GE-ET: ETHICS

Rachel’s Morality
THE ELEMENTS OF
MORALITY
The Problem of Definition (of Morality)
There are many rival theories, each expounding a
different conception of what it means to live morally,
and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’ simple
formulation (“how we ought to live”) is bound to
offend at least one of them.
Rachels proposes a ‘minimum conception’ of
morality: a core that every moral theory should
accept, at least as a starting point.
THE ELEMENTS OF
MORALITY
Rachels asserts morality is conduct
impartial reason, which implies
guided by
that the
decision is backed by solid rationale and that
the morally correct thing to do is determined
by what solution is supported the most
logically.
The issue must be looked at impartially to achieve a
moral judgment, meaning giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual affected by the judgment.
An unbiased position must be established to achieve
an impartial view on any circumstance.
 Moral Controversy: Baby Theresa
Anencephalic infants: ‘babies
without brains’ Cerebrum,
cerebellum, and top of the
skull are missing, have a
brain stem, thus autonomic
functions (breathing,
heartbeat, etc.) are possible
Usually aborted in the US;
otherwise, half are stillborn
and
usually die within days
 Moral Controversy: Baby Theresa
Florida law forbids the removal
of organs until the donor is
dead.
- Baby Theresa died after nine
days. Her organs too
deteriorated to be harvested or
transplanted.
-Should she have been killed
so that her organs could
have
been used to save other
children?
 Moral Controversy: Baby Theresa
“It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to
other people’s ends.”
“It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
“What the parents are really asking for is, ‘Kill this
dying baby so that its organs may be used for
someone else.’ Well, that’s really a horrendous
proposition.”
 The Benefits Argument
“If we can benefit someone without harming anyone
else, we ought to do so.”
Transplanting the organs would benefit the other
children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore,
we ought to
transplant the organs.
What about Baby Theresa’s life?
Isn’t being alive better than being dead?
Answer: Only if being alive allows one to ‘have a
life’: to carry on activities and have thoughts,
feelings, and relations with other people.
In the absence of such things, ‘mere biological life’ is
The Argument That We Should Not Use
People as Means
“It is wrong to use people as
means to other people’s ends”
Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to
benefit other children. Therefore, it should not be
done.
How is Baby Theresa being used?
Vague sense of ‘use.’ What does it mean? Violating
Baby Theresa’s autonomy?
Baby Theresa has no autonomy to violate. She has
no preferences about anything, nor has she ever had
The Argument from the Wrongness of
Killing
“It is wrong to kill one person to save
another.”
Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save
others. So, taking the organs would be wrong.
However… Shouldn’t there be an exception to the
rule?
The Argument from the Wrongness of
Killing
Answer: Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will
never ‘have a life’; she is going to die soon anyway,
and taking her organs would help other babies.
Should we regard Baby Theresa as already ‘dead’?
Answer: Perhaps we should revise our definitions of
‘death.’
 Moral Controversy: Jody and Mary
Ø Conjoined twins, joined at the
lower abdomen; spines fused;
Ø one heart and one pair of lungs
between them.
Ø Without an operation to separate
them, both twins would die within six
months.
Ø This would save Jodie, but Mary
would die.
Ø The parents refused permission for
the operation, but courts
Okayed it.
Ø Jodie lived, and Mary died.
The Argument That We Should Save
as Many as We Can

“There is a choice: save one or let both die.

HOWEVER…
 The Argument from the Sanctity of
Human Life
• Mary would not be ‘killed’ during the operation but
merely separated from Jodie. Her death would be due
to her body’s inability to sustain her life.
• Perhaps it is not always wrong to kill innocent human
beings. If the innocent human has no future because
she is going to die soon no matter what,
• She has no wish to go on living (perhaps because she
has no wishes at all)
• This killing will save others who can go on to lead
‘full lives.’
 Moral Controversy: Tracy Latimer
• The 12-year-old victim of cerebral
Palsy, killed by her father with
• Exhaust fumes while the rest of the
family were at church.
• Tracy weighed less than 40 lbs, and
was described as “functioning
at the mental level of a three-
month-old baby.”
• Robert Latimer was sentenced to
10 years in prison.
Did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong?
Wasn’t killing her an act
of mercy?
The Argument from the Wrongness of
Discriminating against the
Handicapped
• Handicapped people should be given the same respect
and, the same rights as everyone else.
• Tracy was killed because she was handicapped.
• Therefore, killing her was wrong.

However. . .
Tracy was not killed because of her cerebral palsy but
because of her pain and suffering and because there was
no hope for her.
 The Slippery Slope Argument
• If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will slide down
a
slippery slope, and in the end all life will be held cheap.
Where will we draw the line?
• What about other disabled people, the elderly, the
infirm, and
other ‘useless’ members of society?
• What is a slippery slope argument?
The Slippery Slope Argument
 Reason and Impartiality
• Moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons.
• Morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individual’s
interests.