The Elements of Moral Philosophy

Chapter 4 

This chapter of “Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels addresses the issue of religion as an overriding concern in the American society since morality and ethics are mainly defined from a religious perspective. The authors present the American society as rather unique based on the cardinal role played by religion. Rachels & Rachels (2019) cite the case of Judge Roy Moore who was sued in 1995 by the American Civil Liberties Union for displaying the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides clear separation between the church and the state, the voters supported Moore in his promise to use a religious approach to “restore the moral foundation of the law.” From the judge’s perspective, religion could be used as the foundation to define and apply the law. He was supported by 77% of the American population in a Gallup Poll.

The authors question the process of deriving moral and ethical principles solely from religious doctrines. The chances of bias in such a scenario are high. Furthermore, when adopting the First Amendment on December 15, 1791, a crisis had been foreseen by over relying on religion to define matters of the state. Rachels & Rachels (2019) argue that following religious doctrines blindly reduces chances of reasoning. Christians prefer the Theory of Natural Law as compared to the Divine Command Theory. The Theory of Natural Law posits that all creations have a purpose. Christians identify with the theory because they believe in a supreme being responsible for all creation and occurrences on Earth. However, the theory has significant limitations. First, some natural establishments such as disease are not good. The theory also confuses “is” and “ought”, hence creating totally different notions (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). In conclusion, the authors propose that humans should not be confined to religious beliefs to define morality and ethics.

Chapter 5 

In chapter five, the authors explore the motivations behind committing unselfish acts. They pose the question, “Is there a duty to help the starving?” Every day, approximately 15,800 children die from preventable causes. The authors note that people let such children die when they can save them. The authors juxtapose the theories of ethical egoism and psychological egoism. While the theory of ethical egoism claims that each person “ought” to pursue their self-interests exclusively, psychological egoism asserts that each person ‘does in fact’ pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. The theories present humans as selfish individuals with limited ability to help in the scenario where children are starving to death.

Rachels & Rachels (2019) argue that altruism is still possible despite humans’ selfish nature. To support this position, the authors give the example of Raoul Walenberg, a Swedish businessman who left his neutral country and entered war-torn Hungary to save lives. In the process, he risked his life as he began to implement his “final solution to the Jewish problem.” He persuaded the Hungarian government to halt the Jewish deportations, although a change of regime later led to resumption of the deportations. Despite the deeds reported about the selfless Swedish and many other people such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Zell Kravinsky and Oseola McCarty, the authors still hold the position that every human action is directed towards personal gain. The selfless acts help the beneficiaries but at the same time give the philanthropists a sense of honor and peace. They live happily knowing they have helped the people in need. It is all about ‘feeling better about who we are.” The three arguments raised for ethical egoism support the position that humans pursue their self interests exclusively. Other people may benefit as a person pursues their selfish interests. However, ethical egoism promotes wickedness such as the case of a paramedic who gave patients injections of water to sell morphine.

Chapter 6 

The authors introduce the Social Contract Theory in the sixth chapter. Thomas Hobbes argued that morality should be understood as the solution to a practical problem that arises for self-interested human beings. In this chapter, the authors seek to respond to the challenges raised towards the end of the fifth chapter where selfish interests can direct humans to injure others as they pursue their selfish goals. Rachels & Rachels (2019) argue that for humans to flourish, they need a peaceful and cooperative social order. Such an environment can only be achieved if social order is introduced. The Social Contract Theory serves as an instrument where selfish interests are controlled to ensure that a central position is established to allow all people in a society live harmoniously. After analyzing the nature of human wants, Hobbes concluded that humans were in a state of constant war. However, human needs are closely similar. Since every person wants to amass as much resources as possible, the Social Contract Theory is used to create a balance in the society. Individuals forego some freedoms and benefits for the sake of other members in the same society.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a problem invented by Melvin Dresher and Merrill M. Flood in 1950 is used to explain the precepts of the Social Contract Theory. Life presents itself in a similar setting where selfish interests have to precede logic and rational thinking. Regardless of what other people do, it is better adopting a policy that seeks maximum self-interest. The authors highlight some of the benefits of the social contract theory. Morality binding rules negate the selfish approach to achieve selfish goals and desires. The weak are granted a chance to survive in a highly competitive environment. Rachels & Rachels (2019) also support punishing criminals when they break the social contract. The social contract works in a way that the government protects its citizens while the citizens forego some benefits to ensure the government works.

