STUDY GUIDE FOR ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY (second edition) Chapter 1: What is Morality? Rachels begins his book by attempting to arrive at a simple uncontroversial definition of morality. This task, however, is not an easy one since there are many rival theories of morality. To help arrive at a core definition, he uses the famous Baby Jane Doe case as an illustration of moral reasoning. He begins with a brief overview of the case, then discusses the moral arguments given by the various parties involved, and, finally, arrives at a minimum conception (or definition) of morality. (T, M, and B in the parentheses below refer to the top, middle and bottom of the page in question.) (1) Who was Baby Jane Doe, and what was the court case about (1-3)? (2) Who were the two physicians involved in the case, and what was their differing advice (t 2)? (3) What was the parents' argument for deciding to deny corrective surgery (t 4)? (4) What was Dr. C. Everett Koop's argument for why corrective surgery should have been performed (b 5 - t 6)? (5) What is Rachels's criticism of Koop's argument Give the first interpretation of Koop's position, and explain why Rachels believes Koop's argument fails on that interpretation (b 4 - t 5). (6) Give the argument based on discrimination against the handicapped for why corrective surgery should have been performed (7). (7) What is the difference between discrimination against a blind person, and denying a blind person a job as an air traffic controller (t 8)? After considering the above three positions on the Baby Jane Doe case, Rachels concludes that the benefits argument used by the parents was the best approach. However, since the parents got the facts wrong about what would be in the best interests of the infant, they made the wrong decision. Rachels turns next to examine the central role of reasoning in moral decision making. (8) What should we do about our feelings in matters of morality (m 10)? (9) What is the difference between a moral judgment and a matter of personal taste (b 10)? (10) Explain how reason is related to impartiality (m 13). (11) What, at bottom, is the moral requirement of impartiality (m 13)? (12) What is the minimum conception of morality which Rachels arrives at the end of Chapter 1 (b 13)? Chapter 2: The Challenge of Cultural Relativism A moral skeptic is a person who denies the absolute or objective nature of morality. Rachels dedicates two chapters to the refutation of the skeptic's position. Moral skeptics often base their denial of moral objectivity on arguments from cultural relativism. In this chapter Rachels (1) discusses the claims and arguments commonly given by cultural relativists, (2) gives several arguments against cultural relativism, and (3) concludes with two positive lessons that can be learned from cultural relativism. (13) How do the Greeks and Callatians differ with respect to their treatment of the dead (15)? (14) What are some of the unusual custom of the Eskimos (16)? (15) According to William Graham Sumner, where do we find the standards of morality (m 17) (16) Rachels gives six claims or ideas commonly expressed by cultural relativists. For our purposes, the first two are the most important. What are these two claims (t 18) (17) What is the general argument most often given by cultural relativists (m 19)? (18) Why does Rachels believe that this argument is unsound (b 19)? Although Rachels believes that the general argument for cultural relativism is unsound, he uncovers additional problems with that theory. In particular, he notes some absurd consequences which result if we take the argument for cultural relativism seriously. (19) One absurd consequence of cultural relativism is that we can no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. Why is that a bad consequence (t 21)? (20) A second absurd consequence of cultural relativism is that we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. Why is that a bad consequence (b 21)? (21) A third absurd consequence is that the idea of moral progress is called into doubt. How does our idea of a social reformer show the absurdity of this consequence (b 22)? (22) Rachels continues his attack on cultural relativism by arguing that there are fewer cultural differences than the skeptics claim. The problem is that skeptics dramatically overestimate the extent of the differences which do exist. Explain this overestimation in the case of Hindus not eating cows. (m 23). (23) Explain this overestimation in the case of the Eskimos killing their infant children (t 24). (24) Rachels argues further against cultural relativism by noting that all societies actually have some common values. What are the three values which Rachels discusses (m 25)? (25) Why must these be common values to all societies (b 25-26)? (26) Even though