Fluent Essays

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: · Textbook: Chapter 11 · Lesson · Minimum of 2 scholarly sources Instructions Develop, in detail,  a situation in which a health care worker might be confronted with ethical problems related to patients and prescription drug use OR patients in a state of poverty. · Your scenario must be original to you and this assignment. It cannot be from the discussion boards in this class or any other previous forum. · Articulate (and then assess) the ethical solutions that can found using care (care-based ethics) and rights ethics to those problems. · Assessment must ask if the solutions are flawed, practicable, persuasive, etc. · What health care technology is involved in the situation?What moral guidelines for using that kind of healthcare technology should be used there? Explore such guidelines also using utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, ethical egoism, or social contract ethics. · Say how social technologies such as blogs, crowdfunding, online encyclopedias can be used in either case. What moral guidelines for using that kind of healthcare technology should be used there? Develop such guidelines also using utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, ethical egoism, or social contract ethics. You should not be using any text you used in a discussion board or assignment for this class or any previous class. Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations. Writing Requirements (APA format) · Length: 3-4 pages (not including title page or references page) · 1-inch margins · Double spaced · 12-point Times New Roman font · Title page · References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources) T he Elements of Moral Philosophy NINTH EDITION James Rachels Editions 5–9 by stuaRt Rachels rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 1 02/19/18 10:03 AM THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, NINTH EDITION Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2019 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions © 2015, 2012, and 2010. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning. Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the United States. This book is printed on acid-free paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LCR 21 20 19 18 ISBN 978-1-259-91425-6 MHID 1-259-91425-9 Portfolio Manager: Jamie Laferrera Product Developer: Erika Lo Marketing Manager: Nancy Baudean Content Project Manager: Maria McGreal Buyer: Susan K. Culbertson Design: Lumina Datamatics, Inc. Content Licensing Specialist: Melisa Seegmiller Cover Image: ©T.A.Rector (NRAO/AUI/NSF and NOAO/AURA/NSF) and B.A.Wolpa (NOAO/AURA/NSF) Compositor: Lumina Datamatics, Inc. All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rachels, Stuart, 1969- author. | Rachels, James, 1941-2003. Elements of moral philosophy. Title: The elements of moral philosophy / James Rachels, editions 5-9 by Stuart Rachels. Description: NINTH EDITION. | Dubuque, IA : McGraw-Hill Education, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017059417 | ISBN 9781259914256 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Ethics—Textbooks. Classification: LCC BJ1012 .R29 2018 | DDC 170—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017059417 The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-Hill Education does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites. mheducation.com/highered rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 2 02/19/18 10:03 AM About the Authors James Rachels (1941–2003) wrote The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (1986), Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (1990), Can Ethics Provide Answers? And Other Essays in Moral Philosophy (1997), Problems from Philosophy (first edition, 2005), and The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral Philosophy (2007). His website is www.jamesrachels.org. stuaRt Rachels is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama. He has revised several of James Rachels’ books, including Problems from Philosophy as well as the companion anthology to this book, The Right Thing to Do. Stuart won the U.S. Chess Cham-pionship in 1989, at the age of 20, and is a Bronze Life Master at bridge. He is currently writing a book about chess. iii rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 3 02/19/18 10:03 AM This page intentionally left blank rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 4 02/19/18 10:03 AM Contents Preface ix http://www.jamesrachels.org.stuart/ http://www.jamesrachels.org.stuart/ About the Ninth Edition xi 1. WHAT IS MORALITY? 1 1.1. The Problem of Definition 1 1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa 1 1.3. Second Example: Jodie and Mary 5 1.4. Third Example: Tracy Latimer 7 1.5. Reason and Impartiality 10 1.6. The Minimum Conception of Morality 13 Notes on Sources 13 2. THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM 14 2.1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes 14 2.2. Cultural Relativism 16 2.3. The Cultural Differences Argument 17 2.4. What Follows from Cultural Relativism 19 2.5. Why There Is Less Disagreement Than There Seems to Be 21 2.6. Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures 23 2.7. Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable 24 2.8. Back to the Five Claims 27 2.9. What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism 29 Notes on Sources 31 v rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 5 02/19/18 10:03 AM vi CONTENTS 3. SUBJECTIVISM IN ETHICS 33 3.1. The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism 33 3.2. The Linguistic Turn 35 3.3. The Denial of Value 39 3.4. Ethics and Science 40 3.5. Same-Sex Relations 43 Notes on Sources 48 4. DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION? 50 4.1. The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion 50 4.2. The Divine Command Theory 52 4.3. The Theory of Natural Law 56 4.4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues 59 Notes on Sources 64 5. ETHICAL EGOISM 66 5.1. Is There a Duty to Help the Starving? 66 5.2. Psychological Egoism 67 5.3. Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism 73 5.4. Two Arguments against Ethical Egoism 78 Notes on Sources 82 6. THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY 84 6.1. Hobbes’s Argument 84 6.2. The Prisoner’s Dilemma 87 6.3. Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory 91 6.4. The Problem of Civil Disobedience 93 6.5. Difficulties for the Theory 96 Notes on Sources 100 7. THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH 101 7.1. The Revolution in Ethics 101 7.2. First Example: Euthanasia 102 7.3. Second Example: Marijuana 105 7.4. Third Example: Nonhuman Animals 112 Notes on Sources 116 rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 6 02/19/18 10:03 AM CONTENTS vii 8. THE DEBATE OVER UTILITARIANISM 118 8.1. The Classical Version of the Theory 118 8.2. Is Pleasure All That Matters? 119 8.3. Are Consequences All That Matter? 120 8.4. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? 124 8.5. The Defense of Utilitarianism 125 8.6. Concluding Thoughts 131 Notes on Sources 132 9. ARE THERE ABSOLUTE MORAL RULES? 133 9.1. Harry Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe 133 9.2. The Categorical Imperative 136 9.3. Kant’s Arguments on Lying 138 9.4. Conflicts between Rules 140 9.5. Kant’s Insight 141 Notes on Sources 143 10. KANT AND RESPECT FOR PERSONS 145 10.1. Kant’s Core Ideas 145 10.2. Retribution and Utility in the Theory of Punishment 148 10.3. Kant’s Retributivism 150 Notes on Sources 154 11. FEMINISM AND THE ETHICS OF CARE 156 11.1. Do Women and Men Think Differently about Ethics? 156 11.2. Implications for Moral Judgment 162 11.3. Implications for Ethical Theory 166 Notes on Sources 167 rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 7 02/19/18 10:03 AM viii CONTENTS 12. VIRTUE ETHICS 169 12.1. The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action 169 12.2. The Virtues 171 12.3. Two Advantages of Virtue Ethics 180 12.4. Virtue and Conduct 181 12.5. The Problem of Incompleteness 182 12.6. Conclusion 184 Notes on Sources 184 13. WHAT WOULD A SATISFACTORY MORAL THEORY BE LIKE? 186 13.1. Morality without Hubris 186 13.2. Treating People as They Deserve 188 13.3. A Variety of Motives 189 13.4. Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism 190 13.5. The Moral Community 193 13.6. Justice and Fairness 194 13.7. Conclusion 195 Notes on Sources 196 Index 197 rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 8 02/19/18 10:03 AM P reface Socrates, one of the first and best moral philosophers, said that morality is about “no small matter, but how we ought to live.” This book is an introduction to moral philosophy, conceived in that broad sense. The field of ethics is immense. In the chapters that follow, I do not try to canvass every topic in the field, nor do I cover any topic comprehensively. Instead, I try to discuss the ideas that a newcomer to the subject should encounter first. The chapters may be read independently of one another; they are, in effect, separate essays on separate topics. Thus, someone who is interested in Ethical Egoism could go straight to Chapter 5 and find a self-contained introduction to that theory. When read in order, however, the chapters tell a more or less continuous story. The first chapter presents a “minimum conception” of what morality is; the middle chapters cover the most important ethical theories; and the last chapter presents my own view of what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. However, the point of this book is not to provide a neat, uni-fied account of “the truth” about ethics. That would be a poor way to introduce the subject. Philosophy is not like physics. In physics, there is a large body of accepted truth that beginners must master. Of course, there are unresolved controversies in physics, but these take place against a backdrop of broad agreement. In philosophy, by