Contemporary Moral Problems:

Philosophy is something you do - an activity. (An inventor of world views)

 asking questions, examining beliefs - trying to get closer to knowledge.

 Sometimes finding out what is not true is progress.
 Three levels of certainty:

o opinions - beliefs without thought (often inconsistent and vague).

o beliefs - thoughts/beliefs you have thought about.(enough to make
them consistent with each other)
o knowledge - belief with evidence. Either empirical or rational
evidence...this is what philosophers want most.

Popular usages of philosophy

The word ‘philosophy’ is derived from the Greek term meaning ‘love of wisdom’; but
in current popular usage many different ideas are involved in the ways we employ the
term. Sometimes we mean by ‘philosophy’ an attitude towards certain activities, as
when one says ‘I disapprove of your philosophy of doing business’ or ‘I am voting for
her because I favour her philosophy of government’. Again, we talk about being
‘philosophical’ when we mean taking a long-range, detached view of certain
immediate problems. When one is disappointed, we suggest to her that she ought to be
more ‘philosophical’, as when one misses a plane. Here we mean to say that she
should not be over-concerned with the events of the moment, but should try instead to
place these in perspective. In still another sense we think of philosophy as an
evaluation or interpretation of what is important or meaningful in life. This usage may
be indicated by the story of two men who were drinking beer together. One of them
held his glass to the light, scrutinized it thoughtfully, and then observed, ‘Life is like a
glass of beer’. His companion looked up at the glass, turned to his friend, and asked,
‘Why is life like a glass of beer?’
‘How should I know,’ he answered, ‘I’m not a philosopher.’

Introduction to Ethics

Definitions
Ethics, from Greek word ethikos, from root ethos meaning character. It may be
translated as custom or usage so it refers to the customary way to behave in society.
"Ethical behaviour, therefore, is behaviour which is in accordance with a virtuous
character".
Morality comes from the Latin word Moralis - concerned with which actions are right
and which are wrong, rather than the character of the person. Today the two terms are
often used interchangeably.

1
What is Ethics?

People make judgments all the time. Judgments about what to do in a given situation:
whether to help the old lady across the road or grab her handbag, whether to pay for a
train ticket or fare dodge, whether to buy a Mars bar or give the money to the poor
and needy. People make judgments about others all the time: murderers should be
executed, Jamie Bulgers killers should never have been let out of prison, sex offenders
should get longer sentencing. Paparazzi should be prevented from taking intrusive
photographs.
Sometimes these judgments are informed and thought out. All the different opinions
and factors have been considered, and a judgment about a right or proper course of
action is decided. However this is a difficult and time consuming thing to do so the
reality is that many judgments are ill informed. Most people do not think about how
the coffee they buy was made, how the company treated its workforce. As Vardy and
Groesh put it,
" Most people do not like to think for themselves - they prefer to take the easy way
and to follow the crowd or the dictates of their group. Thinking philosophically is not
easy - it involves challenging our preconceptions and this can be uncomfortable.
Sometimes those things we feel most certain about may be questioned and this can
shake the very roots of our most basic beliefs."
Ethics should carry a government health warning, as it can be very unpopular. Nelson
Mandela and Valclav Havel served long prisons sentences for thinking
philosophically. Socrates of Athens and Jesus of Nazareth were both executed for
their beliefs and actions.

Exercise 1

(1) Describe in no more than 20 words a good person. - Someone, who helps
others, follows the commandments, has good intentions…?
(2) Working in groups, see if you can agree on answers to these questions:

i. What are human beings really like: selfish and greedy or generous and kind?
ii. Are some people "better" at morality than others, or is everyone equally capable of
being good?
iii. Are there good ways of teaching children to behave morally?
iv. Does anyone have the right to tell anyone else what goodness and wickedness is?
v. Are there certain kinds of acts (like torturing children) that are always wrong? If so
what are they?
vi. What do you think is the best answer to the question, "Why should I be a good
person?"
vii. Is Ethics a special kind of knowledge? If so what sort of knowledge is it and how
do we get hold of it?
viii. Is morality about obeying a set a rules or is it about thinking carefully about
consequences?
ix. When people say, " I know murder is wrong", do they know it is wrong or just
believe it very strongly?
x. Are their differences between societies laws and moral laws, if so what are they and
why?