cultural relativism fails as an overall account of human value, two positive lessons can be learned from this theory. What are these two lessons (t 27 - t 28)? Chapter 3: Subjectivism in Ethics As noted above, a moral skeptic is a person who denies an objective basis of morality--a denial often based on sociological arguments about culturally relative human behavior. Moral skeptics also make a linguistic argument against the objectivity of moral expressions such as "X is good." For the skeptic, such utterances are merely expressions of feelings, and are not true or false statements about the world. The view that moral expressions reduce to human emotions is typically called moral subjectivism. In this section, Rachels explains, then refutes, two linguistic accounts of moral subjectivism (simple subjectivism and emotivism). (27) What is the basic thought behind ethical subjectivism (t 31)? There are two distinct stages of subjectivism in the history of modern ethics. The first, proposed by David Hume in 1740, is what Rachels calls "simple subjectivism." This evolved into a second stage called "emotivism," the proponent of which is Charles Stevenson (1944). (28) With simple subjectivism, what is the meaning of moral terms such as "X is right," or "X is good" (b 32)? (29) There are two traditional objections to simple subjectivism. The first is that we are sometimes wrong in our evaluations. Explain how this is a problem for the theory of simple subjectivism (33). (30) The second objection to simple subjectivism is that it cannot account for disagreements which occur in ethics. Explain this objection (29). Having dispensed with the theory of simple subjectivism, Rachels turns next to the more contemporary subjectivist theory of emotivism. The key to understanding emotivism is to distinguish between (1) propositions, and (2) non-propositional sentences. Propositions are either true or false statements about the world and include assertions and reports of attitudes. Non-propositional sentences, by contrast, include questions, commands, exclamations and expressions of attitudes. (31) What is the difference between a report of an attitude and an expression of an attitude (m 36)? Simple subjectivism offered a propositional account of moral expressions since, on this view, expressions such as "X is good" really mean to report our attitude that "I approve of X." Emotivism, by contrast, offers a non- propositional account of moral expressions. For, here, expressions such as "X is good" really mean both of the following: "Hurrah for X!" [an expression of an attitude] "Do X" [a command] Emotivism differs from simple subjectivism in that it does not fall prey to the two objections to simple subjectivism discussed above. (33) Why doesn't emotivism imply that our moral judgments are infallible (m 37)? (34) How does emotivism take account of moral disagreements (b 37-t 38)? Ultimately, though, emotivism also fails as a credible account of the meaning of moral terms. The reason is that emotivism cannot effectively account for the use of reason in ethical decision making. According to Stevenson, "Any statement about any fact which any speaker considers likely to alter attitudes may be adduced as a reason for or against an ethical judgment." (35) For Rachels, what is wrong with Stevenson's account of moral reason (b 39)? A final problem which Rachels notes with emotivism is that it assumes only two alternatives to understanding the meaning of moral terms: first alternative: moral statements are factual propositions (similar propositions about the planets and the stars). second alternative: moral values are nothing more than non- propositional expressions of feelings. (36) The problem here is that emotivists overlook a third alternative. What is this alternative (m 40)? Rachels concludes this chapter illustrating the use of moral reasoning with the issue of homosexuality. (37) One argument for the immorality of homosexuality stems from the claim that homosexuals pose a threat to society. What is Rachels's criticism of this argument (b 41)? (38) A second argument for the immorality of homosexuality is that it is unnatural and, therefore, immoral. What problem does Rachels find with this argument (42)? (39) A third argument against homosexuality is that it is contrary to family values. What is Rachels's response to this argument (m 43)? Chapter 4: Does Morality Depend on Religion? In this chapter, Rachels examines then criticizes the position that morality depends on religion. He begins by noting why some people think there is a connection between religion and human value. (40) Briefly describe the atheistic world perspective discussed by Bertrand Russell (b 45). (41) Briefly describe the Christian world view (m 46). (42) How does Rachels define the divine command theory (t 47)? (43) Explain