Elements of Moral Philosophy

What Is Morality?
Chapter 1

1 01EMP CHAPTER 1 USE 20104

 The Problem of Definition
 “Moral Theory is the study of substantive moral conceptions,
that is, the study of how the basic notions of the right, the
good, and moral worth may be arranged to form different
moral structures.” [Rawls]. Thus, moral philosophy attempts
to formulate a systematic understanding of how we ought to
live. It explains why actions are obligatory (a duty), wrong
(contrary to duty), or optional (merely permissible), i.e., gives
reasons. Ethics is that branch of philosophy which attempts
to answer questions about what sort of life is worth living.
 Rachels, from the diversity of moral theories, suggests that a
“minimum conception” of morality emerges from a
consideration of controversies having to do with handicapped
children. I augment these considerations with other cases.
 Some ask, can’t we just let our conscience be our guide?
2
 The Inadequacy of conscience
 Some appeal to a person’s beliefs about the rightness or
wrongness of his or her actions as expressed by their
conscience.
 Conscience represents a person’s considered moral
opinion: it disposes people to do what they believe is
right and enables people to experience guilt. However,
questions arise: Can’t a pang of conscience be subjected to
critical examination? Can our conscience always be
depended on? Is our conscience infallible?
 Clearly, conscience may be well-or ill-formed.
 We can question what conscience ought to say. However,
criticism of conscience requires reflection and reasoning
such as Rachels presents.
3
 Moral Theory (MT)
 What makes an act right or wrong? What makes a
person good or bad? What is the nature of moral and
nonmoral value? Moral theory attempts to provide
systematic answers to general questions about what to
do and how to live. (People disagree).
 To give an account of the nature of right and wrong and
good and bad MT aims to discover principles of the
same that will provide both a unified theoretical
account of the nature of such things and a procedure to
employ in our moral thinking. A consistent and
determinate theory that’s in accord with our moral
intuitions can provide a sound basis for our moral
evaluations.
4
 Moral Theory’s Aims

 Thus, MT’s practical aim is to discover a decision

procedure or method that can be used to guide moral
reasoning about matters of moral concern. The goal is
to resolve moral conflicts.
 MT’s theoretical aim is to discover those underlying
features of actions, persons, and other items of moral
concern that make them right or wrong, good, or bad.
 Thus MT’s focus is on developing moral principles.

5
 Moral Principles
 MPs are general moral statements that purport to set forth
conditions under which an action is right or wrong or
something is good or bad.
One ought to keep one’s promises. [moral principle]
I promised to paint my best friend’s living room Saturday. [factual claim]
Therefore, I ought to paint my best friend’s living room Saturday.

A state ought to enforce whatever creates social stability. [moral principle]

Capital punishment promotes social stability. [factual claim]
Therefore, a state ought to promote capital punishment. [conclusion]
 Moral reasoning as efficacious.

6
 Moral Principles
 As you read the cases discussed in Chapter 1 plus the
additional cases reflect on the morality of the actions
taken, try to identify the moral principles that you appeal
to and be sure to evaluate all the relevant factual claims
delineated in the case before you provide your
conclusion or make your moral evaluation.
 Outline the arguments for and against the actions taken
in each case.
 Provide reasons why you agree or disagree with the
conclusion or the conclusions implicit in the articles.
 Discuss the role of reason and impartiality in ethics.
 Explain Rachels’ “minimum conception.”
7
 Chapter 1: Readings and Cases
 Examine moral controversies having to do with
handicapped children and the other cases.
 Divide into seven groups with each member adopting
one of the following roles:
 Fact identifier, case outliner, moral evaluator, principle provider, presenter

 Baby Theresa—EMP1 pages 1-5.

 Jodie and Mary—EMP1 pages 5-7.
 Tracy Latimer—EMP1 pages 7-10.
 NY Times Zicam article from 6/17/09 (handout).
 Drop Off the Key, Lee. (handout)
 The A7D Affair. (handout)
 The Role of Reason in Ethics—EMP1 pages 10-13.
8
 Group Work
 Present each case, identify the arguments given (both
pro and con), and present the group’s consensus along
with the reasons supporting the right thing to do.
 Baby Theresa—Case 1 (1.2)
 Jody and Mary—Case 2 (1.3)
 Tracy Latimer—Case 3 (1.4)
 NY Times Zicam recall case—Case 4 (handout)
 Just Drop Off the Key, Lee—Case 5 (handout)
 The A7D Affair—Case 6 (handout)
 Reason, impartiality, and the minimum conception—
Case 7 (1.5 , 6)
 Wrap-up
9
 Group Work continued
 Take one of the following roles:

Fact identifier,
case outliner,
moral evaluator,
principle provider,
 presenter

10
 1.2 Baby Theresa—pro argument
 Anencephaly—baby born with brain stem but no
cerebrum or cerebellum.
 The donation of organs while a baby is still alive is
prohibited by law. Reasons?
 Benefits argument: “If we can benefit someone, without
harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Transplanting the
organs would benefit other children without harming
Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the
organs.” (3)
 Argument: Being alive was doing her no good—Theresa
would never have a life. “Being alive is a benefit only if it
enables you to carry on activities and have thoughts,
feelings, and relations with other people—in other
words, to have a life” In the absence of such things, mere
biological existence is worthless(3).
11
 Baby Theresa—con arguments
answered by Rachels

 Con argument 1—we should not use people as a

means. However,
 Theresa is not an autonomous being who could be
used—she has no wishes or decision making
ability—her interests are not affected—she will die
soon anyway.
 Theresa has no preferences and never will—for this
reason we should do what we think is best.