Chapter 7 

In the seventh chapter, the authors explore the emergence of new ethical theories in the 18 th and 19 th century. The astonishing series of upheavals such as the French Revolution (1787-1799), the wreckage of the Napoleonic Empire (1804-1815) and the revolutions of 1848 showed the power of “equality, liberty and fraternity” as moral ideas. Jeremy Bentham emerged during this critical period with his ideas about morality. In his theory of utility (utilitarian theory), Jeremy Bentham does not take into consideration the limitations brought forth by ethical egoism. The utilitarian theory works towards achieving happiness to most people. When making a moral decision, a person has to consider the results that will bring utility to most people, whether he is among the beneficiaries or not. Rachels &Rachels (2019) critique Jeremy Bentham’s approach to establish why the approach or idea is counterintuitive when applied in the modern society. The general conclusion is that the idea is not only outdated but also inapplicable in the modern society. The theory of ethical egoism, which has been proven to be more reliable, shows that humans always struggle to achieve their selfish interests. It is hardly possible to push the same humans to pursue interests that bring utility to the society if their selfish interests are not met.

The authors analyze several cases to establish the moral underpinnings that can describe them. The first case is euthanasia. Schur ended Freud’s life, with Freud having requested for it. He ended his suffering by allowing him to fall into what the authors call “peaceful sleep.” However, what Dr. Schur did was morally wrong according to the dominant moral tradition in the culture. In this case, the authors refer to the Christian tradition. The God question comes up in morality since Christians hold every life as important. Therefore, the utilitarian theory fails to take account of self-interest. Ethical egoism would fully explain euthanasia while introducing religious doctrines complicates the whole issue since life is owned by God.

Chapter 8 

The debate over utilitarianism is extended to the 8 th chapter. The authors sum up the three propositions made by classical utilitarianism: the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences and nothing else, an action’s consequences matter only if they provide greater or lesser happiness to those involved, and in the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets equal consideration. This position in classical utilitarianism was supported by John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick. However, the theory is rejected by modern philosophers. Rachels & Rachels (2019) provide the bases to reject the utilitarian theory. First, they float the question of pleasure. Is pleasure all that matters? Utilitarianism defines ‘good’ as happiness. Happiness is an equally fluid concept that can be defined differently. Second, the authors argue that consequences are not all that matters. If other things apart from the results are important, then the theory cannot be reliable. The case floated by H. J. McCloskey challenges utilitarianism. Its main shortcoming is that it conflicts with the ideal of justice.

Utilitarianism also fails to protect individual rights and freedom. To support this position, the authors present the case of an individual who peeps through a window and records a naked woman. If he does not show any person the video, he only uses it for personal happiness. Therefore, since no one is unhappy, a utilitarian approach would qualify the action. However, the action infringes on the woman’s privacy and it is wrong. In utilitarian’s defense, the authors argue that most arguments against it are based on hypothetical cases. Utilitarianism often requires individuals to sacrifice to meet the interests of the majority. Such an approach conflicts with ethical egoism and can only apply in cases where involved parties are totally selfless. In the second defense, the authors argue that utilitarianism should be applied to choose rules and not acts. It should not be applied in absoluteness without considering the context.

Chapter 9 

In chapter 9, the authors seek to establish whether there are absolute moral rules by analyzing the cases of Harry Truman who authorized the decision o drop the two bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and Elizabeth Anscombe who wrote during World War II discouraging Britain from engaging in the war since “countries at war inevitably end up fighting by unjust means.”While Anscombe’s moral views were informed by her religious doctrines, she did not feel she had a duty to protect anyone during the war. Her case was different from that of Harry Truman who felt he had a duty and responsibility to defend United States after Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor earlier on in December 7, 1941. Anscombe wrote a pamphlet explaining Truman as a murderer based on his role in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, while Anscombe raises arguable ideas about morality, she is not absolutely right since there are no absolute moral values. The authors present the case of Immanuel Kant, the only moral philosopher before the 20 th century who believed that moral rules are absolute in nature. He posited that humans should only act according to the maxim by which their action can be qualified under natural law.