2
Exercise 2

Here are some examples of moral dilemmas. In each example: 1 justify your answer
in relation to a particular principle you may have; 2 think of another situation (if you
can) in which you would consider disobeying the principle.

1. Sanctions and Racism

You are Prime Minister of a country which opposes racism in Country X.

Should you impose sanctions against this country, even though you know these
will seriously affect the already deprived black population?

2. The ruthless dictator

After a fair and legal election, a new President is elected in a central African state.
Within a few months he reveals himself to be a ruthless and mentally unbalanced
tyrant, merciless in liquidating all those who oppose him. You have the power to
assassinate him.

Should you?

3. The drowning men

Walking one day near the river, you hear frantic cries for help. Two men are
struggling in the water and clearly drowning. With dismay you see that one is your
father, whom you love dearly, and the other a famous scientist, whom the newspaper
report is close to a cure for cancer.

Whom should you save?

4. The thief

Your school friend says, ‘I have something important to tell you, but you must keep it
a secret’. You promise you will. Your friend then confesses that it was she who stole
the money from the classroom. ‘But this is terrible’, you say. ‘Jenny has already been
accused of this and is being expelled! You must tell the headmaster at once! Your
friend refuses.

What should you do?

5. The sadist

The sadistic commandant of the camp shouts at you, Unless you hang your son, I’ll
hang him myself and these other prisoners as well!’

What should you do?

3
6. The mayor

A shop selling pornography is about to open in your town. Local feeling is running
high. Some argue that you, as mayor, have the duty to prevent the sale of such
corrupting literature, others that you do not have the right to censor what people read.

What is your decision?

Exercise 3

1. Tom has lived alone on a desert island all his life. How would you explain to him
the difference between right and wrong?

2. Are there any moral rules which you believe all societies, despite their cultural
differences, should adopt? What are they, and how would you explain their universal
acceptance?

4
Ethics - here we try to determine what the standards for behaviour are - expressed in
the form of moral principles...What moral principles do you have?
In doing Ethics (or Philosophy) we rely on the use of reason to establish knowledge:

 Rationalizing is trying to find plausible justification for an act you've already

decided to do.
 Reasoning is thinking and finding a defensible justification before you act.

Divided into two areas of questioning:

 Theoretical ethics -how do we define "morally right"? (putting together the
world view and testing it)
 Applied ethics - what ought I to do? (How you apply the theories)

In Theoretical ethics we try to define standards of right and wrong. Any definition or
theory should have four characteristics:

 1. Consistency - does the theory give similar results in similar situations...a

good moral theory has to find if we recommend different moral treatment,
then there must be a morally relevant difference between the two.
 2. Understandability-for example:
o Utilitarianism - easily understood
o Kantianism - harder to understand, but with work can be done
o Prescriptivism (R.M. Hare) - impossible to understand
 3. Intuitiveness of results...if the theory counters our moral intuition then you
need to look at the theory. (Example - ok to execute innocent person if all
believe they are guilty)
 4. Universalizability - if it applies to one it should apply to all.

Example of a simple moral theory:

Principalism (Beauchamp and Childers): four fundamental moral principles that are
to be upheld at all times.

 1. Autonomy - don't act to limit the freedom of self or others.

 2. Beneficence - "Do no harm"
 3. Justice - all persons are considered equal and all deserve fair treatment.
 4. Sanctity of Life- human life is special and should be preserved

Application: Murder violates all four, Stealing violates 1, 2, 3. - so - it seems to meet

the criteria above. But - what happens when we apply it to other problems?

Euthanasia: if we allow, we violate 4, if we do not allow, we violate 1 and 2.

Capital Punishment: if we allow, 4 is violated, if not - 2 could be.

Abortion: if we allow - 4 is violated, if not, 1 is violated.

5
How do you resolve the conflict between principles? (Hint - if you have decided any
of the issues above, you have already resolved the conflict)

Best method: Ranking...

We must rank the principles in order of importance - something B&C refused to do:
Each individual must rank for themselves...The key is consistency.