Plato's dilemma of God's relation to morality (b 47). (44) Regarding the first option of Plato's dilemma, Rachels argues that the divine command theory fails because it makes God's commands arbitrary. Explain (t 48). (45) Rachels argues further that the divine command theory implies that "the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to nonsense." Explain (b 48). (46) Given these problems with the divine command theory, the only alternative open to the believer is the theory of natural law. The natural law theory has three parts, the first of which is that the world has a built in purpose. Give an example of this purpose (t 51)? (47) The second part of natural law theory is that the laws of nature tell us how things ought to be. Explain how this has influenced some theologians in their understanding of proper sexual practices (m 52). (48) The third part of the theory is that moral laws are laws of reason. On this principle, how does a Christian's duty compare with that of the non-believer (b 54)? (49) On the theory of natural law, the relation between morality and religion is the same as that between science and religion. Explain (b 54 - 55). To illustrate his point that morality is based on good reasons, and not religious dogma, Rachels closes this chapter with a discussion of abortion. (50) When turning to religion for moral direction, one must either address the bible itself, or church tradition. What are some of the problems involved with deriving moral guidance from the scripture (b 56)? (51) Anti-abortionists often appeal to the first chapter of Jeremiah for their defense. What does Rachels think is wrong with this specific appeal (b 58)? (52) The most interesting religious argument against abortion, however, is taken from church tradition. What was Aquinas's view about whether a fetus had a human soul (b 59)? (53) What was the 17th century view on this issue (t 60)? (54) Rachels charges that the church's position on abortion is inconsistent. Explain (b 60). Chapter 5: Psychological Egoism The close relation between morality and psychology is expressed in the dictum that "ought implies can." This means that we are required to do some action X, only if it is within our psychological ability to do X. For example, since people are not psychologically capable of donating their entire savings to charity or to the church, that is not something which could be morally demanded. Frequently, moral theories take this relation between morality and psychology further by founding their moral theory on some psychological fact about humans. For example, Aristotle based his moral theory on the rational psychological nature of human beings. Psychological egoism is a theory which has often been appealed to in support for the moral theory called ethical egoism. This chapter, however, focuses only on psychological egoism. Here, Rachels discusses two arguments in favor of psychological egoism and two arguments against this theory. (55) How does Rachels define "psychological egoism" (b 62)? (56) What is the definition of altruism (use a dictionary)? (57) To prove their theory, a psychological egoists often reinterpret a person's altruistic motives. What is this deeper analysis of motives supposed to show (b 63)? (58) Thomas Hobbes has done perhaps the most exhaustive reinterpretation of altruistic motives. What does Hobbes believe is the selfish motivation for charity (m 64)? (59) What does Hobbes believe is the selfish motivation for pity (t 65)? (60) Such attempts at motivational reinterpretation may be impressive, but they do not prove that psychological egoism is true. What is the only thing that this type of reinterpretation shows (b 65)? Turning next to the real defenses of psychological egoism, Rachels discusses the two most famous arguments. The first argument is based on the principle that for any act a person does, "the person is merely doing what he most wants to do." If this is so, then it seems to follow that people look out for only their own interests. However, Rachels gives two criticisms of this argument. (61) His first criticism is that it is simply false that we always do what we want: often we feel a conflict between what we want to do and what we should do. Explain (m 66). (62) His second criticism is that "doing what we want" is not the same thing as "acting from self-interest." Explain (b 67). The second argument for psychological egoism is based on the idea that unselfish acts make us feel good. This, then, would imply that when acting altruistically, people are looking out for their self-interest. For Rachels, though, this argument also fails. (63) What is Rachels's criticism of this argument (b 68 - t 69)? So far Rachels criticized two arguments favoring psychological egoism. This, however, does not necessarily refute that general theory. For, it