Nicolas Espin Davila (23209522)

Phil 104 - Writing Assignment #1

1) What is the "minimum conception of morality", and what support can be given for it?

Morality is a complex and controversial topic. The first chapter of James Rachels’ book,

“Elements of Moral Philosophy”, begins with a quote by Socrates, “we are discussing no small

matter, but how we ought to live life” (1); this quote serves to highlight how important the idea

of morality is and how profound an impact it has on our lives. Rachels then presents us with real

stories that help illustrate moral issues, as well as arguments and theories which allow us to

discuss different approaches to the concept of morality.

The chapter presents 3 different cases studies, those of baby Theresa, Jodie and Mary,

and Tracy Latimer, all of them complex situations that evoke strong feelings about what is good

or bad. The case of Tracy Latimer is the one that caught my attention the most. Tracy was a 12-

year-old girl with cerebral palsy, whose father terminated her life with piped lethal fumes from

his pickup truck. Under the law this is murder and could be seen as an immoral act, but the

specifics of this case make it more complex. Due to her disease, Tracy Latimer was both severely

underweight at just 40 pounds and she had the mental functionality of a 3-month-old baby. Her

quality of life was minimal as her poor health meant she was subjected to several surgeries and

suffered with chronic pain that was difficult to control.

Public opinion on the death of Tracy at the hands of her father was highly divided. Some

people argued that “nobody has the right to decide my life is worth less than yours” or “that this

was a case of discrimination against handicap people” (9), while to others her death seemed to be

an act of mercy. According to her father and her family, this was not an act of malice, but rather
an act of mercy since Tracy, even though alive and to some degree conscious, was unable to live

a full life. Her condition meant she was only able to survive because of the care of her family and

constant medical intervention. The disagreement over these kinds of cases showcases the wide

range of opinions people can have on moral issues, especially about topics as complex and

emotional as death. In Tracy’s case, some people believed that the father didn’t deserve harsh

legal punishment and agreed that his decision was an act of mercy, while others found his actions

horrifying. However, the strength of the emotions surrounding this case doesn’t tell us what is

moral. As Rachels states, “Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter

how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be the products of

prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning” (11).

If we cannot trust in our feelings, then how we can define morality? Rachels argues that

to come up with a moral truth we ought to use our reason and support our claims with logical

arguments. Tracy Latimer’s case evokes very strong emotions, and it is difficult to overcome

these initial feelings and consider her case more objectively. However, we can at least attempt to

construct a set of arguments that supports or negates the action that Tracy’s father took. If the

arguments are backed by reason, factual statements, and are impartial, then these arguments can

be considered sound and of value. This is how we can develop a minimum conception of

morality.

In trying to apply this approach to Tracy Latimer’s case, I can see more arguments which

are in support of the morality of her father’s actions than I do against them. For instance, her

quality of life was low and was never going to improve. Further, her pain was not well managed

despite frequent medical intervention. As professor Puglisi pointed out, we often euthanize our

sick pets when their quality of life becomes too poor, and most of us would see that as an act of
mercy. Logically, I cannot see an argument as to why we should allow a human to suffer the

same way but not an animal. On the opposite side of the argument, much of the emotional

response to this case seems to derive from religious teachings rather than logic. It is perhaps fair

to argue that it is hard to know where to draw the line – i.e. how much suffering and how little

mental functionality would allow us to euthanize a person? However, this kind of argument is

specifically warned against in the chapter. Rachels argues that “it is worth noting that slippery

slope arguments are easy to abuse. If you are opposed to something but have no good arguments

against it, you can always make up a prediction about what it might lead to; and no matter how

implausible your prediction is, no one can prove you wrong” (10).

References

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 8e./ by Stuart Rachels.,

McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2015.

Puglisi, Matthew T. Introduction to Ethics Lecture. Queen College.

2) Discuss Cultural Relativism (CR) - what is it, how is it argued for, and what are the

weaknesses of these arguments? What are the consequences of taking CR seriously? How does

Rachels argue that there is less disagreement than it seems, and that all cultures have some

values in common?

I was first introduced to the concept of cultural relativism in my introduction to Cultural

Anthropology class, where it was presented as a tool, like a protocol for how anthropologists

should approach the cultures of the world and be aware of their ethnocentric views. The main

concept is to overall have an open mind and an appreciation of human diversity. Cultural

relativism argues that it is necessary to recognize that different cultures have their own

distinctive norms, values, and beliefs. In the second chapter of the book “Elements of Moral

Philosophy” Rachels presents various arguments for and against the use of cultural relativism in

moral philosophy and invites us to discuss this topic in depth.

Rachels presents five claims for cultural relativism and counterpoints to each claim.

1. Different societies have different moral codes (28).

This holds a partial truth; Rachels discusses how different societies do have different

moral codes but also argues that these different moral codes are derived from shared principal

values. For example, Rachels mentions how the Inuit people historically practiced infanticide,

especially of female infants. Rachels suggests that this could be interpreted as the Inuit having

different beliefs about how children should be treated or that they simply cared less about their

children due to cultural differences. He then goes on to suggest that instead, the values of the

Inuit are similar to our own, but their beliefs and customs are different. He argues that Inuit
society has a different way of life which is harsher than that of a typical western culture like

ours, and that we simply do not need to practice infanticide in order to survive. Similarly, there

might be aspects of our culture that for some Inuit people may be shocking, perhaps the way we

use warfare to maintain our economic dominance they might judge as immoral. However, we

likely share a value of providing for our loved ones at any cost.

2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the

moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least

within that society (28).

