What is Morality
Moral Philosophy = the study of what morality is (descriptive) and what it requires of us
(normative)
Morality was first inspected and examined by Socrates
“How we ought to live” and why
The problem of definition
- Morality is the study of morality is and what it requires of us
- There is no definite, uncontroversial definition of what morality is
- Resort to the minimum conception of morality
o Minimum conception is a core that every moral theory should accept, at least
as a starting point
Baby Theresa Example
Facts:
• Baby Theresa was born with anencephaly (important parts of the brain, the cerebrum
and cerebellum, are missing as is the top of the skull but the brain stem is still there
so the baby can still breathe and possess a heartbeat). Of those babies born with this
genetic disorder most will be stillborn or die within days of being born.
• Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for immediate transplant even though baby
Theresa was still alive in the medical sense but would ultimately die soon.
Moral Arguments involved
1. Benefit argument
P1) If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, then we ought to do so.
P2) Transplanting the organs would benefit other children without harming baby Theresa.
C) Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs
Soundness (Harm)
Is the claim that Theresa wouldn’t be harmed really sound? (isn’t dying harmful)
- Staying alive is good for someone only if it allows her to do things and to have
thoughts, feelings, and relations with other people
- Only if the individuals who is alive has a life
- Without the functions of a life mere biological existence has no value
- Therefore, even though Theresa might remain alive for a few more days, it
would do her no good
,2. Arguments against
a) The argument that we should not use people as means
P1) It is wrong to use people as a means to other people’s ends
P2) Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit the other
children
C) Therefore, it should not be done
Soundness (use)
- “Using people” typically involves violating their autonomy (ability to decide for
themselves how to live their own lines, based on their own desires and values)
- A person’s autonomy can be violated through manipulation, trickery, or deceit or being
forced to do something against one’s will
- Taking baby Theresa organs would not be violating her autonomy because she has none
(she cannot make decisions, has no desires and she cannot value anything)
- But would we be using her organs against her wishes even if she has none
o When people are unable to made decisions for themselves and others must step
in we ask
o 1. What would be in their best interest – Baby Theresa’s interests will not be
affected as she is not conscious, and she will die soon no matter
o 2. If she could tell us what she wants, what would she say – useful when dealing
with people who have preferences pr had them, however baby Theresa has no
preferences no can she ever have any
b) The argument from the wrongness of killing
P1) It is always wrong to kill one person to save another
P2) Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others
C) Therefore, taking the organs would be wrong
Soundness (always wrong to kill)
- Exceptions (killing in self-defense)
o Is taking baby Theresa’s organs an exception
- Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never have a life; she is bound to die soon and
taking her organs will benefit other children
- Other possibility to regard Theresa as already dead
o In law death as occurring not when the heart stops beating but when the brain
stops functioning ‘brain dead’
,Reason and impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons and morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individuals’ interests
Moral Reasoning
• moral issues evoke strong emotions, but our emotions can be irrational (products of
selfishness, prejudice, or cultural conditioning)
• people’s feelings always vary
• the morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments
o the fundamental point = if someone says that you ought to do or no do
something, then you may legitimately ask why ® and if no good reason can
be given, then you may reject the advice as arbitrary or unfounded
o in this way moral judgements are different from expressions of personal taste
o how can we assess moral arguments
o facts of the specific case need to clarify and specified
- problems: lack of information; complexity human prejudice
(confirmation bias)
- need to rely on reliable, informed sources
o moral principles
- ask whether the principles are justified and being applied
correctly: there are good and bad arguments, and we need to
distinguish between them
- how = logic
The requirement of Impartiality
• to be impartial = to treat everyone alike; no one gets special treatment
• also requires that we not treat members of a particular groups as inferior (eg. sexism,
racism)
• Characteristics of particular individuals are considered only if they are relevant (If
there are good reasons for treating them differently)
• Question: Are there any situations in which morality require us to be partial?
The minimum conception of morality
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 one’s action
Conscious moral agent = someone who
o is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she
does
o carefully sifts facts and examines their implications
o accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are
justified
o listens to reasons even when it means revising prior convictions
o act on these deliberations
, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
Different cultures have different moral codes
Conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to
culture. If we assume that everyone shares our values,
then we are merely being naïve
Cultural Relativism
Does this mean there are no universal truths?
