What is Morality?

To understand moral reasoning, we must also discuss what morality is. In James
Rachels' article, "What is Morality?" we are introduced to the notion of morality. Rachels
explains that he is trying to offer a minimum definition for morality, which means he's trying
to give a definition of morality that almost everyone can agree on, which doesn't offer all the
details of a specific morality. What this means is that we can disagree on much of what we
think is morality, but we should at least agree on this little bit of a definition provided by
Rachels. For example, if I were to tell you that morality was the study of turtles, then
hopefully, you would think I was crazy. But if I said that morality is the guide to living a good
life, then many of you would agree. Some people would disagree too. And just about everyone
would say that this definition is very minimal, which means it doesn't tell us very much about
morality.
James Rachels

Rachels is trying to give us a definition of morality that as

many people as possible will agree with. We may all disagree with
the details, but if we can at least agree on what the idea of morality
is, then we'll have a starting place for dealing with moral problems.
In order to come to some definition that most people will agree with
he tries examining some moral problems to see what they have in
common. In doing this, Rachels helps show you how to approach a
moral problem. This approach is moral reasoning. He is not offering
the final solution to any of these problems, but instead he is showing
you a way to approach and think about these problems. In other
words, Rachels is giving you moral problems that you must reason
about, thus "moral reasoning."

At the end of his discussion of these moral problems Rachels offers this definition of
morality, "Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason––that is,
to do what there are the best reasons for doing––while giving equal weight to the interests of
each individual who will be affected by what one does." As I said, Rachels uses the three
moral problems contained in his article to see what they have in common to reach this
minimum definition of morality. Do you like this definition? If you think it doesn't say enough,
then remember that this is only a minimum conception of morality. It is not supposed to say
everything. If you like it, then think about why you like it so much. But further, ask yourself
if you handle moral problems in a way that follows this minimum conception.

To really understand Rachels's definition, we need to return to the three moral cases
that Rachels deals with. This is where we'll employ our moral reasoning skills. The first moral
problem that Rachels talks about is the case of Baby Theresa. Baby Theresa was an
anencephalic infant, which means she was born without the cerebrum and cerebellum
portions of her brain. These are the parts of your brain that you use to do everything except
for things like making your heart beat, breathing, etc. Without the cerebrum and cerebellum
you can't see, hear, think, taste, smell, or feel. You can't do anything that makes you who
you are. Most all babies born this way are already dead or die a few days later. Baby Theresa's
parents knew she would die with medical certainty, but before she did they wanted to donate
her organs to save other babies lives. However, for the organs to be good for donation they
would need to be taken from Theresa before she died naturally. Should Theresa's organs be
taken, which will hasten her death, but will save the lives of other babies?

Jodie and Mary

To answer this question we must reason about this situation. One thing you'll notice
in this class is that the best philosophy is done by asking the right question. There are lots
of ways we could answer the question about Theresa's organs, but not all of them are good,
so we may want to ask another question, which is, how do we figure out what to do with the
case of Baby Theresa so that we'll do the morally right thing? Rachels does an excellent job
explaining some possible arguments for taking Theresa's organs and some against, so I won't
explain them again here. However, notice two things that Rachels does when he works with
this problem. First, he tries to get the facts straight. If you don't have the facts straight, then
you can't solve a problem (except maybe by accident). The second thing he does is that he
uses the facts and applies them to different moral ideas to construct some moral arguments.
Arguments in the philosophical sense, which we'll discuss in more detail later in the module,
are not what we typically think of: they aren't shouting matches. Briefly, arguments are
patterns of reasoning where we support a conclusion using other things we think are true,
which are called premises. In the case of Theresa's organs, whatever you think should be
done with her organs is your conclusion. If I where to ask you how you came to that
conclusion, then whatever answers you could give me would be your reasons for that
conclusion, which makes them the premises of your argument.

Rachels gives you one argument for taking Theresa's organs, and two against taking her
organs. Does this mean you have more reason NOT to take her organs? No, the number of
arguments in support of a particular conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion must be true,
because those arguments may be bad arguments. Notice that Rachels takes the time to
explain why both the arguments against taken Theresa's organs might be bad. He casts doubt
on those arguments, which casts doubt on their conclusion. But how exactly does he do this?

