What Is Morality?

James Rachels
&
Stuart Rachels

The Problem of Definition

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.
First, some moral controversies. . . .

First Example: Baby Theresa

Anencephalic infants: babies without
brains
o Cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of skull
are missing
o Have a brain stem, thus autonomic
functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.) are
possible
o Usually aborted in the US; otherwise, half
are stillborn and usually die within days

Baby Theresas parents

volunteered her organs for
transplant. BUT. . .

Florida law forbids the removal of organs

until the donor is dead.
Baby Theresa died after nine days. Her
organs were too deteriorated to be
harvested or transplanted.

? Should she have been killed so that her organs

could have been used to save other children?
(Thousands of infants need transplants each year.)

Surprisingly few ethicists sided with

the parents and physicians.
It just seems too horrifying to use
people as means to other peoples
ends.
Its 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, thats 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 Theresas life?

? Isnt being alive better than being
dead?
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 worthless.

The Argument That We Should Not Use People as

Means

It is wrong to use people as means to

other peoples ends.
Taking Theresas 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 Theresas
autonomy?
Baby Theresa has no autonomy to
violate. She has no preferences about
anything, nor has she ever had any.

The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing

It is wrong to kill one person to save

another.
Taking Theresas organs would be
killing her to save others.
So, taking the organs would be
wrong.

However. . .
? Shouldnt there be an exception to
the rule?
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?
Perhaps we should revise our definitions
of death.

Second Example: Jodie and Mary

Conjoined twins, joined at the lower abdomen;
spines fused; one heart and one pair of lungs
between them.
Without an operation to separate them, both
twins would die within six months.
This would save Jodie, but Mary would die.
The parents refused permission for the
operation, but courts okayed it.
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.
? Isnt it plainly better to save one?
Not from the parents perspective.

The Argument from the Sanctity of Human

Life
All human life is precious, regardless of
age, race, social class, or handicap.
The prohibition against killing innocent
humans is absolute.
Mary is an innocent human being.
Therefore, she should not be killed.

However. . .
Mary would not be killed during the
operation but merely separated from Jodie.
Her death would be due to her bodys
inability to sustain her life.
Perhaps it is not always wrong to kill
innocent human beings. . .
o If the innocent human has no future because she
is going to die soon no matter what. . . AND. . .
o She has no wish to go on living (perhaps
because she has no wishes at all). . . AND. . .
o This killing will save others who can go on to
lead full lives.

Third Example: Tracy Latimer

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? Wasnt
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?

Beware of slippery slopes!

! This kind of argument is all too easy
to abuse.
If you are opposed to something but
have no good arguments against it, you
can always make up a prediction about
what it might lead to; and no matter
how implausible your prediction is, no
one can prove you wrong.

Reason and Impartiality

Moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons.
Morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individuals
interests.

Moral Reasoning
We cannot rely on our feelings, no
matter how powerful they might be.
Our feelings may be irrational and may
be nothing but products of prejudice,
selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Our decisions must be guided as much
as possible by reason.
The morally right thing to do is always
the thing best supported by the
arguments.

How can we tell if an argument is really

good?

Get the facts

straight.
Bring moral
principles into play.
Are they justified,
and are they being
correctly applied?

The Requirement of Impartiality

Each individuals
interests are
equally important,
and no one should
get special
treatment.
If there is no good
reason for treating
people differently,
then discrimination
is unacceptably

The Minimum Conception of Morality

Morality is, at the very
least, the effort to guide
ones conduct by reason
that is, to do what
there are the best
reasons for doingwhile
giving equal weight to
the interests of each
individual affected by
ones decision.

The Conscientious Moral Agent. . .

Is concerned impartially with the interests of
everyone affected by what he or she does.
Carefully sifts facts and examines their
implications.
Accepts principles of conduct only after
scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified.
Is willing to listen to reason even when it
means revising prior convictions.
Is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.