1.1 The Problem of Definition “We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.”
Socrates, In Plato’s Republic (ca.390B.C.)

“Moral philosophy is the attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us.” Rachels, p.1

1.1 The Problem of Definition
Two basic elements of ethics:
(1) The nature of morality.
(2) How we ought to live our lives.

• If we knew something about the former, we might know something about the latter.
• Problem: there are many accounts of morality and they often clash with each other.

1.1 The Problem of Definition
• Rachel’s aim: to describe a “minimum conception of morality” or some basic features that all ethical theories possess.
• He does this through three dramatic examples that (1) expose some moral principles that shape our everyday ethical thought and (2) show something of the nature of ethical reasoning.

1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa
• Born anencephalic: the cerebrum and the cerebellum are missing, as is the top of the skull. But there is a brain stem.
• Facts: In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are detected during pregnancy and aborted. Of those not aborted, half are still born. About 350 each year are born alive, and they usually die within a few week. p.2

An interlude on doing ethics
• Ethics is an activity that requires critical thinking and rational arguments.
• We need to examine what reasons can be given in support of an ethical position.

Rational Arguments: The Basics
Argument: a set of claims one of which, called the conclusion, is said to be supported by the other claims, called the premises.
1. Premise
2. Premise
3. Conclusion

Two important terms:
Valid and Sound Arguments
1. Valid Argument: if the premises are true, then it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false.
2. Sound Argument:is a valid argument that contains only true premises.

Baby Theresa: The Benefits Argument
1.If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so.
2.Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa.
3. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.
• Question: this argument valid and sound?

The Argument That We Should Not Use People As Means
1. It is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends.
2. Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit other children.
3. Therefore, it should not be done.
• Is this argument valid and sound?

Two objections to the “Don’t Use People As Means” argument
Objection 1: Baby Theresa’s interests will not be violated: she is going to die anyway.
Objection 2: Baby Theresa preferences will not be thwarted: she has none and never will have any.
• Note: it is in this way -- constructing arguments and working hard to think of objections -- that ethics is done.

The Argument From The Wrongfulness of Killing
1. It is wrong to kill one person to save another.
2. Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save another.
3. Therefore, it would be wrong to kill Theresa in order to harvest her organs.

• Is this argument valid and sound?

Rachel’s Assessment
• The prohibition against killing is strong, but most people do not think it absolute.
• Baby Theresa is (1) going to die soon anyway, (2) not conscious, and (3) her organs could help save several other children.
• We might even regard Baby Theresa as “already dead”. (p.5)

Rachel’s Conclusion
“On the whole, the arguments in favor of transplanting Baby Theresa’s organs seem to be stronger than the arguments against it.” Rachels, p.5

1.4 Third Example: Tracy Latimer
Facts: Tracy Latimer, 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy from Saskatchewan, was killed by her father in 1993.
• She had the mental life of a 3-month old baby and was in constant, severe pain. Mrs. Latimer supported her husband.
• The Supreme Court of Canada required the mandatory sentence be imposed and he got 25 years.

The Wrongness of Discriminating Against the Handicapped
1. Handicapped people should be given the same right to life as anyone else.
2. Tracy was not granted this right.
3. Therefore, killing her was wrong.

• Again we would ask is this argument valid and sound?

Rachel’s Question
We might agree with the principle that it is wrong to treat some people worse than others, “when there are no relevant differences between them that would justify it.” p.9
Question: was this is the case with Tracy?

The Slippery Slope Argument
1.If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will have stepped onto a “slippery slope” down which we will inevitably slide.
2. In the end all life will be held cheap.
3. Hence, Tracy should not have been killed.

Reply to the Slippery Slope Argument
• Are the causal claims supported by any evidence?
• In general, it is easy to make dire predictions concerning the future.
• Consider an analogy: Would gay marriage lead to the disintegration of the family?

Concluding Thoughts: Reason and Impartiality
• Rachel’s holds that two basic points about ethics emerge from a consideration of these examples.
1. Our feelings are important, but they must be guided by reason.
2. Ethics includes the idea of impartiality.

Why not be guided by feelings alone?
1. Feelings may be irrational.
2. People often have different feelings about the same issue.
• We need to be in touch we our feelings and we need to get the facts straight, but that’s not enough.