So, if Abortion is wrong because 4 is more important than 1, but Capital Punishment
is OK because 2 (for society) is more important than 4 - then we have a problem. This
ranking makes beneficence more important than the sanctity of life - which means (if
we are consistent) that if it is in the best interests of society to abort a foetus, it is
morally OK (even if the mother does not think so). To remain consistent- position on
either CP or Abortion must change.

Discussion Questions:

 How would you rank the moral Principles?

 What could possibly establish one absolutist theory as better than another?
 Is "tolerance" a virtue that is relative to our society?

6
Characteristics of Moral Rights
Lots of times in our moral discussions we hear talk of "rights" - we say, for instance
that all humans have the right to autonomy. What exactly is someone saying when
they talk about "rights"? What does it mean to "have a right"?

On Rights in general: entitlement to expect a certain behaviour with regard to me...a

right is a claim against others to expect certain behaviour. This characterization of
rights as claims entails that the claim is defensible - a person who claims a right
should be able to provide a rational justification for the claim.

The burden of proof for this justification lies with those who make the claim, either
for themselves or on the behalf of others. For example, if we look at rights this way
then those who claim that a foetus has a right to life must give a rational justification
for the truth of that claim. It is usually accepted a prima facia evidence that a person is
entitled to certain rights if they are capable of making such a claim.

One question which often gets raised when we discuss rights is: "Are Moral Rights
the same as Legal Rights?" The implication is that if a thing is legally permissible,
then is should also be morally permissible, and vice versa. We can, however, make
some distinctions between the two:

Moral rights Legal rights

inalienable (can't give them up) can be given up

Universal (if one has it, all have it equally) Particular (to a society or legal system)

no degree of rights can have degrees of applications

(i.e. parking fines)

natural (by virtue of our rationality) artificial (created by humans)

Thus, it would seem that there is a distinct difference between moral and legal rights.
This will not prevent a person from arguing that our legal rights ought to reflect our
shared morality (if indeed there is one which can be articulated).

Discussion Questions:
 What connection (if any) is there between the fact that murder is illegal and is
considered immoral?
 What sorts of activities are legal which might be considered immoral?
 What sorts of activities might be considered morally correct which are illegal?

Euthanasia: a bit of background information

7
Euthanasia: mercy killing, death with dignity, ...from the ancient greek for "good
death"

Types of Euthanasia:

 Passive: withholding medical treatment or discontinuing treatment ..."letting

die"...cause of death is the same as the condition causing the suffering
(disease, respiratory failure, etc).
 Active: actively doing something to bring about the death of the patient...lethal
injection, smothering with a pillow, etc....the cause of death is not the
condition causing the suffering, but rather something else.
 Voluntary: patient requests their own death - either verbally, in writing or via
a living will. (Some states will recognize testimony of family/friends, but not
all)
 Involuntary: patient does not request their own death - someone else decides
for them that they are better off dead. Usually when a patient is unable to
communicate (coma) or unable to understand their condition (mentally
disabled or a child).

These types combine to give us four basic forms of Euthanasia:

Voluntary Passive Euthanasia Voluntary Active Euthanasia

Involuntary Passive Euthanasia Involuntary Active Euthanasia

The IMA allows doctors to employ/recommend passive-voluntary euthanasia...the
debate is between passive voluntary and active-voluntary. (Involuntary euthanasia is
not generally accepted)

Classic conditions to be a candidate for Euthanasia:

 1. patient is terminally ill

 2. patient will be deliberately killed
 3. patient is suffering terrible pain, intolerable and unmitigatable pain
 4. Patient asked to be killed...must be a fixed and rational decision...must be
consistent...can be done by: living will, verbally or in writing, family/friend
testimony (in some states).
 5. Motive is a merciful one to end suffering

Legal cases with moral overtones: Cruzan vs. Missouri Dept. of Health

8
Importance of the Cruzan Decision:

It solidifies a 1914 court ruling that patients can refuse treatment and cannot be forced
into it.
It allows for the removal of Nutrition and Hydration by medical means given the
consent of the patient.
If the patient is incompetent, a surrogate may request removal of Nutrition and
Hydration.