12
 Baby Theresa—con arguments
answered
 Con argument 2—wrong to kill one person to save
another. However,
 Prohibition against killing has exceptions.
 Is Baby Theresa an exception?—good consequences
follow, hence using Baby Theresa’s organs is not
obviously wrong.
 Already dead—i.e. brain dead—Baby Theresa lacks
any hope for a conscious life.
 Perhaps the notion of “brain death” should be
revised to include anencephalics.

13
 1.3 Jodie and Mary
 Conjoined twins—two will die within 6 months
or one may live. Is it right or wrong to separate
the twins?
 Catholics—the twins’ deaths are God’s will—let
nature take its course—eschew or reject medical
intervention.
 Pro—save as many as we can—popular
argument (utilitarian).
 Con—nothing should be done because of the
sanctity of human life. Is this prohibition
absolute?—what if one twin is not killed but
died of her own weakness? Prohibition against
killing innocent life may in rare cases be
14 outweighed by good consequences. (7).
 1.4 Tracy Latimer
 Cerebral Palsy victim killed by father.
 Is the situation best described by “Any life is
morally precious” or “such a person can have no
life except in a biological sense”?
 Is the case discrimination against the
handicapped or is Tracy killed because of the
hopelessness of her condition and the pain.
 Slippery slope of mercy killing—slippery slope
arguments involve speculations about the
future—easy to abuse (See IVF example). Can
facts in specific cases warrant mercy killing? Do
the facts warrant mercy killing in this case?
15
 NY Times article: Zicam recall
 130 reports, suspended shipments, homeopathic product,
use of recall language, existence of 800 reports, zinc and
loss of smell (anosmia).
 Companies should be held liable for unintentional harm
committed by products. Individual liability should be
assessed for intentional harm. VS.
 Companies should not be held liable for unintentional
harm committed by products (caveat emptor). Individual
liability should never be assessed for intentional harm.
[Why?]
 Secret settlements made by corporations can be seen as
prima facie admission of guilt
16
 Just Drop Off the Key, Lee
 Factors to consider?
 Moral obligation or self-interest?
 Arguments for or against default.
 Borrow from a bank or a person?
 Maintain moral obligation or choose self-
interest?
 Is every legal obligation a moral obligation?
 Bank vs. individual obligations in the case of
fraud and illegality?
17
 The A7D Affair
 What happened?
 Consider the morality of the actions taken by the
parties.
 Evaluate Sink’s and Line’s conduct.
 Evaluate Vandivier’s conduct.
 Should companies be responsible for their
conduct or only individuals?
 Evaluate Goodrich’s conduct.

18
 Should I be moral?
 People who study ethics assume that, in the end, we
desire informing ourselves about ways of acting that
are preferred or distinguished according to moral
principles and learning how to live with moral
complexity.
 The context of “Should I be moral?” is that we make
judgments that hold for all persons in the same
situation (IMPARTIALITY). As children we are told or
shown what is right and wrong in a given situation and
encouraged to generalize. The notion that following a
principle for its own sake, not for gain or self-interest, is
to be moral is presented. [In other words, adopting a
moral point of view.]
19
 Reason & Impartiality
 Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons—
feelings can overwhelm reason. Assess arguments—
consider facts and principles—avoid prejudices.
Recognize that arguments can go wrong in many
ways. Do not let reason be overwhelmed by feeling.
 Morality requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interests. Each individual’s interests are
of equal importance and the welfare of others is as
important as our own. This is a proscription against
arbitrariness.
20
 “Minimum Conception”
 “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 affected by what one’s
decision.” p. 13.
 A conscientious moral agent is concerned with the
affect of his/her actions, scrutinizes accepted
principles, listens to what reason demands, and acts
on the outcome of careful deliberations about what to
do.
21
 Supporting Moral Reasoning: Minimum
Standards

Moral reasoning must be:

 Logical.
 Based on the relevant facts.
 Based on sound or defensible moral
principles.

22
 Moral Principles vs. Self-Interest
 Adhering to moral principles supports social cohesion and
community values. Morality makes social existence possible
by restraining self-interested behavior. Following your moral
principles enables you to live a more satisfying life and all of
us to live together in harmony.
 Adhering to moral principles supports self-interest—the
paradox of hedonism—people who care exclusively about
their own interest will generally be less happy and have less
satisfying lives than those who care about others.
 Morality—in the narrow sense— is a set of rules that guides
our behavior. principles that regulate conduct and relations.
Morality—in the wider sense—includes a diversity of values,
ideals, and aspirations which allow many ways to live where
you can meet your moral obligations.
23
 What’s Ahead-Homework
 Read The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
EMP (14-31).
 Read dumping article—answer handout
questions and be ready to discuss.
 Read Chapter 2 in RTD—Some Basic Points
about Arguments (19-27). Read RTD27.
 Complete first 3 pages of the logic handout.
 Complete and post the first day discussion
assignment in Engrade. [See engrade.com]
WATCH YOUR GRAMMAR!
24