= Cultural Relativism says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics;
there are only the various cultural codes
Cultural relativists make the following claims:
1. different societies have different moral codes
2. the moral code determines what is right within a society
3. there is no objective slandered that can be used to judge one society’s code as better
than another one’s
4. the moral code of our own society has no special status
5. it is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them
what if the norms of our society favor not tolerating them
(eg. Nazi’s invading Poland starting WW2)
Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme within the bounds
of the culture itself
Moral Philosophy = the study of what morality is (descriptive) and what it requires of us
(normative)
Morality was first inspected and examined by Socrates
“How we ought to live” and why
The problem of definition
- Morality is the study of morality is and what it requires of us
- There is no definite, uncontroversial definition of what morality is
- Resort to the minimum conception of morality
o Minimum conception is a core that every moral theory should accept, at least
as a starting point
Baby Theresa Example
Facts:
• Baby Theresa was born with anencephaly (important parts of the brain, the cerebrum
and cerebellum, are missing as is the top of the skull but the brain stem is still there
so the baby can still breathe and possess a heartbeat). Of those babies born with this
genetic disorder most will be stillborn or die within days of being born.
• Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for immediate transplant even though baby
Theresa was still alive in the medical sense but would ultimately die soon.
Moral Arguments involved
1. Benefit argument
P1) If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, then we ought to do so.
P2) Transplanting the organs would benefit other children without harming baby Theresa.
C) Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs
Soundness (Harm)
Is the claim that Theresa wouldn’t be harmed really sound? (isn’t dying harmful)
- Staying alive is good for someone only if it allows her to do things and to have
thoughts, feelings, and relations with other people
- Only if the individuals who is alive has a life
- Without the functions of a life mere biological existence has no value
- Therefore, even though Theresa might remain alive for a few more days, it
would do her no good
,2. Arguments against
a) The argument that we should not use people as means
P1) It is wrong to use people as a means to other people’s ends
P2) Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit the other
children
C) Therefore, it should not be done
Soundness (use)
- “Using people” typically involves violating their autonomy (ability to decide for
themselves how to live their own lines, based on their own desires and values)
- A person’s autonomy can be violated through manipulation, trickery, or deceit or being
forced to do something against one’s will
- Taking baby Theresa organs would not be violating her autonomy because she has none
(she cannot make decisions, has no desires and she cannot value anything)
- But would we be using her organs against her wishes even if she has none
o When people are unable to made decisions for themselves and others must step
in we ask
o 1. What would be in their best interest – Baby Theresa’s interests will not be
affected as she is not conscious, and she will die soon no matter
o 2. If she could tell us what she wants, what would she say – useful when dealing
with people who have preferences pr had them, however baby Theresa has no
preferences no can she ever have any
b) The argument from the wrongness of killing
P1) It is always wrong to kill one person to save another
P2) Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others
C) Therefore, taking the organs would be wrong
Soundness (always wrong to kill)
- Exceptions (killing in self-defense)
o Is taking baby Theresa’s organs an exception
- Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never have a life; she is bound to die soon and
taking her organs will benefit other children
- Other possibility to regard Theresa as already dead
o In law death as occurring not when the heart stops beating but when the brain
stops functioning ‘brain dead’
,Reason and impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons and morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individuals’ interests
Moral Reasoning
• moral issues evoke strong emotions, but our emotions can be irrational (products of
selfishness, prejudice, or cultural conditioning)
• people’s feelings always vary
• the morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments
o the fundamental point = if someone says that you ought to do or no do
something, then you may legitimately ask why ® and if no good reason can
be given, then you may reject the advice as arbitrary or unfounded
o in this way moral judgements are different from expressions of personal taste
o how can we assess moral arguments
o facts of the specific case need to clarify and specified
- problems: lack of information; complexity human prejudice
(confirmation bias)
- need to rely on reliable, informed sources
o moral principles
- ask whether the principles are justified and being applied
correctly: there are good and bad arguments, and we need to
distinguish between them
- how = logic
The requirement of Impartiality
• to be impartial = to treat everyone alike; no one gets special treatment
• also requires that we not treat members of a particular groups as inferior (eg. sexism,
racism)
• Characteristics of particular individuals are considered only if they are relevant (If
there are good reasons for treating them differently)
• Question: Are there any situations in which morality require us to be partial?
The minimum conception of morality
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 one’s action
Conscious moral agent = someone who
o is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she
does
o carefully sifts facts and examines their implications
o accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are
justified
o listens to reasons even when it means revising prior convictions
o act on these deliberations
, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
Different cultures have different moral codes
Conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to
culture. If we assume that everyone shares our values,
then we are merely being naïve
Cultural Relativism
Does this mean there are no universal truths?
= Cultural Relativism says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics;
there are only the various cultural codes
Cultural relativists make the following claims:
1. different societies have different moral codes
2. the moral code determines what is right within a society
3. there is no objective slandered that can be used to judge one society’s code as better
than another one’s
4. the moral code of our own society has no special status
5. it is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them
what if the norms of our society favor not tolerating them
(eg. Nazi’s invading Poland starting WW2)
Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme within the bounds
of the culture itself
