James Rachels 's What Is Morality?

According to the current medical ethics and state laws, human organs cannot be removed and used for transplant purposes until the donor is legally dead (Koukl, par, 2). The main reason for this logic is to prevent abuses even though every rule or rationale has certain exceptions. Anencephalic newborns

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

Using two articles “On the Origin of Good and Evil” by Richard Taylor and “Why Morality Is Not Relative” by James Rachels from the book Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, author, Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, this essay will first try to identify what each of two articles says about the nature of good and evil, and is everything on morality is relative. Taylor from the article “On the Origin of Good and Evil”, states that morality is not inspirational, but a natural reality which that mean that we are conative being, and if there are no desires, there are no values and no good or evil. His argument takes place on purposeful and cognizant living being, like ourselves, who reacts to the world in good and bad ways that relate directly to our needs. The six topics Taylor illustrated in the article are men as conative beings, which he talked about men are rational or cognitive beings that men have needs, desires, and goals, they have certain wants and generally go about trying to satisfy them in various ways; conation as the precondition of good and evil, which it is about any distinction between good and evil, and between right and wrong can be made; the emergence of good and evil, the emergence of right and wrong, that if there no good and no evil, there is nothing but bare facts of this kind or that; the emergence of right and wrong, which he explained about ethical notions as right and wrong or for moral obligation as long as we imagined a world

Conversely, by looking at it from the perspective that morals should not be the basis of decision making, you can see that if we don’t use them, then many people can get hurt as a result. If people make choices without thinking of the consequences or about what is important to them and the people around them, the wrong choice may be made. While morals shouldn’t be the only thing considered, they must be taken into account to ensure the right things are being done. If we only base our actions on morals, then some very important past discoveries may not have been made. If people only consider morals than not only will decisions be biased as each person has different morals, but many things in history may not have been accomplished. For example, the nuclear bomb may not have been invented or people might

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he explains many things in the ninth chapter. He made statement about philosopher who decided the absolute moral rules. It explains in the beginning, there’s no definite answer for moral rules. Again, it’s about belief, cultural, tradition etc. Truman decision of dropping the bomb created conflict, some disagree and others agree. Categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative are explained with Kant’s conceptive on lying. His argument about lying is back with universal law. There’s conflict among Kant’s argument, there might be situation where lying might be necessary. Kant believe in responsibility of telling the truth but not the lie.

Every day, 20 people die because they are unable to receive a vital organ transplant that they need to survive. Some of these people are on organ donation lists and some of them are not. The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among those who do not receive the organs they need. In the United States alone, nearly 116,000 people are on waiting lists for vital organ transplants. Another name is added to this list every 10 minutes. This paper will argue that organ donation should not be optional. Every person who dies, or enters an irreversible vegetative state with little or no brain function, should have his or her organs-more specifically, those among the organs that are suitable for donation-harvested. A single healthy donor who has died can save up to eight lives (American Transplant Foundation).

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Morality is defined as a recognition or belief that explains why some behaviors are bad or good. In simple words, morality refers to values relating to the distinction between wrong and right or good and bad. Few morals are easily accepted and are only questioned by some fringes of society who might disagree with such morals. These individuals on the fringes can be bad or good. The ones who reject socially accepted moral does not necessarily mean that they are good persons. Thus, one can say that each individual has morals that are different from each other (Joseph).

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

The need for organ donations creates another ethical dilemma for Emergency Room Physicians. “Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns” (Stein, 2010). The shortage of organs available for transplant has caused many patients die while waiting. A pilot project from the federal government “has begun promoting an alternative that involves surgeons taking organs, within minutes, from patients whose hearts have stopped beating but who have not been declared brain-dead” (Stein, 2010). “The Uniform Determination of Death Act

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.

Selling organs is a rising problem in the healthcare community, government and morality. Organ sales has become the topic of discussion for numerous reasons. Some of which being lowering the wait time on the organ transplant waitlist and taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged. This issue affects many people on many different levels, some people morally or legally but mostly importantly medically. What this basically comes down to is: “Who are we to judge what people do with their bodies?”. The answer to this question lays in many different sources. The simplified answer is no we can not tell people what they can and can not tell other people what they can and can ot do with their bodies.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.