1. What Is Morality? Chapter 1 Elements of Moral Philosophy 1 01EMP CHAPTER 1 USE 20104

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Group Work continued Take one of the following roles: Fact identifier, case outliner, moral evaluator, principle provider, presenter 10

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 outweighed by good consequences. (7). 14

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. “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

22. Supporting Moral Reasoning: Minimum Standards Moral reasoning must be: Logical. Based on the relevant facts. Based on sound or defensible moral principles. 22

23. 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

24. 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