Elements of Moral Psyc Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Elements of Moral Psyc Summary PDF

Description

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels : Chapter 1 Summary This first chapter of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels begins by attempting to define morality. This is a difficult task since so many possible and rival definitions exist, therefore the common ground can be defined as only the “minimum conception” and although it is not immediately defined, the reader of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” is given examples involving handicapped children to illustrate. The first example employed in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels discussed “Baby Theresa” who was born without the auxiliary functions of her brain—aside from those which assisted with breathing. Even though most of these pregnancies in the case of such a massive defect require termination, especially since many of the children are born stillborn or die immediately after birth, the parents decided to have Baby Theresa in the hopes that her organs could be used to help other children in need. This sparked a great deal of controversy and ethicists raised a number of questions. On the one hand, the benefits argument declared that her organs would do her no good and that she would not lead a normal life. This side made the argument that life is worthless without the ability to interact with others and the world and that mere biological existence is useless. The other side argued that it was wrong to use a human life in order to fulfill the needs of another human life and that Baby Theresa’s autonomy must be preserved— even if she cannot think or act for herself. Two more examples, one of conjoined twins and another involved a father’s murder of his daughter who was barely functioning because of cerebral palsy. What these stories highlight is that moral judgments must be backed by sound reasoning and that morality requires the impartial consideration of all parties involved. This leads to the complete “minimum conception” of morality which brings together these two aspects of moral decision making. “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels Chapter 2 Summary As expressed in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels, different cultures have unique customs and ways of thinking. It may be difficult for someone of one culture to comprehend these differences, and this defines cultural relativism—different cultures have different moral codes. It would not be correct to judge one culture’s way of living as better than another as they are all just different and every standard is bound to the particular culture. This also means that there are no universal truths in ethics,

everyone’s culture is different and it can be only be understood within the context of that particular culture. In order to highlight this definition, the Greek idea of burying the father versus the Callatians’ ritual of eating the father at are odds, just as are common perceptions about the righteousness or crime of infanticide practiced by the Eskimos. The problem with cultural relativism is that as an argument it does not make sense. In “Elements of Moral Philosophy” James Rachels also points out that there are two sides to the issue and taking it too seriously could lead to negative results. For instance, if another culture was committing genocide, for instance, under the idea of cultural relativism we would just understand it as not something wrong, but just something culturally diverse. This could obvious pose serious problems. Despite some of the problems with the cultural relativism argument, there are some considerations to be made. For instance, all cultures generally share some of the same moral and ethical values in common. For instance, we care for our young, do not condone murder, and place value on telling the truth. Such universal rules are necessary for society to exist. The difficult part of this is not placing judgments based on our own cultural assumptions of right and wrong. When we turn this into an argument, however, it is clear that there are both positive and negative aspects to seeing things in a more culturally-open way. “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels Chapter 3 Summary Chapter Three of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels deals specifically with the definition and evolution of the term and meaning of ethical subjectivism. In general, ethical subjectivism states that everyone has an opinion, but these are just thoughts and feelings rather than facts thus no one is right. In general, this theory states that our opinions about moral issues are based on feelings and because of this there is no general statement we can make that expresses an opinion that will every be verifiable or true. “Elements of Moral Philosophy” makes use of the debate about homosexuality and carries it through until the end of the chapter showing how certain statements one could make about the issue are all moral opinions, rather than straight facts thus no one can be right. Ethical subjectivism has undergone a number of changes. As James Rachels states in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” the first evolution of the theory was developed by Hume who stated that morality is merely sentiment and is not fact. This is called Simple Subjectivism, but it is not a perfect theory. For instance, if it were correct, it states that we are all

