summary the elements of moral philosophy 10th edition 2023 james rachels test bank questions
,summary the elements of moral philosophy 10th edition 2023 james rachels test bank questions
, 3
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS MORALITY?
Distinguishing between right and wrong, or good and bad, can be contradictory
sometimes like the term of morality. Morality is a controversial topic to define because there are
diverse theories with different concepts about living morally. The author, Rachels, attempted to
define morality as a minimum concept which joins two elements; judgement should have sound
reasoning and there should be impartial consideration for all parties involved. Rachels also helps
to understand morality by giving the audience concrete scenarios such as Baby Theresa’s case of
anencephaly, conjoined twins Jodie and Mary, and Tracy Latimer with Cerebral Palsy.
In the first example, the author represented the concept of morality with Theresa’s case.
Baby Theresa was born with a genetic disorder called anencephaly, a congenital defect where
the baby is born with missing parts of the brain and skull. Theresa’s parents wanted to donate
her organs to children that were in need, however, this intention could not be done under Florida
law because it was prohibited to remove the organs until the donor has passed away. In fact,
Florida law considered that a donor was dead when their heart stops beating. Theresa died after
nine days from being born. However, her organs were considered to be not transferable upon her
death because of too much deterioration.
Theresa’s case produced agreements and disagreement between the community about
whether Theresa’s life should be put to an end to help others or to keep her alive. One side
agreed with the argument about donating her organs because her organs would not be helpful to
her, her ability of interaction with others was not possible, and her life would not ever be
normal. On the contrary, the disagreement(s) was referred to the wrongness of taking away the
life of a person and violating her autonomy to preserve another one. Personally, I agree with
donating Theresa’s organs, in the process killing her, to save other children. This makes sense to
me, because although she is alive, she has no will of her own; for what is a life without a soul.
But if her organs were to be donated, a part of Theresa could live on.
Rachels’ second example was a case where a woman from Gozo was carrying conjoined
twins, Mary and Jodie. Most conjoined twins die shortly after birth, but some go on to live long
and healthy lives. However, Mary and Jodie’s story was different. Doctors said that Mary and
Jodie would die within 6 months, however, if they were separated through operation, Jodie
would survive but Mary will die instantly. Mary and Jodie’s parents refused to separate the twins
because it would hasten Mary’s mortality, but in spite of that, the hospitals petitioned the courts
for approval to save Jodie, which was approved. From here the argument arises; is it right or
wrong to separate the twins? There are two points the author brings up; to save one infant or to
let both die and the sanctity of a human life. Was it better to save Jodie and let Mary die or was
it better to let nature take its course?
, 4
Many people agreed that it made more sense to save one than none; save as many as you
can. Mary and Jodie’s parents did not agree, they loved both of their children equally and did not
want to end one's life to save the other. To them, human life was precious even if it meant
sacrificing a better purpose. This idea was originated from traditional ethics, where killing the
innocent was considered to be immoral, no matter the reason.
Unfortunately, I am impartial with both arguments. Having to make the decision on whether to
save one of your children in favor of the other or to let both die so that you won’t have to live
with the guilt of not being able to preserve both is a hard decision to make. This is not something
I would have an answer for, not now, not ever. This goes to show that not everything is as
simple as it seems.
The author’s third and last example to help define morality is the case of Tracey Latimer
with Cerebral Palsy. Tracey, a 12-year-old girl, was “murdered” by her father, Robert Latimer,
by suffocating her in the cab of his pickup truck with exhaust fumes. Tracey was thought to have
the mental function of an infant. Robert was tried and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Although
the supreme court thought that this was wrong, was it truly wrong? Robert argues that Tracey
was suffering and that he did this to relieve her from that suffering. With that being said, it
makes sense to me.
For example, if I was living in a vegetative state requiring assistance with every aspect of
my life and not being able to have any autonomy, I would ask for someone to grace me with my
end. However, the case also included arguments of discrimination. The handicapped community
believed that Robert did not end Tracey’s life because she was unhappy, but because she was
handicapped. The community believed that no one has the right to determine that one's life is
more important than others based off of race, age, sex, and/or handicap. Also, because of Tracey
and Robert’s case, some people believed that it could have opened the doors to the idea of
people making the decision to who gets to live and who gets to die on the behalf of mercy and to
end suffering. I truly believe that it was not Robert's intentions to discriminate or to play the role
of God, but because he loved his daughter so much that he couldn’t bear to watch her suffer any
longer. Even Tracey’s doctors admitted that controlling Tracey’s pain through all of her
operations and procedures was a hard task. As a loving and caring father, Robert knew what he
had to do, and it probably shook him to his very core.
In conclusion, morality is a guide to which it brings us reasons of interest for each
individual that it can be involved in any situation. The author illustrates that the moral
judgement and the consideration of impartiality of all parties involved in the decision of action
like choosing which of the conjoined twins, Jodie or Mary, would have more possibility and/or
opportunity to live or Robert killing his own daughter who was suffering because of a cerebral
palsy. Not every reason will always be moral and not everyone will think the same, but it is
important to accept the opinion of others under any situation.
These three stories emphasize the reasons and impartiality that needs to be taken under
consideration over feelings and emotions.
