What is Morality?

The Problem of Definition

• to be defined: what it means to be "moral" & "ethical" (used interchangeably)
• "morally right" -- means & rule-oriented talk (e.g. Kant)
• "morally good" -- ends or outcome-oriented talk (e.g., Utilitarianism)
• Definitions in general: state necc. & suff. conditions
• necc: characteristics every morally good deed or outcome has
• sufficient: only morally good deeds or outcomes have these characteristics
• Preminimal Conception:
• Morality concerns "How we ought to live (Socrates) and why" (Rachels)
• Anything beyond this is contentious
• Rachel's "minimal conception", he thinks, is perhaps minimally contentious

Example of Moral Reasoning: Baby Doe

• At issue: whether to operate or not on Baby Jane Doe
• circumstances: multiple defects of spine & brain
• spina bifuda: to correct this condition that the surgery was being considered.
• hydrocephaly: parents eventually consented to insertion of a shunt to relieve this
• microcephaly
• prognoses
• dim prospects for improvement even with the surgery & no prospect ever of a meaningful fulfilling existence
• fair prospects for a meaningful existence which would could be made better by the surgery
• Legal case followed:
• right-to-life groups & the Reagan administration Dept. of Justice filed suit to force the surgery to be performed
• three arguments
• Benefits Argument
1. Medical procedures that wouldn't benefit anyone should not be performed.
2. No one would benefit from the surgery . . . since BJD wouldn't
3. So, the surgery shouldn't be performed.
• Sanctity of Life Argument
1. Every human life is sacred.
2. So, every human being should be given whatever medical treatment is needed to preserve (enhance?) their life.
3. The contemplated surgery is needed to preserve (enhance?) BJD's life
4. So, the surgery should be performed
• Discrimination Against the handicapped argument
1. It's wrong to discriminate against the handicapped.
2. Refusal to operate on BJD is discrimination against the handicapped.
3. So, the operation should not be refused.
• The rest of the story
• the parents won: the surgery was not performed
• the baby thrived and prospered beyond the parents (and the pessimistic Dr.'s estimates)
• by age 5 she was attending a school for the handicapped
• using a wheelchair
• R's Assessment {LH's Commentary}
• benefits argument
• no quarrel with the principle {inadequate as stated: not actual success but only a sufficient probability of success required: e.g., patient who dies during warranted surgery -- it was still warranted}
• could go either way
• Con: if no benefit to the child will result from operating
• Pro: if the child will benefit
• sanctity of life argument
• not every human life is sacred (e.g., the brain dead or irreversably comatose)
• the principle is unsound {Factual assertion false here too -- wasn't needed to preserve BJD's life.  Contemplated fix: change "preserve" to "enhance" or "preserve or enhance".  Makes the corrolary more dubious: e.g., my deviated septum.}
• discrimination argument
• doesn't dispute the principle
• factual issue: same as the benefits argument
• if BJD were likely enough to benefit sufficiently enough from the surgery
• such that the parents would unhesitatingly give the go ahead it BJD weren't handicapped
• then the charge of discrimination is sustained
• the surgery should not be refused

Reason and Impartiality

• Morals R draws from the case
• Moral judgments must be backed by reasoning involving
• evaluative principles
• and factual considerations
• Practial Syllogism (Aristotle)
• Value or "ought' premise: a normative or evaluative principle
• A judgement of fact: that a particular action accords with (or violates) the principle
• A conclusion judging that a certain action should (or shouldn't) be done
• Requirement of impartiality of principles
• forbids treating individuals differently without good reason.
• considers each individuals interests equally important
• Further observation: Variety of Evaluative Principles that can be invoked
• Concurring principles (given the facts the parents assumed): Discrimination & Benefits
• Conflicting principles (given those facts): Sanctity of life
• Dillema this poses for what to do
• what to do on the sanctity of life principle . . . that's one thing
• what to do on the benefits principle . . . that's another
• what to do period -- the ethical question -- not adequately resolved

The Minimum Conception:

• Morality, at the very least, is 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 who will be affected by one's conduct.
• Discussion: not wholly uncontentious
• Open question: whether we ought to guide our conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected.
• Dillema concerning the categoricality of the moral "ought": if the minimum conception is logically part of what "morality" means either
• the open question is not really open -- an absurd question like "Mightn't this three sided figure be a square?
• or it's not a moral question (in which case morality doesn't really address the most fundamental question of "how we ought to live"
• so morality tells us how we ought to act provided we seek to be rational and give equal weight to everyone's interests
• but doesn't tell us how we ought to act period
• Counterproposal
• Moral value (ends-talk) or obligation (means-talk) is categorical
• Morality tells us what we ought to do (or seek) period
• overides all other values & obligations
• comprehends all other values and obligations