incapable of being incorrect thus it does not make sense since not everyone can be right. Also, it cannot account that there is disagreement in ethics and to account for this it evolved even further into what Stevenson calls “Emotivism.” In general, emotivism looks at the same issues on the level of language. When we state a moral opinion, it is just an opinion and is not fact. While we may want to persuade with our language and try to make someone feel our point, this is still maintaining that all of these statements are still just feelings. This invokes the question of whether or not there are any moral facts and we find that they only exist when facts are present to support them. We must make decisions and think about moral issues on grounds that are more substantial than feeling, they must also be provable and backed up by solid fact rather than varied opinions. “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels : Summary of Chapter 4 This chapter of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels finally addresses one of the most overriding concerns in any discussion about morality and ethics in general—religion. It takes issue with the fact that much of our American concept of ethics and morality is based upon what the clergy and religious officials think and this makes our country rather unique. In “Elements of Moral Philosophy” James Rachels questions this process of gleaning moral information from religion solely and takes this almost automatic assumption to task in the several sections of the chapter. This “divine command theory” means that ethics decisions should be based on God’s law far more than any set of personal feelings, but as the author mentions, what about atheists? Furthermore, as “Elements of Moral Philosophy” suggests, what if these are simply arbitrary commandments— what if God had commanded that we all accept murder, for example? In this way the commandments set forth by God can be seen as arbitrary, even if we do not believe they are. When we examine morality based on religious doctrine, there are an infinite number of obstacles to overcome in reasoning. In many ways, according to some of the conjecture put forth in “Elements of Moral Philosophy”, when we really stop to consider what is being said, it does not seem reasonable to base our opinions on moral issues simply upon religious teachings. By doing so, we leave ourselves open to a lack of reasoning, which is what ancient Greek authors such as Socrates point out. The theory of natural law seems to be more based in reason but there are still

problems inherent to it. It seems as though it is difficult for many to think about morality in terms of nature and science and for this reason the theory has gone by the wayside. Personally, when thinking of rationality in moral decision-making, this seems like the most reasonable choice. It takes into account human nature and is not based on what could possibly a random or arbitrary set of commandments. “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels Chapter 5 This chapter of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels poses an interesting question about our motivations and our willingness to commit unselfish acts. It begins with a heroic story of the Swedish official who helped many Jewish people escape the Nazi death camps and for a moment, it seems as though this chapter will deal our innate ability and desire to help our fellow human beings. The definition at the end of the first section of “Elements of Moral Philosophy”, however, is that of psychological egoism, which states that we are perhaps not as altruistic as we may seem—that many of our seemingly unselfish acts are actually for our better and selfish interest. As the chapter from “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels continues, we find that the Swedish official and even Mother Theresa—the epitome of altruism—had selfish motivations for what they did. These revelations completely break down what we thought we knew about heroic deeds and it becomes apparent that generally, the theory of psychological egoism is actually quite a feasible idea. As stated in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” it is rare that we do anything without some self-interest—even if we do not fully realize that it is present. We may, like the Swedish official, want to make ourselves feel as though we’re leading a more significant and meaningful life so we in turn volunteer at homeless shelter or do some other random act of kindness because it makes us feel better about who we are. Even pity cannot be left out of this equation since as Hobbes mentions, pity is so powerful because we “feel” another person’s pain—that is, we think of ourselves and how we would feel in such a situation. Again, the ego is never absent and even when we may think we are being altruistic, it must always be considered. It is difficult to agree with the point James Rachels makes in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” about the problem with this theory. He suggests that it is flawed because we think it is irrefutable and we then turn everything around to make it seem as though it is provable. I’m not sure I agree with this, as there are always counterarguments to be made.

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels : Summary Chapter 6 For a moment in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels it seemed as though ethical and psychological egoism were very much the same idea, except for the fact that they dealt with differing stages of the process of recognizing selfish needs. Although they are different theories, it is important to point out that neither exclude the realization of one’s selfish needs first and foremost and both seem to see this as a natural thing, even if we recognize our moral duty. The idea of ethical egoism goes against much of what many people believe—especially in a country where we like to think of ourselves as helpful and kind. According to ethical egoism, our only duty is to take care of ourselves. Many would likely cringe at the idea since it sounds rather crass, but as the author points out, it truly is difficult to argue if the argument made is based on logical and rational statements rather than brash appeals to emotion. One of the most compelling arguments in favor of ethical egoism is the hardest to think about, especially in our society. It is the fact that altruism is self-defeating. This goes against the common notion that helping others is good for both the self (in terms of ideas about self-worth, for example) as well as for the community as a whole. When one really considers this argument, however, there truly are problems with the idea. We cannot know the needs of others as well as we know our own, we do not wish to tread on the privacy of others, and also, as far as charity goes, this robs those on the receiving end of their dignity. These could all be argued, of course, but they are sound and worth considering. The comments of Ann Rand are especially interesting as they more clearly state the ideas behind ethical egoism more clearly than bland theory. I was especially moved by the argument that many of the “duties” that we consider to be moral are in fact actually serving our own selfish interests such as not lying, not keeping promises, and not hurting others.

