Moral relativism- Morality is based on cultural acceptance. The basic moral values and
principles are based on what a culture accepts
Kant’s Ethics– Morality is based on pure reason and the categorical imperative. Basic moral
principles are based on pure reason and the categorical imperative.
Is it morally permissible for E F G to pay Mexican donors $3.00 per pint of blood?
A moral relativist- we need to identify the basic moral values and principles accepted by the
cultures that are involved, in this case, it is the U.S. and Mexico. It looks like Mexico and the
U.S. would agree on the basic values and principles that are relevant to this case.
Christian values- Such values are based on God, Jesus, and the bible. The donors are entitled to
have their dignity rejected and not to be exploited. Donors have a moral right to a fair or just
contract between themselves and E F G. Paying the donors $3.00 per pint is morally wrong.
Free market values- There is a moral right to engage in free exchange (capitalism) Each
individual makes their choice in this care and the free market determines the price of the blood
donations. In this case, the payment of $3.00 per pint is not wrong. There was no contract and
no deception by E F G when forming the agreements. The contracts are valid. (Basic freedom is
a basic value)
B. Kant’s Ethics– It is morally wrong. The donors are being as a mere means for E F G’s profit.
The donors are not being treated with respect. Each donor is an end in itself. She has absolute
or unconditional worth based on her rationality or rational capacities. The donors are being
exploited by E F G for profit.