Analysis Of Morality By James Rachels

What is Morality? by James Rachels attempts to provide us with a core understanding of morals and a set of guidelines all decisions should follow to be considered morally correct. Rachels asserts morality is conduct guided by impartial reason, which implies that the decision is backed by solid rationale and that the morally correct thing to do is determined by what solution is supported the most logically. The issue must be looked at impartially to achieve a moral judgment, meaning giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by the judgment. An unbiased position must be established to achieve an impartial view on any circumstance. Rachels uses three examples of situations where it was difficult to determine what the right …show more content…
Without intervention, both were destined to die within six months of birth, but if separated Jodie would live and Mary would die immediately. The parents refused permission to operate, believing that it would be wrong to directly cause Mary’s death. After a court intervention, the operation was performed over the parents’ objection, and as expected Jodie lived and Mary died. The surgeons in favor of separation used the argument that it is not morally correct to let both twins die when intervention could save one. However, those against this did not believe it is right to sacrifice one life to save another, although both twins would have surely died. In this situation I think the correct decision was made. I do not see the reasoning behind allowing both girls to each exist a little longer and both die rather than undergo surgery and save one. In the end, although one twin died as a result of the operation, the doctors did save the other twin’s life. This perspective once again follows Rachels’ outlined basics of morality, following a logical argument and being supported by concrete …show more content…
Tracy had no prospects for a decent life, and all she could look forward to was more pain and suffering. Tracy’s father was found guilty of second degree murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. At first his sentence was drastically smaller because it was not viewed as a true act of murder, but rather a mercy killing. He killed her because he believed her immense pain and suffering could not be alleviated in any other way. This brings up the argument of whether or not it is okay to kill to end a miserable existence or if it should be considered a highly egregious offense regardless. There is also a slippery slope with this case; if you allow Mr. Latimer off the hook for this mercy killing, where would you draw the line in future cases? This case was the most difficult for me to form an idea of which side was morally correct. I know that taking another human life is wrong; however, I do not think that Tracy 's father deserved the full sentence. In Oregon it is legal for physicians to perform assisted suicide for patients with no hope of obtaining any enjoyment in life. From the information provided it is apparent Tracy suffered a tremendous deal in life and the outlook appeared increasingly difficult. If the assisted suicide procedure was available to patients where Tracy was from, I believe that would have