The chapter further presents Kant’s views on lying. Kant was a believer of universal law. He used the categorical imperative to challenge lying. He describes lying as an obliteration of personal dignity as a human. In some case, however, humans are forced to choose between two choices that are morally impermissible. For instance, if a person was to choose between intentionally killing a person or subjecting them to horrible suffering with no compensation. The case of New Orleans doctors and nurses in 2005 who were forced either to euthanize remaining patients or watch them as they suffered to death is a classic example of such scenarios. The doctors violated an absolute principle showing that absolute principles do not exist.

Chapter 10 

Chapter 10 presents Immanuel Kant’s views about humans and their special position among other species. Kant believed that other animals have value in as much as they are serving humans. He argued that if a child is born and dies, giving birth to another child cannot replace the dead child. Humans are therefore irreplaceable, a quality that is absent among other animals. The difference between human and ‘mere things’ as described by Kant is that humans have dignity while mere things do not. Furthermore, mere animals lack desires and goals. The authors conclude by asserting that animals lack intrinsic worth i.e. dignity. From a moral perspective, only humans have moral worth since their actions are conscientious. Kant is opposed to the behavior where humans use other as means to achieve specific goals. If a person has to use the other, the engagement has to done in the confines of dignity. For instance, if one calls a plumber to unclog a toilet, then a payment should accompany the services rendered to subject the engagement to the confines of dignity.

Rachels &Rachels (2019) also discuss retribution and utility in the theory of punishment. The authors cite Jeremy Bentham’s assertion that ‘all punishment is mischief.’ Bentham argued that Retributivism is unsatisfactory since it fails to compensate the affected person(s). However, in a situation where people are punished for their evil actions, extra suffering is borne by people deserving it and it is right. Since Bentham promoted utilitarianism, he argued that punishment should have utility to those afflicted. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant argued that people should be punished simply because they have committed crimes and second, punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. Kant, a proponent of capital punishment,asserted that punishment should be proportionate to the crime done. The authors argue that theview towards crime solely depends on the opinion a person has about the criminal.

Chapter 12 

The authors discuss virtue ethics the in chapter 10. The initial assertion is that how humans approach a situation or subject matters a lot. Virtue ethics started with Aristotle. Aristotle argued that virtues such as self-control, courage, generosity and truthfulness determine the character of a good person. The authors note that this way of thinking was neglected and its place Christianity presented a new set of ideas. God was viewed as a law giver and so a “good person” was weighed based on his fidelity to the word of God. Subornation to God preceded reason as seen in the writings of Saint Augustine in the 4 th century AD. Theories of rightness and obligation replaced theories anchored on divine law. The theories include ethical egoism, social contract theory and Kant’s theory discussed in previous chapters. On the question whether humans should return to virtue ethics, Rachels & Rachels (2019) argue that modern moral philosophy is seen as deficient since it provides the law without providing the lawgiver. Anscombe proposed returning to Aristotelian ethics. Returning to virtue ethics remains a far-fetched idea in the modern moral context.

A discussion of ethics reveals that adhering to certain virtues is quite demanding. The authors give the example of Jesus’ teachings on selflessness. Jesus taught that it is wrong for humans to possess riches when other people are suffering. The argument is so relevant to the current context and discussions in chapter 5 about letting children starve to death when other people are living in opulence. Modern utilitarians are descendants of Jesus’s moral philosophy. In conclusion, the authors argue that it is best regarding virtue ethics as part of the overall theory of ethics rather than being complete in itself. Virtue ethics cannot thrive in absoluteness and so the authors’ position is right.

References 

Rachels, J. & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. (9 th Ed). McGraw Hill Education.