Ethical and spiritual decision making in health care Part 1: Explain the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism within health care

Christianity offers a religious perspective on the nature of ethics and spirituality. It contends that spirituality is the religious and theological prism that explains the notion of God in terms of who, what and how. God is perceived as the eternal and all-powerful being above everything and everyone. With the understanding of God as a concept, Christians have developed belief systems that are presented in the Bible. These belief systems explain the purpose of human life, and the truth as well as the meaning of life. With this awareness, humans can pursue and achieve a transcendent state for all life experiences. This means that even as humans make choices about life, spirituality ensures that they remaining grounded in following God’s guidance. PHI-413V Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Health Care. In addition, it makes Christian more accepting of life since there is the acceptance that God guides all fate and anything that happens must have been permitted by God, whether good or bad. As such, spirituality takes on theological and symbolic functions (Igboin, 2015). Besides that, Christians view ethics as making a decision based on God’s instructions as presented in the Bible. They rely on spirituality to conform to God’s expectation without room for ambiguity. The Christian perspective of spirituality and ethics have implications for health care through guiding with decision-making by setting boundaries for accepting choices/options when making decisions. They are particularly focused on lessening human suffering, augmenting wellbeing, and restoring life (Igboin, 2015).

Postmodern relativism presents a more liberal understanding of spirituality, arguing that there is no absolute truth. It is ambiguous when arguing that God may or may not exist with either one of the options being a possibility. Similarly, with regards to ethics, postmodern relativism contents that contrasting ethical arguments could be valid or invalid with no absolute truth. The implication is that no single argument should be discarded simply because it is contradictory. The postmodern relativism perspective is particularly useful to health care since it supports multicultural care delivery through accepting diversity. With this awareness, medical personnel would acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly on the truth about spirituality and ethics, and that obscure cultures should not be ignored (Zavada, 2019).

 ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Part 2: Explain what scientism is and describe two of the main arguments against it

Scientism contends that hard sciences are the only true source of absolute truths and genuine knowledge thus positioning them to offer superior scientific knowledge. It identifies hard sciences as the subjects relying on experimentation and laws of nature to include physics, biology and physics. The hard sciences rely on factual, replicable and testable data thus making their results reliable. Unlike hard sciences, soft sciences are considered as pseudosciences that present guesses and conjectures that are subject to change that may not be replicable thus making them inferior to hard science. The distinction between hard and soft sciences is based on the perceived value of the information they provide. PHI-413V Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Health Care. Hard sciences offer more valuable information since they rely on objective skepticism, experimentation, and falsification to offer explanatory principles. On the other hand, soft sciences rely on subjectivism thereby presenting opportunities for influences from human nature such that it is not uncommon to have contrasting ideas for the same principle (Moreland, 2018). In this respect, scientism identifies hard sciences as having greater intellectual authority over real knowledge when compared to soft sciences.

There are two main arguments offered against scientism. Firstly, hard sciences do not offer absolute truths and facts since they are restructured by the current understanding of the environment and measuring instruments. Things that were previously thought of as absolute truths in hard sciences are not subject to change as new information is presented. This means that information presented by both soft and hard sciences are subject to change over time. Secondly, hard sciences have adopted a tyrannical approach that is over-reliant on rationalism while disregarding personal opinion. These tyrannical approaches end up stifling willful thought that is important for discovering new information, and yet this is important for advancing science. Soft sciences have adopted a more accepting approach that allows for willful thought (Briggs, 2019).

Part 3.

(a) What is ultimate reality?

Ultima