rossian Ethics would guide decision-makers to consider numerous prima facie duties, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Evaluation of the various prima facie duties implicated in the question of resource allocation would allow consideration of the duty of promoting well-being, the duty of non-maleficence, and justice. The decision, therefore, would balance between these duties to decide upon the most morally compelling act.	Rossian Ethics introduces prima facie duties to give way to the complexity of moral obligations and therefore greater complexity in ethical analysis. It gives a systematic process for balancing competing duties because there may be more than one moral obligation involved (Andes et al., 2024).	Ross’s framework does not give a clear hierarchy on how to weigh the prima facie duties, so the decision-making process is open to subjectivity. In cases where two prima facie duties are equally strong, Rossian Ethics may not be able to give clear guidance on how to resolve such conflicts (Pablo, 2024).
Natural Law Ethics	Ethics from natural law believes in the inherent order that exists within nature. They base the criteria for making decisions on principles drawn from human nature and reason. Within health care, this criterion involves ensuring actions are taken in confluence with an individual’s inherent purpose and well-being (Redvers et al., 2020).	In Natural Law Ethics, decision-makers would be advised to respect principles such as preserving life and minimizing harm. Decisions would thus be based on the consideration of whether or not they respect the intrinsic purpose of life and well-being. For example, decisions that provide palliative care in alleviating suffering but also respecting the natural process of dying are by Natural Law Ethics.	Natural Law Ethics would guide decision-makers to consider principles like preserving life and minimizing harm. The actions would be evaluated based on whether they are in line with the inherent purpose of life and well-being. For example, decisions to provide palliative care to alleviate suffering while respecting the natural process of dying may be by Natural Law Ethics.	Controversies and controversies prevail on such assumptions regarding an inherent purpose in nature; what counts as natural purpose or order is subjective to one’s opinion. Hence, the application of Natural Law Ethics will, therefore be subjective (Micco & Scendoni, 2024).

May 11, 2025

References

Andes, P., Lau, R., Rockwell, G., & Mah-Fraser, T. (2024). A Rossian method for applying principles in AI. The International Review of Information Ethics, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.29173/irie537
Clinger, J. C. (2022). Kantian ethics. Springer EBooks, 7199–7202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_2759
Drake, J. (2021). Particularism for generalists: A Rossian business ethic. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.7
Liu, S. (2023). The source of contemporary utilitarianism. The Contemporary Evolution and Reform of Utilitarianism. 29–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7363-7_2
Micco, F., & Scendoni, R. (2024). Three different currents of thought to conceive justice: Legal, and medical ethics reflections. Philosophies, 9(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030061
Pablo, J. (2024). Biomedical ethics. Integrated Science, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59009-2_1
Redvers, N., Poelina, A., Schultz, C., Kobei, D. M., Githaiga, C., Perdrisat, M., Prince, D., & Blondin, B. (2020). Indigenous natural and first law in planetary health. Challenges, 11(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe11020029
Savulescu, J., Persson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics, 34(6), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771
Sola, A. (2023). Utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics: Framing the greater good. Ethics and Pandemics, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33207-4_4
‌Wallace, K. (2021). A Kantian perspective on individual responsibility for sustainability. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904531
White, J. (2021). Kant, the categorical imperative, and contemporary challenges for machine ethicists. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01142-4

Step-by-Step Guide

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Integrity Note

Use this example for learning and structure only. Do not submit as your own work.
We are an independent resource and are not affiliated with any university.