could be that psychological egoism is true, even though the arguments in support of it fail. Next, Rachels offers two objections which attack this theory directly. He begins his first criticism by noting that psychological egoism is an attractive theory since it strives for simplicity. That is, it attempts to explain a variety of human behavior with a single principle. The problem, however, is that the exact nature of this principle is not clear. Is the psychological egoist talking about selfishness, self-interest, or personal pleasure? (64) Explain the difference between selfishness and self-interest (b 70). (65) Explain the difference between self-interest and personal pleasure (t 71). His first criticism against psychological egoism, then, is that all human behavior simply does not reduce to a single motivation, whether that motivation is selfishness, self-interest, or personal pleasure. Rachels's second criticism is that psychological egoism fails because it is irrefutable. The notion of "irrefutability" (or "unfalsifiability" as it is often called), is that a statement is meaningless unless some possible circumstance might occur which could count against that statement. For example, an unpropelled stone which floats into the air would count as evidence against the law of gravity (even though such an event is highly unlikely). Since some possible event would count against the law of gravity, it is, therefore, a meaningful theory. (66) The problem with psychological egoism is that proponents of this theory do not allow for any possible human action to count as evidence against their theory. Explain (74). Chapter 6: Ethical Egoism (67) How does Rachels define "ethical egoism" (b 76) As noted earlier, psychological egoism is often used as an argument in favor of ethical egoism. For, if people always act selfishly, it is follows that selfish acts are the only things we could be obligated to perform. However, ethical egoism does not need psychological egoism for a foundation. Many other defenses are available. In this chapter, Rachels discusses three arguments in favor of ethical egoism, and three arguments against this theory. (68) Rachels begins this chapter with a brief discussion of the problem of world hunger. Why does he believe that members of wealthy nations do not give serious attention to the problem of world hunger (t 76)? (69) Rachels clarifies ethical egoism by noting three things this theory does not entail. What are these things (m-b 77) The following is an outline of the arguments for and against ethical egoism in this chapter: I. Arguments For Ethical Egoism A. We should mind our own business (Olson). 1. Criticism: The goal of Olson's argument is a good society, not self-interest (Rachels). B. Only ethical egoism promotes the value of the individual, altruism does not (Rand). 1. Criticism: Altruism is presented as a strawman. C. Ethical egoism is a unifying theory of duties (Hobbes). 1. Criticism: Ethical egoism cannot account for why we should always be dutiful (Rachels). 2. Criticism: Even if ethical egoism unifies duties, that does not imply it is the only basis for doing those duties (Rachels). II. Arguments Against Ethical Egoism A. Ethical egoism does not resolve conflicts of interest (Baier). 1. Reply: Ethics is not supposed to resolve such conflicts (Hobbes). B. Ethical egoism is self-contradictory (Baier). 1. Reply: This assumes that it is wrong to prevent someone from doing his duty. But this assumption is unfounded (Hobbes). C. Ethical egoism violates a prohibition against arbitrariness. The first argument for ethical egoism, originally given by Robert Olson, is that we should mind our own business, hence we should do only those things which promote self interest. (70) Rachels presents three reasons why we should mind our own business. Explain one of these three reasons (m 78). (71) Rachels criticizes this argument noting that the goal of this argument is the betterment of society, not self-interest. Explain (79). The second argument for ethical egoism is given by Ayn Rand. She argues that only ethical egoism promotes the value of the individual, and that altruism undermines this dignity. (72) What does Rand mean by the "value of the individual," and why is that so important (80)? (73) How, on her view, does altruism undermine the value of the individual (80)? (74) Rachels's criticism of Rand is that her account of altruism is a strawman. Explain (b 81). The third and best defense of ethical egoism is that it unifies our various duties, thus making common morality coherent. (75) Explain how it is in one's best interests to avoid harming others, lying, and breaking promises (b 82 - t 83). (76) Rachels criticizes this argument since even if ethical egoism unifies duties, this does not imply that we should pursue self-interest alone. Explain (b 83 - t 84). Having dismissed all three arguments for ethical egoism, Rachels turns to three arguments against ethical egoism. The first is given by Kurt Baier who argues that ethical egoism fails to resolve conflicts of interest. (77) Illustrate how ethical egoism would encourage conflicts in certain circumstances, rather than resolve conflicts (b 84 - t 85). (78) Defenders of ethical egoism might respond to Baier's criticism by claiming that the role of the moralist is not to resolve conflicts of interest. What, instead, is the job of the moralist (b 85)? The second argument against ethical egoism, also offered by Baier, is that it is a logically inconsistent doctrine. (79) According to Baier, where exactly does the contradiction arise with ethical egoism? (Refer to Baier's example of B and K running for presidency; m 86.) (80) In response to this criticism, the ethical egoist would deny that it is wrong to prevent someone from doing his duty. How does the egoist's response undermine Baier's argument (t 87)? The third and final criticism of ethical egoism is the one which Rachels believes works. The argument is that ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary. (81) Give Rachels's general principle against arbitrariness (T 88). (82) Why is ethical egoism unacceptably arbitrary (b 88 - t 89)? Chapter 7: the Utilitarian Approach John Stuart Mill defined the utilitarian theory of morality as follows: "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse." This principle tells us that right actions are those which produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Two important points are involved here. First, "happiness" according to utilitarians, includes both intellectual and physical pleasures. Second, weighing the total happiness of a given action is a matter of calculation, usually called "the utilitarian calculus." Through this calculation, we arrive at the total amount of pleasure and pain that results for every person affected by that action. Utilitarianism is one of the easier ethical theories to grasp. So, for much of this chapter Rachels illustrates how utilitarian arguments work and how this theory is used as a means of reforming outdated social policies. He focuses particularly on utilitarian arguments for euthanasia, animal rights, and vegetarianism. (83) What is the definition of "euthanasia" (use a dictionary)? (84) Give the history of the present policy towards Euthanasia in our society (b 93 - t 94). (85) List the good and bad consequences of Harold Donnelly's act of killing his brother (m 94). (86) Give the utilitarian argument for Euthanasia (b 94). (87) Why, according to Bentham, should religion endorse, rather than condemn utilitarianism (b 94)? (88) What was Thomas Aquinas's view on the role of animals in creation (b 96)? (89) For the utilitarian, why must the well-being of animals be taken into account in our utilitarian calculus (m 98)? (90) Give Peter Singer's argument for vegetarianism (m 101) Chapter 8: The Debate over Utilitarianism Over the past 150 years, utilitarianism has been a highly popular moral theory, and several versions of utilitarianism have emerged in response to criticisms of the general theory. (91) What are the three key features of classical utilitarianism (102)? (92) Classical utilitarianism maintains that happiness is the only consequence that is relevant in determining the morality of an action. One initial criticism of this position is that happiness is not the only thing that matters (i.e. happiness is not the only intrinsic good). Give some examples of other things which seem relevant to determining the merit of an action (b 104). Many contemporary utilitarians avoid the above problem by arguing that utilitarianism should focus on people's preferences and not simply the ___________ balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. A second criticism of utilitarianism attacks the claim that consequences are the only things which count. (94) H.J. McClosky argues that the consequentialist aspect of utilitarianism is flawed since it is incompatible with justice. Give and example of McClosky's claim (m 106). (95) Other critics maintain that the consequentialist aspect of utilitarianism is flawed since it is incompatible with rights. Give an example of this (108). (96) Finally, the consequentialist aspect of utilitarianism can also be criticized for ignoring the past. What are some examples where past circumstances are relevant to determining the morality of an action (109)? Utilitarians have given three distinct defenses against the above criticisms. First, utilitarians have maintained that the above counter- instances (regarding justice and rights) are unrealistic and not representative of real world situations.... Chapter 9: Are There Absolute Moral Rules? This chapter is an examination