Removing Nutrition and Hydration:

If patient is incompetent, a surrogate can request that nutrition and hydration be

removed.
BUT:
If the State feels that there is no “clear and consistent evidence” of the patient’s
wishes, then they don’t have to allow it.
Why such a high standard of evidence?
“The more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears
the risk of an erroneous decision”
I.E. – if we make a mistake in continuing treatment, we only maintain the status quo,
but if we err by removing treatment, we cannot reverse the decision at a later date.

Presupposition of this view:

That people will usually try to survive – that they will want treatment to be continued
as long as possible.
Problem:
In the Cruzan case, she was in a “persistent vegetative state” from which there was no
recovery.

Questions about Quality of life

1. What defines “Life”?

2. Is it mere biological existence?

3. Is it the experiences and history of a person?

4. Or an integration of the two?

5. Who decides when life has ended?

The view of Justice Stevens:

9
Life ends when biological existence ceases to serve any other interests that the person
may have.
According to the court; “Chronically incompetent persons have no constitutionally
cognizable interests at all, and so are not persons…”

Importance of a Living Will:

Living wills provide the evidence needed by the State to allow cessation of life-
prolonging treatment.

They insure that the wishes and beliefs of the patient will be respected even after they
become incompetent.

"No moral difference" by James Rachels

In this article, Rachels focuses on the motives behind euthanasia:

if our motive is to end suffering, then active Euthanasia is better than passive...

(cousin in the bathtub analogy...drowning the child, or letting the child die)... same
motive/same consequences (morally relevant)...different method (irrelevant)
Thus, Rachels concludes that Active Euthanasia will be no different than Passive
(morally)
(For the Utilitarian, Active Euthanasia is morally preferable (faster).)

Ordinary vs. Extraordinary means of treatment:

One of the central questions in deciding what counts as ordinary vs. extraordinary
treatment is: "who decides?" -
Rachels will claim that it should be the doctor…the patient has a minimal role..
(is this true?)

Rachels argues:

that in order to decide that a certain treatment counts as an extraordinary measure,then

you have already decided the patient is better off dead.
From then on, anything you do intends the death of the patient....thus the motive is the
same for both active and passive euthanasia.
Up to a point, the doctor is involved in directing the treatment...once it is clear that
extraordinary measures are required, then the patient directs it.

Ordinary Vs. Extraordinary:

10
  Ordinary Treatment:
o 1. reasonable hope of benefit...
o 2. can be obtained and used without excessive pain and expense.
 Extraordinary Treatment:
o 1. Treatment or therapy does not offer a reasonable hope of benefit
and/or
o 2. It cannot be obtained or used without excessive pain and/or
expense

Question is: Who decides what is Ordinary and what is Extraordinary?

1. Patient?
2. Doctor?
3. Insurance?

Rachels argues:

that in order to decide that a certain treatment counts as an extraordinary measure,

then you have already decided the patient is better off dead.
From then on, anything you do intends the death of the patient....thus the motive is the
same for both active and passive euthanasia.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you agree with Rachels' position that there is no moral difference between
active and passive euthanasia?
2. Who should be involved in deciding the care of patients? How much input
should the patient have regarding their own care?
3. What, in your view, is the proper function of medicine? What are health care
professionals supposed to be doing for the patients in their care?

"The dangers of Euthanasia" by Dyck

Dyck’s objection:

If we accept what Rachels says, then where do we stop?

If the motive is to minimize suffering
and we allow that this can override the sanctity of life of the patient,
then we may be forced down a 'slippery slope'

Slippery slope:

11
Once we accept that motive overrides Sanctity of life, then we must accept:
Voluntary euthanasia:
passive
active
Involuntary euthanasia:
terminally ill,
defective newborns,
mentally disabled,
Ugly people and/or non-Irish

Where do we draw the line?

