

Around 800 BC, am individual’s moral duties
stemmed from his or her position in society.
Society then was composed of very tightly
knit clans which placed loyalty to clan above
anything else.
By around 500 BC in Athens, as strength of
clans declined moral dilemmas crop up. What
may be considered moral from the
standpoint of the clan can be immoral from
the standpoint of the Greek city-state.



When the moral dilemmas arose, people found it
difficult to resolve them. Thus, they resort to the
intervention of the gods.
However, some philosophers in ancient Greece,
known as Sophists, were smart enough to realize
that the gods don’t really intervene to help
people resolve their moral dilemmas.
Sophists argued that there are no foundations to
ethics, and one must be able to argue for either
side of the moral dilemma.

The incoherence of such a view generated a
reaction in the form of the great triad of
Greek philosophy – Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle. All of them argued for strong
foundations of ethics.
 Teleology
 Utilitarianism
 Deontology




From the Greek words “telos” – purpose and
“logos” – study
Ethics is important because it serves a
purpose.
The purpose (telos) is raising human nature
from the raw to unfinished state of life.
For Aristotle, the philosophical foundation
ethics lay in its ability to transfer human
nature from its raw form to its highest
potential.


It is the belief that human nature compels
man to move towards pleasure and move
away from pain.
A good system of ethics will allow the
maximum number of people to move
towards pleasure and away from pain—in
other words, “the greatest good for the
greatest number.”


It is the belief that morality must be followed
for its own sake.
According to the deontologists, a good act is
intrinsically good, and that it must be
performed without regard to consequences,
but because it is the individuals’ duty as
rational beings to perform good acts, the
individuals must be aware of the
consequences of their actions.


Friedrich Nietzsche criticized these schools of
thoughts.
According to him, these schools of thoughts
were nothing but mere rationalizations that
concealed the Will to Power, that is the desire
to dominate others.

Anencephalic infants: ‘babies without brains’
o Cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of skull are missing
o Have a brain stem, thus autonomic functions
(breathing, heartbeat, etc.) are possible
o Usually aborted in the US; otherwise, half are
stillborn and usually die within days
Florida law forbids the removal of organs until
the donor is dead.
 Baby Theresa died after nine days. Her organs
were too deteriorated to be harvested or
transplanted.

? Should she have been killed so that her organs
could have been used to save other children?
(Thousands of infants need transplants each year.)



“It just seems too horrifying to use people as
means to other people’s ends.”
“It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
“What the parents are really asking for is, ‘Kill
this dying baby so that its organs may be used
for someone else.’ Well, that’s really a
horrendous proposition.”
If we can benefit someone without harming
anyone else, we ought to do so.
 Transplanting the organs would benefit the
other children without harming Baby
Theresa.
 Therefore, we ought to transplant the
organs.

Isn’t being alive better than being dead?
Only if being alive allows one to ‘have a life’:
to carry on activities and have thoughts,
feelings, and relations with other people.
In the absence of such things, ‘mere
biological life’ is worthless.
It is wrong to use people as means to other
people’s ends.
 Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her
to benefit other children.
 Therefore, it should not be done.

Vague sense of ‘use.’ What does it mean?
Violating Baby Theresa’s autonomy?
Baby Theresa has no autonomy to violate. She
has no preferences about anything, nor has she
ever had any.
It is wrong to kill one person to save another.
 Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her
to save others.
 So, taking the organs would be wrong.


Shouldn’t there be an exception to the rule?
Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never
‘have a life’; she is going to die soon anyway; and
taking her organs would help other babies.

Should we regard Baby Theresa as already
‘dead’?
Perhaps we should revise our definitions of
‘death.’





Conjoined twins, joined at the lower abdomen;
spines fused; one heart and one pair of lungs
between them.
Without an operation to separate them, both
twins would die within six months.
This would save Jodie, but Mary would die.
The parents refused permission for the operation,
but courts okayed it.
Jodie lived, and Mary died.
 There is a choice:
save one or let both die.
? Isn’t it plainly better to save one?
Not from the parents’ perspective.
All human life is precious, regardless of age,
race, social class, or handicap.
 The prohibition against killing innocent
humans is absolute.
 Mary is an innocent human being.
 Therefore, she should not be killed.

 Mary would not be ‘killed’ during the operation but
merely separated from Jodie. Her death would be due
to her body’s inability to sustain her life.
 Perhaps it is not always wrong to kill innocent human
beings. . .
o If the innocent human has no future because she is going
to die soon no matter what. . . AND. . .
o She has no wish to go on living (perhaps because she has
no wishes at all). . . AND. . .
o This killing will save others who can go on to lead ‘full
lives.’
12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, killed by
her father with exhaust fumes while the rest of
the family were at church.
 Tracy weighed less than 40 lbs. and was
described as “functioning at the mental level of
a three-month-old baby.”
 Robert Latimer was sentenced to 10 years in
prison.

? Did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong? Wasn’t killing
her an act of mercy?
Handicapped people should be given the same
respect and the same rights as everyone else.
 Tracy was killed because she was handicapped.
 Therefore, killing her was wrong.

 Tracy was not killed because of her cerebral
palsy but because of her pain and suffering
and because there was no hope for her.
 If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will
slide down a slippery slope, and in the end all
life will be held cheap. Where will we draw the
line?
What about other disabled
people, the elderly, the infirm,
and other ‘useless’ members
of society?
!
This kind of argument is all too 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.



How do you define freedom?
Can you consider yourself free if you have
limitations?
Many say that freedom is doing anything you
want, wherever you want, whenever you
want.

External Freedom – doing anything we want
anytime, anywhere

Internal Freedom – expressing who we truly
are
 From the Christian perspective, we are
created in the image and likeness of God
 We are inherently “good”
 We are tailored to do good and be good.
 When we do something “wrong”,
something in us tells us its wrong – our
conscience.


Moral judgments must be backed by good
reasons.
Morality requires the impartial consideration
of each individual’s interests.




We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter
how powerful they might be.
Our feelings may be irrational and may be
nothing but products of prejudice,
selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Our decisions must be guided as much as
possible by reason.
The morally right thing to do is always the
thing best supported by the arguments.
Get the facts straight.
Bring moral principles
into play. Are they
justified, and are they
being correctly applied?
Each individual’s
interests are equally
important, and no one
should get special
treatment.
If there is no good
reason for treating
people differently, then
discrimination is
unacceptably arbitrary.
Morality is, at the very
least, the effort to guide
one’s conduct by reason—
that is, to do what there
are the best reasons for
doing—while giving equal
weight to the interests of
each individual affected by
one’s decision.
Is concerned impartially with the interests of
everyone affected by what he or she does.
 Carefully sifts facts and examines their
implications.
 Accepts principles of conduct only after
scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified.
 Is willing to “listen to reason” even when it
means revising prior convictions.
 Is willing to act on the results of this
deliberation.




Share a dilemma you experienced.
How did you resolve it?
What moral foundation did you base on?