Additionally, they represent the reasons of each of the possible paths for them knowing that not
everyone would agree with them. But the relative strong reasons can prevail in a slippery
,summary the elements of moral philosophy 10th edition 2023 james rachels test bank questions
, 3
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS MORALITY?
Distinguishing between right and wrong, or good and bad, can be contradictory
sometimes like the term of morality. Morality is a controversial topic to define because there are
diverse theories with different concepts about living morally. The author, Rachels, attempted to
define morality as a minimum concept which joins two elements; judgement should have sound
reasoning and there should be impartial consideration for all parties involved. Rachels also helps
to understand morality by giving the audience concrete scenarios such as Baby Theresa’s case of
anencephaly, conjoined twins Jodie and Mary, and Tracy Latimer with Cerebral Palsy.
In the first example, the author represented the concept of morality with Theresa’s case.
Baby Theresa was born with a genetic disorder called anencephaly, a congenital defect where
the baby is born with missing parts of the brain and skull. Theresa’s parents wanted to donate
her organs to children that were in need, however, this intention could not be done under Florida
law because it was prohibited to remove the organs until the donor has passed away. In fact,
Florida law considered that a donor was dead when their heart stops beating. Theresa died after
nine days from being born. However, her organs were considered to be not transferable upon her
death because of too much deterioration.
Theresa’s case produced agreements and disagreement between the community about
whether Theresa’s life should be put to an end to help others or to keep her alive. One side
agreed with the argument about donating her organs because her organs would not be helpful to
her, her ability of interaction with others was not possible, and her life would not ever be
normal. On the contrary, the disagreement(s) was referred to the wrongness of taking away the
life of a person and violating her autonomy to preserve another one. Personally, I agree with
donating Theresa’s organs, in the process killing her, to save other children. This makes sense to
me, because although she is alive, she has no will of her own; for what is a life without a soul.
But if her organs were to be donated, a part of Theresa could live on.
Rachels’ second example was a case where a woman from Gozo was carrying conjoined
twins, Mary and Jodie. Most conjoined twins die shortly after birth, but some go on to live long
and healthy lives. However, Mary and Jodie’s story was different. Doctors said that Mary and
Jodie would die within 6 months, however, if they were separated through operation, Jodie
would survive but Mary will die instantly. Mary and Jodie’s parents refused to separate the twins
because it would hasten Mary’s mortality, but in spite of that, the hospitals petitioned the courts
for approval to save Jodie, which was approved. From here the argument arises; is it right or
wrong to separate the twins? There are two points the author brings up; to save one infant or to
let both die and the sanctity of a human life. Was it better to save Jodie and let Mary die or was
it better to let nature take its course?
, 4
Many people agreed that it made more sense to save one than none; save as many as you
can. Mary and Jodie’s parents did not agree, they loved both of their children equally and did not
want to end one's life to save the other. To them, human life was precious even if it meant
sacrificing a better purpose. This idea was originated from traditional ethics, where killing the
innocent was considered to be immoral, no matter the reason.
Unfortunately, I am impartial with both arguments. Having to make the decision on whether to
save one of your children in favor of the other or to let both die so that you won’t have to live
with the guilt of not being able to preserve both is a hard decision to make. This is not something
I would have an answer for, not now, not ever. This goes to show that not everything is as
simple as it seems.
The author’s third and last example to help define morality is the case of Tracey Latimer
with Cerebral Palsy. Tracey, a 12-year-old girl, was “murdered” by her father, Robert Latimer,
by suffocating her in the cab of his pickup truck with exhaust fumes. Tracey was thought to have
the mental function of an infant. Robert was tried and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Although
the supreme court thought that this was wrong, was it truly wrong? Robert argues that Tracey
was suffering and that he did this to relieve her from that suffering. With that being said, it
makes sense to me.
For example, if I was living in a vegetative state requiring assistance with every aspect of
my life and not being able to have any autonomy, I would ask for someone to grace me with my
end. However, the case also included arguments of discrimination. The handicapped community
believed that Robert did not end Tracey’s life because she was unhappy, but because she was
handicapped. The community believed that no one has the right to determine that one's life is
more important than others based off of race, age, sex, and/or handicap. Also, because of Tracey
and Robert’s case, some people believed that it could have opened the doors to the idea of
people making the decision to who gets to live and who gets to die on the behalf of mercy and to
end suffering. I truly believe that it was not Robert's intentions to discriminate or to play the role
of God, but because he loved his daughter so much that he couldn’t bear to watch her suffer any
longer. Even Tracey’s doctors admitted that controlling Tracey’s pain through all of her
operations and procedures was a hard task. As a loving and caring father, Robert knew what he
had to do, and it probably shook him to his very core.
In conclusion, morality is a guide to which it brings us reasons of interest for each
individual that it can be involved in any situation. The author illustrates that the moral
judgement and the consideration of impartiality of all parties involved in the decision of action
like choosing which of the conjoined twins, Jodie or Mary, would have more possibility and/or
opportunity to live or Robert killing his own daughter who was suffering because of a cerebral
palsy. Not every reason will always be moral and not everyone will think the same, but it is
important to accept the opinion of others under any situation.
These three stories emphasize the reasons and impartiality that needs to be taken under
consideration over feelings and emotions.
Additionally, they represent the reasons of each of the possible paths for them knowing that not
everyone would agree with them. But the relative strong reasons can prevail in a slippery