Dyck thinks we should only allow voluntary Passive:

1. Passive Euthanasia is choosing how to live what is left of life – Active is choosing
how and when to die (suicide)
2. In voluntary Euthanasia, patient autonomy is preserved (as long as Sanctity of Life
is not violated)

BUT: even if we allow voluntary:

This could possibly even lead to an attitude in medicine where we would accept the
use of 'neo-morts'
(persons who are declared brain dead - but the bodies can be kept functioning with the
aid of technology)

Willard Gaylin, M.D. "Harvesting the Dead"

that instead of turning off the machines at death, we could leave them on and use the
'neo-morts' for:
* organ donations
* blood donors
* medical training & research
* drug development & manufacture

Consider that we already will leave the machines running after brain death has
occurred in order to give relatives/family a last goodbye,
or to keep organs fresh for donations - but we only do so for a short time.

Gaylin’s suggestion:

that we start 'neo-mort banks' where these functioning bodies could be stored until
needed.
He admitted that societal revulsion at the idea would make it improbable, but from a
utilitarian standpoint it makes perfect sense.

Gaylin stopped here, but if we are already allowing such a practice for the good of
society, we could also justify using neo-morts for:
* sperm donation
* egg donors
* surrogate mothers

12
Discussion Questions:

1. Is Rachels correct when he argues that the motives of our actions are irrelevant
to our moral judgments of a persons actions (rather than our judgments of their
character)?
2. Can we separate the person and their character from their actions?
3. Is there any way to stop the slide down the "slippery slope"? Where could we
draw a non-arbitrary moral line and say "no further than this"?

Write answers to the following questions:

1. What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia?

2. ‘No human being should be allowed to exist in a state which we would mercifully
end in any other creature.’ Discuss.
3. What dangers can you foresee in the legalisation of euthanasia?
4. Does a person have the right to commit suicide? If they have the right, should the
state provide them with the means to achieve it?

13
Arguments for & against Capital Punishment
FOR: "The Wisdom of Capital Punishment"

Van De Haag uses the approach of examining our justifications or reasons for doing
something in general, then concentrates on the specifics with regard to CP.

Punishment in general, and the justifications for it:

 1. Revenge: "lex talonis" or an eye for an eye...
o Problem: can't be applied consistently for all crimes
 2. Retribution/Restitution
o Problem: may work for stealing, but cannot bring murder victim back
 3. Rehabilitation
o Problem: Can't rehabilitate someone by killing them
 4. Deterrence: for others who may commit the crime and the inmate
themselves.

Only the reason of Deterrence will justify Capital Punishment - which brings up the
question:

Does Capital Punishment deter?....(Van De Haag agrees there are some who it won't
deter)

Criticisms/Response:

1. Capital punishment is unjust - that depends, if it is a deterrent, then it is

justified....if not, maybe not... but focusing on one case of CP leads us astray - while
the emotional considerations are significant, it may well be that the practice of CP is
just even if any one particular instance of it is not justified (i.e.- an innocent being put
to death).

o Example: suppose you get a ticket for speeding when you were not
speeding - certainly you getting a ticket was unjust - but does that
mean we get rid of penalties for speeding?

Is CP a deterrent?

How does punishment deter?

 1. intuitively...it seems that it does (especially CP)

 2. a lack of evidence for deterrence is not evidence of a lack of deterrence
(puts the burden of proof on the abolitionists)

In general, punishment adds an element of danger to an activity...but is must be

certain, swift, and known to work...vague threats do not work.

Process by which the element of danger is established:

14
Punishment is not a deterrent to people who kill:

 1. in a fit of passion - fight

 2. mentally incapacitated (psychologically, drugs, or alcohol)
 3. minors
 4. pre-planned...they already feel they won't get caught- usually not a rational
process.

How do you find out if CP is a deterrent to further crime?

Van De Haag : We can suspend executions and see what happens

 - the process of deterrence is very complicated and there are many

factors...this could cost lives to find out:
o If it is a deterrent:
 (-) innocent victims die;
 (+) save the life of the criminal
o If not:
 (+) gained the life of the criminal

If we keep capital punishment and

o It is a deterrent, then:

 (+) saved innocent lives;

 (-) life of the criminal is gone
o If it is not a deterrent:
 (-) life of the criminal is gone

Both of these results are unsatisfactory for those who wish to abolish CP, the first
because if they are wrong, innocent people will die. The second is unsatisfactory for
abolitionist (he claims) because it opens up the possibility that it will be shown to be a
deterrent - which means they will have to give up their position.