contrast, everything is controversial—or almost everything. Some of the fundamental issues are still up for grabs. Newcomers to philosophy may ask themselves whether a moral theory such as Utilitarianism seems correct. However, newcomers to physics are rarely encouraged to make up their own minds about the laws of thermodynamics. A good introduction to ethics will not try to hide that somewhat embarrassing fact. ix rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 9 02/19/18 10:03 AM x PREFACE In these pages, you will find a survey of contending ideas, theories, and arguments. My own views, no doubt, color the presentation. I find some of these proposals more appealing than others, and a philosopher who made different assessments would no doubt write a different book. But I try to present the contending ideas fairly, and, when I pass judgment on an argument, I try to explain why. Philosophy, like morality itself, is first and last an exercise in reason; we should embrace the ideas, positions, and theories that our best arguments support. rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 10 02/19/18 10:03 AM About the Ninth Edition In this edition, sex and drugs get more coverage. The section on same-sex relations (3.5) now discusses gay marriage, adoption rights, employment rights, Russia’s “gay propaganda laws,” teenage suicide, and hate crimes. The section on marijuana (7.3) now dips into the opioid crisis, the origins of the Drug War, the utilitarian rejection of “evil pleasures,” the relationship between state law and federal law, and the harms of tobacco and alcohol abuse. Here and there, the book has been updated to reflect recent events. For example, the concept of prejudice is now illustrated with a quotation from Donald Trump (5.4), and Mike Pence now represents opposition to gay rights (3.1). Some updates reflect a world that is increasingly online. For example, the importance of finding reliable sources of information is now discussed solely in terms of internet searches (1.5). A few thoughts have been added to existing discussions. We now say that different societies may share some of the same values due to their shared human nature (at the end of 2.6), and we now qualify the claim that morality is “natural for human beings” on the grounds that morality may require humans to be unnaturally benevolent (13.1). The initial explanation of the Principle of Utility now includes the phrase, “maximize happiness” (7.1). The dilemma in which absolute rules might conflict is now about a situation faced by doctors in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, instead of about Dutch fisherman having to lie during World War II (9.4). Gone are Kurt Baier’s argument that Ethical Egoism is logically inconsistent (from 5.4) and the examples of animal experimentation (from 7.4). I’ve also dropped the claim in Chapter 4 that Exodus 21 supports a liberal view of abortion, because I am no longer sure how to interpret that passage. xi rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 11 02/19/18 10:03 AM xii ABOUT THE NINTH EDITION Finally, the age of the universe has been revised to reflect recent findings in astronomy (13.1). For their help, I thank Caleb Andrews, Seth Bordner, Janice Daurio, Micah Davis, Daniel Hollingshead, Kaave Lajevardi, Cayce Moore, Howard Pospesel, John Rowell, Mike Vincke, and Chase Wrenn. My biggest thanks go to my wife, Professor Heather Elliott, and to my mother, Carol Rachels, for their tremendous help down the stretch. My father, James Rachels, wrote the first four editions of The Elements of Moral Philosophy. It is still his book. —Stuart Rachels rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 12 02/19/18 10:03 AM McGraw-Hill Connect® is a highly reliable, easy-to-use homework and learning management solution that utilizes learning science and award- winning adaptive tools to improve student results. Homework and Adaptive Learning ▪ Connect’s assignments help students contextualize what they’ve learned through application, so they can better understand the material and think critically. ▪ Connect will create a personalized study path customized to individual student needs through SmartBook®. ▪ SmartBook helps students study more effi ciently by delivering an interactive reading experience through adaptive highlighting and review. Over 7 billion questions have been answered, making McGraw-Hill Using Connect improves retention Education products more intelligent, rates by 19.8\%, passing rates by 12.7\%, and exam scores by 9.1\%. reliable, and precise. 