Rachels, Chapter One: What is Morality?

The Problem of Definition 1. the idea of the minimum conception of morality: what just about everyone agrees on, as far as morality is concerned, despite whatever disagreements people may have about morality 2. the point of considering some specific cases: to identify some features of this minimum conception of morality Cases, Principles to Consider and the Minimum Conception of Morality Baby Teresa

If can benefit someone w/o harming another, ought to do so o Her organs were doing Teresa no good; being alive (if she was alive) was doing her no good; being alive is a benefit only if one can act and think and relate to others (that is, have a life) Mere biological existence is worthless o This needs to be qualified. Biological existence is not worthless for a plant (or is it?). But such existence is perhaps of no value for a conscious life like a person Should not use people as a (mere) means to others ends (wrong to use people as if they were mere things) o Typically using people involves violating their autonomy (ability to govern themselves) by manipulation, deceit, or force o Taking her organs would be to literally use her body parts, but we do that with organ transplants o But we are taking Teresa's w/o her permission but not against her will (as she has none) Would taking her organs go against Teresa's wishes? But she can't have any wishes, so we can't thwart them. o Guardian's duty is to do what the patient would want or what is in the patient's best interests Wrong to kill a person even to save another o Is it always wrong to kill people to save others? o By brain dead standard, Teresa is already dead; no longer any hope for conscious life Sanctity of human life; every human life is precious, regardless of age or handicap

Jodie & Mary (Skip)

One should save as many as one can Killing an innocent human is absolutely (and always) wrong, even if serves a good purpose o Reply: but Mary was not killed, she was just separated from her sister and then died on her own after being separated from Jodie ......?

Doctrine of double effect: Claims one is not responsible for forseen but unintended consequences Abortion as a side effect of removal of uterus to save a pregnant woman from uterine cancer Sometimes killing innocent humans is permissible, for example, when (1) they have no future as will die soon no matter what, (2) have no wish to live, (3) it will save others who will lead full lives

Baby Jane Doe Baby born with multiple defects, including spina bifida, hydrocephaly and microcephaly o Dr. Newman believed surgery was pointless, baby would never have a meaningful life o Dr. Keuskamp believed otherwise. (This opinion was rejected) o Technology allows salvaging of babies, only to lengthen their life for a short time, but under terrible conditions.

Arguments Parents choice 1. If no one would benefit from a medical treatment, then the treatment would be pointless and it need not be performed. (P 1) 2. Baby Jane Doe, nor any other, would have benefitted from surgery. (P2) 3. Therefore, the surgery need not have been performed Against Every life is unequally and individually (P1) o Every individual, regardless of age or handicap, should be given whatever medical treatment is needed to preserve life (as long as possible) (P2) o Therefore, the surgery should have been performed o What about extending life, but of poor quality? Discrimination against the handicapped o Handicapped should not be denied benefits or be subjected to discrimination 1. It is wrong to discriminate against handicapped. (P 1) 2. Baby Jane Doe was been denied her treatment precisely because of her handicap. (P2) 3. Therefore, the parents decision was wrong. The surgery should have been performed. When is treating the handicap differently justified?

Tracy Latimer

Mercy killing (to relieve pointless suffering) is permissible (and legal in Oregon) Wrong to discriminate against the handicapped and especially to kill someone because they are handicapped; handicapped people deserve the same respect and rights as everyone else.

But discrimination is wrong (only) when it is arbitrary (when people are treated differently when there is no good reason for doing so) Blind person being denied job simply because employer doesn't like idea of have a blind person work for him Blind person being denied job as air traffic controller o Not killed because she had cerebral palsy, but because of her pain and no hope No right to decide one person's life is worth less than another's Slippery slope argument: mercy killing puts us on a slippery slope the result of which will cheapen all life judged to be less than ideal (elderly, infirm, useless) o These arguments are based on predictions hard to prove either way o So easy to abuse these arguments; use a slippery slope argument to oppose anything

RACHELS' MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY (core starting point for almost every moral theory) Morality is conduct guided by impartial reason