According to Rachels, “cultural relativism holds that cultures or societies are morally

infallible” (29), and indeed, this has some truth since not all cultures believe in “right or wrong”

in the same way. Some beliefs are not inherently true and might be erroneous, that said, we ought

to use our logic and reason to evaluate the benefits of certain moral actions, for example the

practice of excision. Some will argue that cultural relativism endorses this kind of practice as

moral within that particular cultural setting. But logically, is female genital mutilation a

beneficial practice? Does it promote progress and welfare for the people of that culture? The

discussion of this second claim focuses on the purpose of a moral truth and whether a particular

practice or belief can be seen as promoting the welfare of the people it affects.

3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than

another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times (29).

Cultural relativism also implies that since no culture is better than another, it is almost

impossible to come up with a universal truth about morality. However, in order to criticize

practices that we view as wrong we must be able to appeal to some idea of morality that is not
contingent on a particular culture or time. This line of argument does not allow cultures to

progress since one need only say that some mistreatment of others, including slavery, was just a

difference of culture. This same point was made by Professor Puglisi in discussing his own

family; he mentioned that his grandparents would say defend their racist views by saying that it

was just how they were raised or how things were before.

4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many (29).

This is true, because no society has special status, however this is reductive because

cultures do vary in how moral their codes of behavior and their values are. This should also not

stop us from arguing using reason and logic about particular beliefs and practices in any culture.

We should, however, be wary of assuming that our culture is right on all moral issues simply

because those beliefs are familiar to us.

5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.

Rachels again acknowledges that there is some truth in the statement, however he argues

that this point is often carried too far. “Tolerance is, no doubt, a virtue; a tolerant person can live

in peace with those who see thing differently. But nothing about tolerance requires us to say that

all beliefs, all religions, and all social practices are equally admirable” (27).

In all, I think that cultural relativism is very useful as an approach to understanding other

cultures and people with vastly different backgrounds from ourselves, but it takes too extreme of

a stance and does not allow us to critique cultural practices. Rachels too acknowledges the value

of this approach, “Cultural relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that

all our practices are based on some absolute rational standard” (30). However, Rachels rejects
the use of cultural relativism as a complete approach to evaluating the morality of cultural

practices and moral codes, arguing that it has too many flaws.

References

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 8e./ by Stuart Rachels.,

McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2015.

Puglisi, Matthew T. Introduction to Ethics Lecture. Queen College.

citing at least one central argument. State 2 of the most prominent objections to Simple

Subjectivism.

4) Provide a detailed account of Emotivism (Ayer and Stevenson’s view), citing at least one

central argument. What are the crucial differences between Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism?

How does Emotivism avoid the difficulties facing Simple Subjectivism?

5) Discuss how Emotivism is flawed with respect to its account of moral reasons / judgment.

Subjectivism is the idea that morality is solely based on our emotions without anything

more substantive underlying it. Rachels lays out this basic idea and gives several examples from

moral issues which heavily divide public opinion in the United States – abortion and

homosexuality (34). He then goes on to describe Simple Subjectivism, which is the simplest

form of Subjectivism. He suggests that when someone describes something as good or bad in a

moral sense, they are merely showing their approval or disapproval of that behavior, and nothing

more (Rachels 35). According to Professor Puglisi, Simple Subjectivism does not allow for any

moral judgements to be made as all morality is reduced to a difference of opinion.

Upon presenting the explanation of Simple Subjectivism, Rachels immediately brings up

major objections to the idea. First, that Simple Subjectivism cannot make sense of cases of moral

disagreement. Specifically, this form of Subjectivism will always refer to the speaker’s own

opinions and will be unable to comment on anything more profound. Second, this form of

Subjectivism does not correspond well with how people intend to use the terms good or bad.

When we state something is morally bad, we are not usually simply stating that this is our

opinion, rather we intend to say something about moral truth.

popularized in part due to the work of the Philosopher Charles L. Stevenson (36). Stevenson was

interested in the ways that language is used; for example, some language is used to convey

information to the listener (state facts), but other language is used to express emotion. Statements

such as “x behavior is bad” according to emotivism are not meant to convey a fact about the

speaker’s ethical judgement but rather it is used to influence the behavior of the listener.

Emotivism is thus different from Simple Subjectivism because Emotivism focuses on the use of

moral language to alter the behavior of others, or at least attempt to. Under Emotivism, moral

disagreement is possible and can take different forms – i.e. disagreement in belief or

disagreement over what is true, and disagreement in attitude or disagreement in what we want

(38). Only the latter type of disagreement would be a moral disagreement according to

Stevenson.

Another Philosopher who was interested in the linguistic form of Subjectivism was A. J.

Ayer; he argued that there are different types of sentences; analytical sentences can be known

without observing the world, whereas synthetic sentences are true because they are validated by

the world via empirical verification. For him, statements about morality were neither analytical

nor synthetic sentences and therefore could not be shown to be true. “For in saying that a certain

type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement… I am merely expressing

certain moral sentiments. So that there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right”

(67).

According to Rachels, the Emotivist view of morality is flawed because it does not allow

for the idea of moral truths. We do not need to treat morality as being 100% about tangible moral

truths or 100% about our subjective feelings, rather according to Rachels, “people have not only
feelings but reason, and that makes a big difference. It may be that moral truths are matters of

reason; a moral judgement is true if it is backed by better reasons than the alternatives” (41).

References

Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth and Logic. Courier Corporation, 1952.

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 8e./ by Stuart Rachels.,

McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2015.

Puglisi, Matthew T. Introduction to Ethics Lecture. Queen College.