What is Morality?

Case #1: An Infant with No Prospects: Baby Theresa

Is it morally permissible to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant and so cause her death?

Yes. The benefits argument:

1. If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so.
2. Transplanting the organs would benefit other babies without harming Baby Theresa.
3. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.

No. 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 Baby Theresa's organs would be using her as a means to other people's ends.
3. Therefore, taking Baby Theresa's organs would be wrong.

No. The argument from the wrongness of killing:

1. It is wrong to kill one person to save another.
2. Taking Baby Theresa's organs would be killing her to save others.
3. Therefore, taking Baby Theresa's organs would be wrong.

Case #2: An Infant with Uncertain Prospects: Jody & Mary

Conjoined twins: organs can support only one; without separation, both die in six months

Two distinct questions (interested in the latter only):

Q1. Who should make the decision?

Q2. Is it morally permissible to separate the twins?

Yes. The argument that we should save as many as we can:

1. If we can act so as to save more lives rather than fewer, we ought to do so.
2. We can act this way (by performing the surgery that will save Jody).
3. Therefore, we ought to perform the surgery.

No. The argument from the sanctity of life:

1. It is wrong to take innocent human life.
2. Mary’s life is an innocent human life.
3. The surgery would take Mary’s life.
4. Therefore, the surgery ought not be performed.

Case #3: A Child with No Further Prospects: Tracy Latimer

Were the father’s actions morally permissible?

No. The argument from the wrongness of discriminating against the handicapped.

1. It is wrong to discriminate against the handicapped.
2. Tracy was killed because she was handicapped.
3. Therefore, it was wrong to kill Tracy.

No. The slippery slope argument:

1. If we accept the idea that Tracy Latimer's life is "not worth living" and say that she may be killed, we will end up taking the same attitude toward the lives of other handicapped people, and perhaps even other classes of people as well.
2. That would be monstrous.
3. Therefore, we should not accept the idea that Tracy Latimer may be killed.

Yes. The benefits argument:

1. If no one would benefit from a situation, the situation ought to be continued.
2. In this case, no one, not even Tracy herself, benefits from the continuation of her life.
3. Therefore, Tracy’s life ought not be continued.

Reason and Impartiality

1. “The morally right thing to do, in any circumstance, is whatever there is the best reason for doing”

2. Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons
1. Knowledge ¹ feeling

i. Source problems: irrationally held, prejudiced, selfish, cultural conditioning

ii. Incompatible claims: p & not-p can both be true

(a) “I like coffee” is not like

(b) “Capital punishment is wrong,” but rather like

(c) “I think that “capital punishment is wrong.”

1. (a) & (c) report a taste or preference about me

2. (b) reports a fact about the world and so requires good reason

2. Checking claims:

i. Is it factually accurate?

ii. Test (i): separate our wishes/ desires from facts

iii. Apply principles

3. Impartial consideration of each individual’s interests; proscription against arbitrary evaluations

The minimum conception of morality

1. “A core that every moral theory should accept at least as a starting point”

2. Conduct is guided by reason: We should do what we have the best reasons for doing

3. Impartiality: The interests of all those affected should be taken into consideration