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” Chapter 7 After reading the chapters in “Elements of Moral Philosophy” that come before this one, Bentham’s ideas about utility and how we choose the best possible outcome for all involved seems incredibly optimistic and does not appear to

take into account the issues brought forth by psychological or ethical egoism. If the best course of action, morally speaking, is to do what would promote the greatest amount of happiness for all involved, then why does it seem as though it is a counterintuitive idea, especially in modern society? While there are no references to religious morality, this is still a problematic and potentially flawed theory. Even though it may promote the ideals put forth by social reformers, it seems hopelessly outdated and unrealistic. One simply cannot ignore those questions about altruism versus self-interested behavior discussed previously. Furthermore, the concept of utilitarianism has several other issues embedded in it—one of which is exposed by the conversation in the chapter about the ethics of euthanasia. I have to wonder how the “good of society” by being cleansed of undesirables fits into the concept of the ideas put forth by ethical egoism, namely that harming others is not exactly the most beneficial decision in terms of self-interest and preservation. However, this aside one cannot help but feel that the “God” question comes up almost without thinking about it and it is clear that the pattern of basing morality on religious doctrine is indeed implicit in many decisions and feelings we have, even if we are not particularly religious. Overall, especially with the examples provided in this chapter, this seems to be a limiting theory and does not take into account the potential for self interest. It aims towards the good of the whole, not of the individual and in this sense it also not as realistic as the other theories. It may make sense in some skewed evolutionary sense it goes against general sentiment about life and death.

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” Summary of Chapter 12 Although this chapter of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” begins with an implicit statement about how those “old” notions about how men versus women think, the author does not recognize that despite modern feminist criticism such as that cited, these stereotypes are still quite present. In fact, I would argue that they are more dominant that feminist assertions that we should be aware that women just think other thoughts, or consider things men may have missed in their thought processes. For instance, turn on a television and nearly ever sitcom features a “manly” man who rejects soft issues and his feelings while the woman is the nurturer and the caretaker at home. Aside from a few variations, this is still the dominant idea, no matter how much we

dislike it, and the author fails to recognize this, treating this as though it was a paradigm of the past with no basis in modernity. Aside from that minor argument with the author’s introduction, there are several noteworthy ideas put forth in this chapter. For instance, in Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, we are confronted with “scientific” evidence that the boy has progressed more than the girl. However, as Gilligan’s Objection states, the criteria for having become “developed” is based on what might be a flawed set of ethics and ideals. Who is to say which is more valued in terms of development? Our grounded ideas about what makes someone “sensible and logical” or the more sensitive approach put forth by the female? In reality then, this study of Kohlberg means little, especially if it were taken out of the context of what our society values. It seems quite simple and rational to assume that women are different because of social conditioning. From a young age women are indoctrinated to the social system and are taught to be the nurturers and the objects. Without a specific control study in which both sexes are raised without social influences this is hardly provable.

“Elements of Moral Philosophy” Chapter 14 The author makes quite an understatement when he addresses the problem of choosing between all of the theories regarding ethics and morality. While it has been nearly impossible throughout the text not to side with one over the other, the most important element of the internal debate is that one has learned how to gauge different responses to complex moral questions and consider why they exist. Aside from this more personal sense of exploration, it is key that one of the first suggestions he makes in this last chapter is that a solid theory should keep close the idea of hubris and the place of the human being both in the large scope of history and of nature. When making moral decisions rationality and an understanding of the breadth of the debate is essential. The author brings up the issue of treating people as they deserve to be treated when discussing this. Oddly enough, this idea has not been raised to any great extent throughout the text, but it seems to jibe perfectly with notions of self-interested behavior as well as the less self-interested behavior put forth by utilitarianism. If someone does not deserve to be helped and does not offer a “trade” in terms of their value or contributions, there is no selfinterested reason should help them and in general, since they are not the best

thing for the happiness of the whole, why bother? While this may seem like a rather cold assessment of personal “duty” in terms of morality, it is both rational and functional and I find it difficult to pass off as immoral, simply on the basis of logic. Furthermore, among all of the discussions presented in this text, the model and list entitled “Right Action as Living” makes the most sense since it integrates nearly all of the theories and remains rooted in rationality. This takes into account notions of what is good for the society, the individual, and can be extended to include debates surrounding justice and ethics....