The best way to argue against someone else's argument, and the way you should do this in
class, is explain what the opposing argument is. Once you have done this, you can say why
the premises in that argument are probably not true. If the premises of an argument are not
true, then the argument will not be a good one. Do you notice anything special about the
premises that Rachels usually argues against?
 Jodie and Mary

In the two arguments against taking Theresa's organs, each contains at least one premise
that makes a moral claim. They are, "it is wrong to use people as means to other people's
ends," and "it is wrong to kill one person to save another." These two premises are key to
arguing that we should not take Theresa's organs, because taking her organs will kill her,
even though it will save other babies. If you believe that either or these two premises are true,
then you probably think that we shouldn't take her organs. Rachels casts doubt on the truth
of these two moral claims. In the first case he explains that using people is usually thought
bad because it doesn't let us make a choice for our selves. But in the case of Theresa, she
can't make a choice for herself and will never be able to make a choice for herself, and so this
moral principle does not apply to her. If it doesn't really apply to her, then it can't be used in
her defense. As for the moral principle that it is wrong to kill one person to save another
person, Rachels argues that few people really believe this. For example, many people think
it's ok to kill a person in self defense. So at least sometimes it's ok to kill a person to save
another person's life. Of course, this isn't a case of self defense, but maybe it is another
exception to the rule like self defense is an exception to the rule. Rachels also points out that
there is reason to believe that Theresa is already dead, since she is technically brain dead
and that is the standard that the medical community follows. If she's already technically
dead, then we aren't killing her when we take her organs.

Even though there are two arguments against taking Theresa's organs, those two arguments
have problems with their premises. This makes those two arguments weaker than they first
appear, which means they may turn out to be too weak to overcome the very powerful benefits
argument. Keep in mind that it doesn't matter how many arguments support your side, it's
how good those arguments are that matters.
 Robert and Tracy Latimer

In the next two sections we will cover more ways to construct good arguments, and also ways
to attack arguments. Rachels used the methods that are discussed in the following two
sections without always referring to them explicitly. While we aren't going to discuss in these
notes Rachels's arguments in the Jodie and Mary case or the Tracy Latimer case, the same
sort of moral reasoning applies. After you have read the next two sections you should be able
to go back and reread those sections in Rachels and see exactly how moral reasoning is just
logical reasoning about moral problems.
 RACHELS’ MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY
(a core starting point for almost every moral theory)

“Morality is the effort to guide one’s conduct by reasons while giving equal weight to
interests of each individual affected”

1. Morality is conduct guided by impartial reason

a. Effort to guide one’s conduct by reasons
b. To do what there are the best reasons for doing
c. Morality is 1st and foremost a matter of consulting reasons
2. Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons
3. The right act is “where the weight of reason lies”
a. Best idea is one that has reason on its side
b. Morally right thing to do is determined by what there are the best reasons for
doing

4. Impartially: While giving equal weight to interests of each individual who will be
affected by one’s conduct
a. Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual’s interests

5. A conscientious moral agent is one who is

a. Impartial
b. Ascertains the facts

can block us from.m making a

c. Scrutinizes principles
i. Are they sound? Are they being intelligently applied?
d. Listens to reason, even if this means changing one’s views
right decesion
e. Who acts on results of deliberation

QUESTIONS/ISSUES

6. Role of feeling in ethics/morality?

a. Feelings are good as they show moral seriousness but they can be an impediment
to figuring out what is right;
b. When we feel strongly, we believe we know what is right and close off to
argument and reason giving
c. Feelings can be irrational or the results of prejudice
d. “If we are to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as
possible by reason”

7. Difference between morality and taste involves reason giving

 a. No reason needed for the taste judgments “I like coffee” or “coffee tastes
good”; no such thing as rationally defending ones like or dislike for coffee
b. In contrast, morality requires reasons and if they are sound others need to
acknowledge them

8. Problem of distinguishing good from bad reasons/arguments

a. Get facts straight
b. What moral principles apply to the case and are they good principles

Source:
https://philosophia.uncg.edu/courses/phi121/m1/part3.html
https://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_2011/Rachels_Ch1_What_Is_Morality.htm
#:~:text=%E2%80%9CMorality%20is%20the%20effort%20to,interests%20of%20each%20individual
%20affected%E2%80%9D