How else could we find out?

 Compare different regions/countries - one with CP and one without,
o Problem - may not be enough similarities, and if the cultures being
compared are similar enough to make a valid comparison, then it is
likely that the attitudes towards CP will be similar as well.
 compare the same region before and after abolition or institution of CP:
o Problem - it may take generations to find any measurable change in the
murder rate, and other factors may cancel out any effects.

Why is it so hard to find out if CP does or does not deter?

Stephen Goldberg asks if we can ever discover if it is or not...an answer to this

question requires an answer to the question "How does it deter, if in fact it does"?

Goldberg argues that punishment is part of a socialization process which teaches

people to not consider violence as an option.

15
This means that when we consider the deterrent effects of CP we are looking at three
basic groups:

 1. people who are not socialized against killing even with CP.
 2. Those who will be socialized with CP, but who will not be socialized
without it.
 3. Those who are socialized against killing without the existence of CP.

Capital punishment will not affect the first group - since they are not deterred by any
form of punishment. The third group will also not be effected by the use of CP
because they are socialized against killing or violence for by other factors (i.e. -
religious beliefs).

This means we must concentrate on the size of the second group - they are the
essential factor in determining the deterrence value of CP (if any). We must weigh the
size of the second group against the loss of life of the criminal...we need to know how
many in group two there are, but the problem is that we cannot know who they are
once they are socialized (they look like those in group three) In fact, those people in
group two (and we know they exist) do not even know that they are in this group
(they think they are in group three).

Van De Haag claims that there is no evidence one way or the other...deterrence is the
only relevant justification and we only have our intuition to judge...intuitively, we feel
it is a deterrent...therefore it is up to the abolitionists to prove that it isn't.

AGAINST: “Justice, Civilization and the Death Penalty“

Basic Presuppositions

Civilization is characterized by a lower tolerance for our own and others pain.

That a Civilization should use the least offensive form of punishment that will supply
the proper deterrent effect.

Making the proper comparison:

The question is not: “is Capital Punishment a Deterrent?” –

But rather:

“Is Capital Punishment enough of a greater deterrent than any other form of
punishment to justify the taking of another life?”

We do set limits:

Some forms of punishment are too severe –

Torture, beating Assaulters, raping Rapists

Even if they are a deterrent –

they are too severe
they are not a sufficiently greater deterrent than prison.
16
Capital Punishment sends a conflicting message - when measured against life without
parole as an option.

If we are interested in making society more civilized, then we need to be concerned

about this.

The message of CP:

Capital Punishment sends the message that:

we are serious about certain crimes
...and that human life is expendable...it has instrumental value (based on what we
contribute to society).

Not a good message to help with civility.

Why CP is inhumane:

Not because it ends life

First: it involves the complete subjugation of another human being.

Second: it involves intense psychological pain.
It is forseeable and unavoidable
It is caused by other humans

Why CP is inhumane:

Third: it requires someone (us) to inflict this pain on another While ignoring their
pleas for mercy.

Just like torture, we cause pain to another human while requiring that we ignore that
pain – we cause ourselves to be hardhearted.

The message of Life in Prison:

Life without parole sends the message that:

we are serious about certain crimes
… and that human life has intrinsic value.

This is a better message to send: that we don’t HAVE to use the most extreme
punishment that is justly due.

Other factors to consider in deciding to utilize the Death Penalty:

Economic factors:

once we add in the court costs (which are usually paid by the state) of the initial trial
plus all the appeals and the added cost of incarceration on Death Row,

it is actually less expensive to sentence a person to life in prison without parole than it
is to execute them.

17
Other factors:

Capital Punishment is a dying institution:

the U.S. and communist China are the only industrialized nations that still have it.

Other factors:

1. CP: is intentionally killing a human being...it is a homicide (legal)

2. innocent people will be executed...
(it has already happened)
by errors in the trial which are not uncovered until it is too late
by errors in sentencing

this is especially important because as a sentence...CP is irrevocable

Conclusions:

With all these factors in mind the conclusion is that Capital Punishment is not
justified as a form of punishment - especially if we have an alternative punishment
which may have an equal or better deterrent effect.

18