of Immanuel Kant's moral theory, and his advocacy of absolute moral rules. Because of his rigid views concerning the absolute nature of morality, Kant is perhaps the least skeptical of any of the classical moralists. Rachels begins his discussion of Kant by distinguishing between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. For Kant, a hypothetical imperative is a non-moral, conditional command. That is, it is a command about matters of personal preference which are dependent upon a person's desires. The general form which a hypothetical imperative takes is this: "if you want X, then you ought to do Y." Categorical imperatives, by contrast, are unconditional moral commands that apply to all persons. (97) Give an example of a hypothetical imperative (t 105). (98) What form do categorical imperatives take (m-b 105)? (99) Strictly speaking, Kant argues that there is only one categorical imperative. What is it (t-m 106)? Kant believes that the categorical imperative in a rational instinct, similar to the inborn capacity humans have to perform mathematical or logical calculations. The categorical imperative provides us with an instinctive procedure for deciding whether an act is morally permissible. These are the steps in this procedure. For any act, (1) you ask what rule (or maxim) you would be following if you were to do that action, (2) you ask whether you would be willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all the time, (3) if the answer is yes, then the action is permissible, and if the answer is no, then the action is not permissible. (100) Explain the categorical imperative procedure with the example of promising to repay a loan upon which you intend to default (b 106). In the remainder of this chapter, Rachels examines whether absolute moral rules are possible, specifically absolute rules about lying. The following is an outline of his examination: I. Arguments For Moral Absolutism About Lying A. Absolutism about lying follows directly from the categorical imperative (Kant). 1. Criticism: The universalized rule regarding lying is ambiguous (Anscombe). B. It is best to always avoid the initial evil of lying, and let the consequences of our truthful words come as they may (Kant). 1. Criticism: Kant is too pessimistic about our abilities to predict the consequences of our lying (Rachels). 2. Criticism: We would be responsible for the bad consequences of our truthful words in the same way that Kant believes we would be responsible for the bad consequences of our lies (Rachels). II. Arguments Against Moral Absolutism About Lying A. There are clear conflicts between moral rules (Rachels). 1. Reply: In theory there may be conflicts, but in reality there are not (Geach). 2. Response to the above reply: But there are clear cases of conflict in reality (Rachels). III. Good Points About Kant's Theory A. Kant emphasizes the use of reason. B. Kant emphasizes universalization (or impartiality). (101) Kant's main reason for why there is an absolute prohibition against lying is that it follows directly from the categorical imperative. Show how this is so (b 107-t 108). (102) A serious problem with this argument was pointed out by Elizabeth Anscombe. She criticizes that it is not at all clear what the specified rule about lying should be. Give some possible versions of this rule (t-m 108). (103) A second reason for why Kant holds to an absolute prohibition against lying is that it is best to avoid the immediate evil that we can by not lying, since we can never be sure of consequences of our lying. Why does Kant believe we can never be sure of the consequences of our lying (m-b 109)? (104) Rachels gives two criticisms of Kant's argument. First, Kant is too pessimistic about our abilities to predict the consequences of our lying. Explain (b 109-t 110). (105) Rachels's second criticism against Kant's argument is that, if Kant is correct, we would still be responsible for the possible bad consequences of our truthful words, just as we would be responsible for the possible bad consequences of our lies. Explain (t 108). Having refuted Kant's two arguments for an absolute prohibition against lying, Rachels turns next to an argument against this view. His argument is that sometimes we are faced with moral dilemmas where we must violate moral rule A or moral rule B, and no other option is open to us. Since either rule A or rule B must be violated, then neither rule A nor B can be absolute. In defense of Kant, Peter Geach has responded to this argument by arguing that although moral dilemmas are theoretically possible, in the real world, they do not occur. (106) Why does Geach believe this (b 110-t 111)? (107) How does Rachels respond to Geach (m 111)? (108) Rachels concludes by noting two positive features of Kant's moral theory. What are these two features (112)?