73\% of instructors who use Connect require it; instructor satisfaction Quality Content and Learning Resources increases by 28\% when Connect is required. ▪ Connect content is authored by the world’s best subject matter experts, and is available to your class through a simple and intuitive interface. ▪ The Connect eBook makes it easy for students to access their reading material on smartphones and tablets. They can study on the go and don’t need internet access to use the eBook as a reference, with full functionality. ▪ Multimedia content such as videos, simulations, and games drive student engagement and critical thinking skills. ©McGraw-Hill Education rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 13 02/19/18 10:03 AM Robust Analytics and Reporting ▪ Connect Insight® generates easy-to-read reports on individual students, the class as a whole, and on specific assignments. ▪ The Connect Insight dashboard delivers data on performance, study behavior, and effort. ©Hero Images/Getty Images Instructors can quickly identify students who struggle and focus on material that the class has yet to master. ▪ Connect automatically grades assignments and quizzes, providing easy-to-read reports on individual and class performance. http://www.mheducation.com/connect\%EF\%BF\%BD More students earn As and Bs when they use Connect. Trusted Service and Support ▪ Connect integrates with your LMS to provide single sign-on and automatic syncing of grades. Integration with Blackboard®, D2L®, and Canvas also provides automatic syncing of the course calendar and assignment-level linking. ▪ Connect offers comprehensive service, support, and training throughout every phase of your implementation. ▪ If you’re looking for some guidance on how to use Connect, or want to learn tips and tricks from super users, you can find tutorials as you work. Our Digital Faculty Consultants and Student Ambassadors offer insight into how to achieve the results you want with Connect. www.mheducation.com/connect rac14259_fm_i-xiv.indd 14 02/19/18 10:03 AM 1 CHAPTER What Is Morality? We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live. SocrateS, in Plato’S Republic (ca. 390 b.c.) 1.1. The Problem of Definition http://www.mheducation.com/connect\%EF\%BF\%BD Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us. As Socrates said, it’s about “how we ought to live”— and why. It would be helpful if we could begin with a simple, uncontroversial definition of what morality is. Unfortunately, we cannot. There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it means to live morally, and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’s simple formulation is bound to offend at least one of them. This should make us cautious, but it need not paralyze us. In this chapter, I will describe the “minimum conception” of morality. As the name suggests, the minimum conception is a core that every moral theory should accept, at least as a starting point. First, however, we will examine some moral controversies having to do with handicapped children. This discussion will bring out the features of the minimum conception. 1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders. Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,” but that is not quite 1 rac14259_ch01_001-013.indd 1 02/15/18 5:38 PM 2 THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY accurate. Important parts of the brain—the cerebrum and cerebellum— are missing, as is the top of the skull. The brain stem, however, is still there, and so the baby can breathe and possess a heartbeat. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are detected during pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually aborted. Of those not aborted, half are stillborn. Of those born alive, most die within days. Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby would die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for immediate transplant. They thought that her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go to other children who could benefit from them. Her physicians agreed. Thousands of infants need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs available. However, Theresa’s organs were not taken, because Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor has died. And by the time Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late—her organs had deteriorated too much to be transplanted. Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should she have been killed so that her organs could have been used to save other children? A number of professional “ethicists”—people who get paid by universities, hospitals, and law schools to think about such things—were asked by the press to comment. Most of them disagreed with the parents, instead appealing to time-honored philosophical principles. “It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends,” said one such expert. Another explained: “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.” And a third added: “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.” Is it horrendous? Opinions were divided. These ethicists thought it was, while the parents and doctors did not. But we are interested in more than what people happen to believe. We want to know what’s true. Were the parents right or wrong to volunteer their baby’s organs for transplant? To answer this question, we have to ask what reasons, or arguments, can be given on each side. What can be said for or against the parents’ request? The Benefits Argument. The parents believed that Theresa’s organs were doing her no good, because she was not conscious and was rac14259_ch01_001-013.indd 2 02/15/18 5:38 PM WHAT IS MORALITY? 