Elements of Moral Philosophy

This first chapter ofby 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 brainaside 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 Theresas autonomy must be preservedeven if she cannot think or act for herself. Two more examples, one of conjoined twins and another involved a fathers 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.

Ch-2As 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 relativismdifferent cultures have different moral codes. It would not be correct to judge one cultures 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, everyones 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.

Ch-3
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