Ethical Inquiry Discussion Project

Rachels is trying to convince us that ethical issues should be addressed in a rational way, that we should make up our minds about what is right and wrong on the basis of our assessment of the reasons which can be given for the various opinions people have. But if Subjectivism or Relativism is correct, or if ethical questions should be answered primarily by turning to religious texts or traditions, then this search for reasons may be a waste of time. So he begins by trying to show that these views are wrong. How convincing is his case? Let's start with a sort of experiment:

1. Each group will be assigned one of the cases described on the handout "Cases for Discussion." Consider your case in light of the first four chapters of Rachels' text. Specifically, try to answer the following questions:

a. Rachels says in Chapter 1 that a moral judgement has to be backed up by reasons. Consider the case that you have been assigned and discuss briefly what each of you is currently inclined to say about what the person in the case should do. Are you able to offer reasons for your opinions? What are they? (Don't try to agree on an answer, and don't get into an argument about whose opinion is right or whose reasons are better. Just try to see if you all do have some reasons to offer in support of your opinions, whatever they may be.) If one or more of you thinks that you don't have (or don't need to have) reasons for your opinions, then what (if anything) does support or explain your judgement about what should be done?

b. Does this case seem to be one that people in different cultures might approach differently? Or could it be settled by appealing to a moral rule that is necessary for any society to function? (See Chapter 2, esp.pp. 29-30 of Rachels.)

c. Does this case seem to be one that would be approached differently by different people in one society (say, the U.S.)? Does it seem reasonable to you to say that people's opinions about this case would be merely expressions of their personal feelings? Does it seem reasonable to you to say that there is a judgement about what should be done in this case that is a "truth of reason"? (See Chapter 3, esp. pp. 45-50 of Rachels.)

d. Is this question one that you would try to answer by turning to your religious tradition? Would other people try to answer the question through their religion? How plausible do you find Rachels' claim that this question cannot be answered by religion alone, but requires independent moral thought? (See Chapter 4, esp. pp. 55-61.)

How did the 'experiment' come out? Did your case seem to fit into Rachels' way of thinking about ethics?

2. Are you inclined to agree or disagree with Rachels about the possibility of using reason to address ethical issues? At what points do you think his argument is the weakest? At what points (if any) has he convinced you?