Required Reading to Accompany These Lecture Notes:
· Elements of Moral Philosophy ch.1: "What is Morality?"
Rachels begins EMP ch.1 by pointing out that there is no “simple, uncontroversial definition of what morality is” (EMP p.1).
He then spends much of the chapter considering three real-life stories about disabled children, cases that raise serious questions about morality, as a way of building up to his own explanation of what morality is. He calls that explanation “the Minimum Conception of Morality.”
In these notes, we will examine one of those cases closely (namely, the case of Baby Theresa) and then consider Rachels’ Minimum Conception.
IMPORTANT: You are also responsible for knowing about the case of Jodie and Mary[1] (EMP pp.5–7) and the case of Tracy Latimer[2] (EMP pp.7–10).
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was born in Florida on March 21, 1992. News accounts of her story referred to her simply as "Baby Theresa." She suffered from
anencephaly (df.): the condition of an infant born with its cerebrum, cerebellum and part of its skull and scalp missing; infants born with this condition will never be conscious* and nearly always die within several days after birth.[3]
*In other words, infants with anencephaly will never have sentience:
sentience (df.): the ability to experience feelings and sensations; a being without sentience is completely unconscious.
Some basic facts about anencephaly:
· "Anencephaly occurs in one in 500 pregnancies. Over 95 percent identified prenatally are aborted. Of those carried to term, 60 percent are stillborn. … About 300 anencephalic babies are born alive each year." (Pence p.248)[4]
· Anencephalic infants who are alive at birth usually die within a few hours or days.[5]
· "[W]ith maximal supportive care, some anencephalic infants could survive indefinitely." (Pence p.250)
· "Anencephalics are the major potential source of donor organs for other babies born with congenital defects. When the recipient is an infant, a donor organ must be very small, and so an infant donor is needed. However, few infants are involved in accidents that leave them brain dead but with healthy organs. Babies who die as a result of abuse or from sudden infant death syndrome usually have damaged organs that are unsuitable for transplantation" (Pence p.248, emphasis added).
Baby Theresa's mother, Laura Campo, had no medical insurance. She did not see a doctor about her pregnancy until her 24th week, and she did not learn that the fetus she carried was anencephalic until the eighth month of her pregnancy, too late for a legal abortion to be performed in the state of Florida.[6] "Like most mothers of anencephalic fetuses, Laura said that if she had known the diagnosis earlier, she would have aborted" (Pence p.248).
Theresa's parents wanted to donate her organs to other infants, and their physicians agreed. For this to work, they could not wait for her to die naturally. By that time her organs would have begun to fail due to lack of sufficient oxygen, and they would no longer be suitable for transplant into other bodies.
However, removing her organs would cause immediate death, and Florida law prohibits removing organs until the organ donor is legally dead. A circuit court judge determined that, even though Theresa was anencephalic, she was not legally dead.[7] So Theresa's organs were not removed. She died on the ninth day after she was born, and her organs were never used.
People had opposing moral views about this case. Some people thought taking the organs would be morally wrong (immoral). But others (including Theresa's parents and physicians) thought that it would be morally right to take them.
But we do not want to know simply what people's views are about this case. We want to know which view is true. Would taking those organs, and thereby killing Baby Theresa, have been wrong, or should her doctors have taken her organs?
To discover which view is correct, we must look at the arguments that can be given on each side.
argument (df.): an attempt to convince someone that a claim is true by providing reasons or evidence in support of that claim; the reasons/evidence are the argument's premises (singular: premise), and the claim that those premises support is the argument's conclusion.
Here is an argument in support of taking the organs:
The Benefits Argument (EMP p.3)
1. If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. [premise]
2. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. [premise]
3. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs. [conclusion]
Here the Benefits Argument is presented in standard form: its premises and its conclusion are stated on separate, numbered lines and arranged so that the conclusion comes at the end. In EMP, this same argument is stated in prose—in normal paragraph form, without any special structure. Putting an argument into standard form makes it explicit what the premises are and what the conclusion is, and so it helps us better judge whether the argument is good or bad.
Here are two arguments against taking the organs (these are also in standard form):
The Argument that We Should Not Use People as Means (EMP p.3)
1. It is wrong to use people as means to other people's ends. [premise]
2. Taking Theresa's organs would be using her to benefit the other children. [premise]
3. Therefore, it should not be done. [conclusion]
The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing (EMP pp.4-5)
1. It is wrong to kill one person to save another. [conclusion]
2. Taking Theresa's organs would be killing her to save others. [conclusion]
3. So, taking the organs would be wrong. [conclusion]
In each of these arguments, the first premise states a general moral principle that could be applied to many different issues or situations, and the second premise describes a situation to which that general moral principle is supposed to apply. This is a very common kind of moral argument, and we will see more examples of it as the course progresses.
QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION AND FURTHER THOUGHT: Which of these three arguments about Baby Theresa is best? Why is it the best?
We will return to these arguments in the next Learning Module, after we have learned some more basic concepts from logic.
Toward the end of EMP ch.1, James Rachels asks: “What can we learn from these cases [including the Baby Theresa case] about the nature of morality?” (EMP p.10)
His answer is what he calls the Minimum Conception of Morality. It consists of two claims: “Morality is, at the very least, [#1] the effort to guide one's conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—[#2] while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's decision” (EMP p.13).[8]
The Minimum Conception is the very least that a theory of morality must contain in order to even be about morality at all.
[2.3.1.] The First Claim of the Minimum Conception.
We will talk about claim #2 at length later in the course. For now, let's focus on claim #1 of the Minimum Conception.
Another way of putting that first claim is this: A claim that something is morally right or morally wrong is only as good as the arguments that one can give to support it. Because of this, most (but not all) philosophical work consists in arguing in support of philosophical claims.
In ethics, if you believe that something is right or wrong, you need to be able to back up that belief with good reasons. In other words, you must be able to give an argument for your belief.
Suppose you say that in general, theft is immoral.
If I ask you why you think this is the case, then you ought to be able to give me a reason, e.g., "It harms the person from whom something is being stolen." This may be a good argument in support of the claim that, in general, theft is wrong.
A worse argument in support of the conclusion that theft is wrong is this: "Sometimes you end up stealing low quality goods and it's really not worth the effort."
This illustrates the fact that some moral arguments are worse than others—so we will need to be able to evaluate moral arguments, to say whether such an argument is good or bad.
If you can give no reason for asserting that theft is wrong, then I am within my rights to ignore you. This shows that morality is based on reasons.
This is much different than saying, e.g., "Pepsi is better than Coca-Cola!" This is an acceptable statement, even if I have no reasons to give in support of it. This is one way that moral claims are different than claims of personal preference.
Rachels points out that we must rely on reasons, and not feelings alone, when we are thinking about morality:
The cases of Baby Theresa, Jodie and Mary, and Tracy Latimer may arouse strong feelings in us. Such feelings might be admirable; they might be a sign of moral seriousness. However, they can also get in the way of discovering the truth. When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we just know what the truth is, without even having to consider the arguments. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be due to prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. At one time, for example, people's feelings told them that members of other races were inferior and that slavery was God's great plan.
Also, people's feelings vary. In the case of Tracy Latimer, some people feel strongly that her father deserved a long prison term; other people support the father passionately. But both of these feelings cannot be correct. If we assume that our view must be correct, simply because we hold it, then we are just being arrogant.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments. (EMP pp.10–11, emphasis added)
Because people sometimes disagree about what is morally right, and because it is usually possible to give arguments for each side of a moral issue, we must be able to evaluate moral arguments. In other words, we must be able to tell good arguments about morality from bad ones.
To do this, we will need to take a detour out of ethics and into logic and consider some basic logical concepts. In particular, we need to understand:
· validity
· soundness
The concepts of validity and soundness are explained in the next set of Lecture Notes. When you read and study those notes, pay special attention to those two concepts—you will need to master them to do well in this course.
Information contained in these footnotes is provided in case you are interested in further reading. You will not be quizzed on the information given in these footnotes or on the websites to which they link. However, you should feel free to refer to this material in your discussion board posts.
[1] Jodie and Mary’s real names are Gracie and Rosie Attard. Gracie (“Jodie”), who survived the surgery, is now 19 years old. See “Miracle Child Wants to Become a Doctor,” Malta Today, October 11, 2014.
[2] Tracy was killed by her father, Robert Latimer, who was paroled after serving 10 years in prison for 2nd-degree murder. He applied for a pardon from the Canadian government in June 2018. See “Robert Latimer, Convicted of Killing His Disabled Daughter, Applies for Pardon,” CBC News, July 11, 2018.
[3] For more information, see NINDS Anencephaly Information Page, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
[4] References are to Gregory Pence, Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2011.
[6] Abortion is illegal at the 24th week of pregnancy in Florida. Guttmacher Institute, "An Overview of Abortion Laws.”
[7] The judge in question relied in part on the so-called Harvard Criteria of brain death, which include lack of spontaneous breathing. Theresa was breathing on her own, so she did not meet these criteria of brain death. Months after Baby Theresa died, the Florida Supreme Court considered the matter and upheld the lower court's decision. The full text of its decision in this case is here.
[8] Another statement of these two ideas (EMP pp.10-11):
1. "[M]oral judgments must be backed up by good reasons … The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments";
2. "[M]orality requires the impartial* consideration of each individual's interests." In other words, it requires that we view all people as equally important and take the well-being of one to be just as important as that of any other.
*Here, “impartial” means unbiased, treating everyone equally.