3 bound to die soon. The other children, however, could be helped. Thus, the parents seem to have reasoned: If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, then we ought to do so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs. Is this correct? Not every argument is sound. In addition to knowing what arguments can be given for a view, we also want to know whether those arguments are any good. Generally speaking, an argument is sound if its assumptions are true and the conclusion follows logically from them. In this case, the argument has two assumptions: that we should help someone if no harm would come of it, and that the transplant would help the other children without harming Theresa. We might wonder, however, about the claim that Theresa wouldn’t be harmed. After all, she would die, and wouldn’t dying be bad for her? Yet on reflection, it seems clear that the parents were right, under these tragic circumstances. Staying alive is good for someone only if it allows her to do things and to have thoughts and feelings and relations with other people—in other words, only if the individual who is alive has a life. Without such things, mere biological existence has no value. Therefore, even though Theresa might remain alive for a few more days, it would do her no good. The Benefits Argument provides a powerful reason for transplanting the organs. What arguments exist on the other side? The Argument That We Should Not Use People as Means. The ethicists who opposed the transplants offered two arguments. The first was based on the idea that it is wrong to use people as means to other people’s goals. Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit the other children, whom she doesn’t know and cares nothing about; therefore, it should not be done. Is this argument sound? The idea that we should not “use” people is appealing, but this idea is vague. What exactly does it mean? “Using people” typically involves violating their autonomy—their ability to decide for themselves how to live their own lives, based on their own desires and values. A person’s autonomy may be violated through manipulation, trickery, or deceit. For example, I may pretend to be your friend, when I am only interested in going out with your sister; or I may lie to you, so you’ll give me money; or I may try to convince rac14259_ch01_001-013.indd 3 02/15/18 5:38 PM 4 THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY you that you would enjoy going to a movie, when, really, I only want you to give me a ride. In each case, I am manipulating you in order to get something for myself. Autonomy is also violated when people are forced to do things against their will. This explains why “using people” is wrong; it is wrong because it thwarts their autonomy. Taking Baby Theresa’s organs, however, could not thwart her autonomy, because she has no autonomy—she cannot make decisions, she has no desires, and she cannot value anything. Would taking her organs be “using her” in any other morally significant sense? We would, of course, be using her organs for someone else’s benefit. But we do that every time we perform a transplant. We would also be using her organs without her permission. Would that make it wrong? If we were using them against her wishes, then that would be a reason for objecting— it would violate her autonomy. But Baby Theresa has no wishes. When people are unable to make decisions for themselves, and others must step in, there are two reasonable guidelines that might be adopted. First, we might ask, What would be in their own best interests? If we apply this standard to Baby Theresa, there would be no problem with taking her organs, for, as we have already noted, her interests will not be affected. She is not conscious, and she will die soon no matter what. The second guideline appeals to the person’s own preferences: We might ask, If she could tell us what she wants, what would she say? This sort of thought is useful when we are dealing with people who have preferences (or once had them) but cannot express them—for example, a comatose patient who signed a living will before slipping into the coma. But, sadly, Baby Theresa has no preferences, nor can she ever have any. So we can get no guidance from her, not even in our imaginations. The upshot is that we are left to do what we think is best. The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing. The ethicists also appealed to the principle that it is wrong to kill one person to save another. Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others, they said; so, taking the organs would be wrong. Is this argument sound? The rule against killing is certainly among the most important moral precepts. Nevertheless, few people believe it is always wrong to kill—most people think there are exceptions, such as killing in self-defense. The question, then, is whether taking Baby Theresa’s organs should be regarded as another rac14259_ch01_001-013.indd 4 02/15/18 5:38 PM WHAT IS MORALITY? 