Christian View on Moral Status-Theory of Moral Agency Christian View of the Nature of Human Persons and Intrinsic Human Value and Dignity

Christianity views human life and the nature of persons as a gift from God.
Human persons are, thus, fundamentally creatures of God, created in God’s image (White, 2020). Essentially, the human person develops in line with the idea that God has for him and grows in the context of time and history (Cardinal Müller, 2017).  From this understanding, the Christian view of the nature of human life is that it is in existence and has an absolute value from the moment of conception until life ends naturally. God is considered the sole moral authority to determine when life begins and ends. This means humans cannot decide or place degrees in human life. Human life is, therefore, worthy of respect at all stages of development. The view that all human persons are created in the image of God creates the fundamental belief in intrinsic human value and dignity. The Christian views of human persons are compatible with moral status-based relationships, human properties, sentience, and moral agency theories.

Influential Theory in Determination of Moral Status of the Fetus

In this case, Dr. Wilson, Jessica, Marco, and Aunt Maria have a moral challenge in determining the course of the next action based on the diagnosis of Jessica’s pregnancy. In his capacity as a physician and with the responsibility to his patients, Dr. Wilson approaches the issues from a utilitarianist viewpoint. Aunt Maria considers a divine command theory perspective, while Jessica holds both utilitarianism and cognitive properties perspectives. Marco views the pregnancy as a burden and a barrier to their economic security and plans; therefore, he has a utilitarianist view of the fetus’s moral status. Despite these various perspectives each hold, the determination of the fetus’s moral status is clearly grounded in the perspectives of the theory of moral agency. From the fetus’ perspective, it would want its mother to go through the pregnancy, giving it a chance to live as God would have wanted it to, which can be understood from an egoistic point of view. This gives the fetus as an entity in this situation a moral status.

Metz (2019) views moral status from an individualist account and argues that properties intrinsic to an entity ground the capacity to be wronged or the object of a direct duty. In this case, the fetus wishes the mother (Jessica) would go through with the pregnancy and give it a chance to live as God would have wanted it to. Life in itself is intrinsic to the fetus. From a Christian view of human beings and the value of life, the fetus’s life can be considered of value as a human being. Arguing from the perspective that an entity has moral status if its interests morally matter to some degree for the sake of the entity (Coeckelbergh, 2012), the fetus qualifies to be morally considered. However, the fetus lacks the autonomy required for personhood. The nature of personhood for the fetus cannot be well established as it has no ability at this point to determine the course of its existence independently. Due to this debatable nature of the fetus’s personhood, I argue that the decisions of the fetus require a moral agent with the capacity to make moral decisions based on their perception of right and wrong and what is right and what is wrong. In this case, the physician, the mother, the father, and the aunt act as paradigms of moral agents for determining the fetus’s moral status. As they can rationally determine the course of the fetus’ existence, the theory of moral agency fits well with the scenario.

Influence of Moral Agency Theory on Decision-Making

Morally acceptable decisions are determined by the person’s moral values and virtues and the rules that govern the decision-maker. Based on the theory of moral agency, Dr. Wilson, Jessica, Marco, and Aunt Maria, as moral agents determining the fetus’s moral status, will need to make their decisions rationally with reference to held notions of right and wrong regarding the situation. Under the definitions of a moral agency, Dr. Wilson has the responsibility to abide by the ethical principles required of a physician and provide advice based on his commitment to ethical care for others (the fetus). Jessica is accountable and responsible for the decisions she makes as far as the course of the fetus’s existence is concerned. On the other hand, by choosing to support his wife’s decision, Marco is responsible for such a decision both in individual and relational capacities. Aunt Maria is responsible for ensuring all other parties make the right moral decisions. The moral agency theory in this situation informs each individual that the decision-making process is collaborative and that they all are accountable and responsible for determining the moral status of the fetus and the course of its existen