Effort to guide one's conduct by reasons o To do what there are the best reasons for doing o Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons st o Morality is 1 and foremost a matter of consulting reasons (12) o The right act is "where the weight of reason lies" o Best idea is one that has reason on its side o Morally right thing to do is determined by what there are the best reasons for doing (p. 12) Impartially: While giving equal weight to interests of each individual who will be affected by one's conduct o Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual's interests A conscientious moral agent is (p. 14-15) one who is o Impartial o Ascertains the facts o Scrutinizes principles Are they sound? Are the being intelligently applied? o Listens to reason, even if this means changing one's views o Who acts on results of deliberation Questions/issues o Role of feeling in ethics/morality? Feelings are good as they show moral seriousness but the can be an impediment to figuring out what is right; When feel strongly believe we know what is right and close off to argument and reason giving Feelings can be irrational or the results of prejudice o Difference between morality and taste No reason needed for the taste judgments "I like coffee"; no such think as rationally defending ones like or dislike for coffee

In contrast, morality requires reasons and if they are sound others need to acknowledge them Problem of distinguishing good from bad reasons/arguments

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_to_Philosophy_Sp_06/Rachels_Chapter_One_What_Is_Moralit y.htm The solution implemented

1. examination of cases of Theresa, Jodie and Mary, and Tracy Latimer 2. two things apparently held in common by all disputants (section 1.5) 1. the dependence of moral judgments on good reasons 1. This is the idea that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons (in contrast to, say, judgments of taste). Mere gut reactions are not enough. 2. Good reasons can be separated from bad ones by being careful about the facts of a case, but this is not sufficient: people can agree on all the facts but still reach different moral judgments. 2. the requirement of impartiality 1. This is the idea that moral thinking must count everyones interests equally. 2. This idea may be seen as a consequence of the dependence of moral judgments on good reasons, since there seem to be no good reasons for not counting everyones interests equally. The Minimum Conception of Morality 3. These lessons from the three cases furnish the ingredients for a basic characterization of morality: Morality is the effort to guide ones conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by ones conduct (p. 14). 4. Note: this is not a definition, but Rachelss view of what any reasonable theory of morality must say. Most theories of morality do say this; but there is a lot of disagreement in regard to what reasons are good ones and in regard to what impartiality really amounts to. 5. As a result, this minimum conception of morality ends up providing very little guidance in making moral judgments. To see this, note that just about everyone on both sides of the controversies discussed in this chapter would agree with it (i.e., would agree that moral judgments must be based on reason, and must be impartial). Rachels, of course, realizes this; he isnt touting the minimum conception of morality as the answer to all our moral questions. Rather, his point (indeed the point of the whole chapter) is to see whether there is some core of morality, common to partisans on opposite sides of various issues. He finds that there is such a core; but that since it is common to folks with such disparate views, it cant be expected to settle much. Summary of the THREE CASES ABOUT HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Baby Teresa: o Florida1992, anencephalic (without a brain-no cerebrum or cerebellum, but does have a brain-stem, so autonomic functions like breathing and heartbeat go on) o Most detected and aborted o Of those not aborted, are still born o 300 a year born and usually die in few days o Can know these babies not live long and that they will have no conscious life Parents volunteered her (and doctors agreed) for organ transplants (kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and eyes) for other children who would benefit from it (2000 need transplants a year, never enough available) o Florida law prohibits removal of organs until donor is dead o Taking organs out would kill her o When Teresa died after 9 days, her organs had deteriorated and were worthless Jodie and Mary (Skip) o August 2000, woman discovered carrying twins joined at lower abdomen (spines fused, had one heart, and one set of lungs between them). o Jodie the stronger was providing blood for her sister o Some sets of conjoined twins do well (grow to adulthood and marry and have children themselves) o W/o intervention, Jodie and Mary die in 6 months o Only hope was to operate and separate them o Save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately o Parents refused permission to operate as this would hasten Mary's death and believed that "if it is God's will that both our children should not survive, then so be it" o Hospital believed it had an obligation to save one of the infants and got the courts to agree to operation to separate them o Jodie lived and Mary died Tracy Latimer o Was a 12 year old in Saskatchewan who had cerebral palsy (brain disease that leads to muscle malfunction) o In 1993, her father (Robert Latimer) killed her (piped in exhaust fumes into pickup cab) o She weighed less 40 pounds o Had mental level of a three month old baby; nutrition via feeding tubes, rods in back, bedsores, "leg cut and flopping around" o Had major surgery on back, hips, legs and more surgery planned o Difficult to control her pain o Mother was relieved to find Tracy dead o Local jury and judge wanted to be lenient (one year in prison and one year probation), but Supreme Court overruled and sentenced him to mandatory 25 years in prison. o Still in prison o More information: http://www.robertlatimer.net/story/tracysillness.htm
o