5 exception. There are many reasons to think so: Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never have a life; she is bound to die soon; and taking her organs would help the other babies. Anyone who accepts this will regard the argument as flawed. Usually, it is wrong to kill one person to save another, but not always. There is another possibility. Perhaps we should regard Baby Theresa as already dead. If this sounds crazy, bear in mind that our conception of death has changed over the years. In 1967, the South African doctor Christiaan Barnard performed the first heart transplant in a human being. This was an exciting development; heart transplants could potentially save many lives. It was not clear, however, whether any lives could be saved in the United States. Back then, American law understood death as occurring when the heart stops beating. But once a heart stops beating, the organ quickly degrades and becomes unsuitable for transplant. Thus, under American law, it was not clear whether any hearts could be harvested for transplant. So American law changed. We now understand death as occurring, not when the heart stops beating, but when the brain stops functioning: “brain death” is now our standard understanding of death. This solved the problem about transplants because a brain-dead patient can still have a healthy heart, suitable for transplant. Anencephalics do not meet the technical requirements for brain death as that term is currently defined, but perhaps the definition should be revised to include them. After all, they lack any hope for conscious life, because they have no cerebrum or cerebellum. If the definition of brain death were reformulated to include anencephalics, then we would become accustomed to the idea that these unfortunate infants are stillborn, and so taking their organs would not involve killing them. The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing would then be moot. On the whole, then, the arguments in favor of transplanting Baby Theresa’s organs seem stronger than the arguments against it. 1.3. Second Example: Jodie and Mary In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south of Italy, discovered that she was carrying conjoined twins. Knowing that the health- care facilities on Gozo couldn’t handle such a birth, she and her husband went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester, England. rac14259_ch01_001-013.indd 5 02/15/18 5:38 PM 6 THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY The infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at the lower abdomen. Their spines were fused, and they had one heart and one pair of lungs between them. Jodie, the stronger one, was providing blood for her sister. No one knows how many conjoined twins are born each year, but the number seems to be in the hundreds. Most die shortly after birth, but some do well. They grow to adulthood and marry and have children themselves. However, the outlook for Mary and Jodie was grim. The doctors said that, without intervention, the girls would die within six months. The only hope was an operation to separate them. This would save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately. The parents, who were devout Catholics, opposed the operation on the grounds that it would hasten Mary’s death. “We believe that nature should take its course,” they said. “If it’s God’s will that both our children should not survive, then so be it.” The hospital, hoping to save Jodie, petitioned the courts for permission to perform the operation anyway. The courts agreed, and the operation was performed. As expected, Jodie lived and Mary died. In thinking about this case, we should distinguish the question of who should make the decision from the question of what the decision should be. You might think, for example, that the parents should make the decision, and so the courts were wrong to intrude. But there remains the question of what would be the wisest choice for the parents (or anyone else) to make. We will focus on that question: Was it right or wrong to separate the twins? The Argument That We Should Save as Many as We Can. The rationale for separating the twins is that we have a choice between saving one infant or letting both die. Isn’t it plainly better to save one? This argument is so appealing that many people will conclude, without further thought, that the twins should be separated. At the height of the controversy, the Ladies’ Home Journal commissioned a poll to discover what Americans thought. The poll showed that 78\% approved of the operation. People were persuaded by the idea that we should save as many as we can. Jodie and Mary’s parents, however, were persuaded by a different argument. rac14259_ch01_001-013.indd 6 02/15/18 5:38 PM WHAT IS MORALITY? 7 The Argument from the Sanctity …