Class 2 Notes

There are three basic arguments for the moral rightness or wrongness of harvesting Baby Theresas
organs. This is a more systematic presentation of the arguments.
1. BENEFITS ARGUMENT
a. In general, all else being equal, there are two major points made in the benefits
argument:
i. The action taken will benefit persons
ii. The action taken will not harm persons
(The first point must always be present, the second, can sometimes be varied
under certain circumstances such as consent of those harmed)
b. So the argument more or less used by the parents and others who supported the
parents worked like this:
i. Relevant facts:
1. Baby Theresa is anencephalic and therefore never has the possibility of
consciousness (never knowing she ever was alive, or conscious of
anything being done to her.)
2. She will die never becoming conscious, probably within a few weeks of
birth, if she makes it to birth
3. For the organs to be any good for other babies, they must be harvested
while Baby Theresas heart and lungs are still working
4. Harvesting the organs will result in the stopping of Baby Theresas heart
and lungs
5. The parents have given consent for Baby Theresas organs to be
harvested prior to the cessation of heart and lung activity.
ii. Babies who need organs must get organs from other babies.
iii. The harvesting of baby Theresas organs will potentially save the lives of other
babies.
iv. The harvesting of the organs will not really harm Baby Theresa
1. Shell die anyway
2. Shell never be conscious of what has been done to her
3. She is not really alive in a human way
v. Therefore, it is right to harvest Baby Theresas organs.
2. THE MORAL LAW AGAINST KILLING ARGUMENT
a. In general this argument makes one major points
i. One human being should never take the life of another human being
(This is often presented from a Christian perspective such as, Only God is
authorised to exercise the power over life and death or by quoting from the
Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. However one might simply state
that it is wrong to kill another human being, and presume that others will
agree.)
b. So the argument against would work like this:
i. The same relevant facts from above apply here
ii. It is not permissible for one human being to take the life of another human
being
iii. Removing Baby Theresas organs will effectively take her life
iv. Therefore it is wrong to remove her organs

v. There are possible objections:

1. Baby Theresa is not really alive
a. In reply, someone arguing using the law against killing might
reply: the point that she is not really alive is debatable, and
therefore there is a chance she really is alive. Then another
moral rule is invoked: Where there is doubt about whether a
human life might be taken, one presumes that a life is taken.
2. One might say that she will never know; shes not going to live for long
a. In reply, someone arguing using the law against killing might
reply: (1) the length of life does not affect the prohibition
against killing; (2) that a person is not conscious of the harm
does not make it right e.g. mutilating unconscious persons for
fun during surgery is wrong, even if the person does not know it
is happening
3. There are times when we allow killing, such as in self-defence, might not
some relevant reason for overriding the rule in this case.
3. THE MORAL PRECEPT THAT IT IS WRONG TO USE A PERSON FOR ONES BENEFIT OR THE BENEFIT
OF OTHERS.
a. It is generally wrong to use another person for others benefit unless the following four
major elements are true:
i. The person is fully aware they are being used, how, for what, and all
consequences
ii. The person has freely consented to this use
iii. Both i. and ii. are simultaneously true
iv. Its not morally wrong for some other reason (for example, others elsewhere
may be harmed)
b. In the case of Baby Theresa, the argument against harvesting her organs may look like
this:
i. All relevant facts as above.
ii. Removing baby Theresas organs would be using Baby Theresa to benefit others
iii. Baby Theresa never consented to this
iv. Therefore it is wrong to remove Baby Theresas organs.
c. Objections
i. Baby Theresa cannot consent, and this objection might play out this way
1. When people cannot consent, either their closes next of kin, or those
who were designated by them, consent on their behalf.
2. Baby Theresa had no possibility of consent
3. The parents of Baby Theresa were her closest kin
4. The parents consented
5. Therefore all conditions for use were fulfilled
6. Therefore Baby Theresas organs can be harvested
ii. This objection often does not work because the moral argument around using a
person often is made side by side with some other moral precepts.
From the discussion of the case, one might say that the following two statements can be made about
what morality is.
1. Morality is about trying to guide ones action by reason. (This is more clearly seen when we
are faced with moral dilemmas like that of Baby Theresa where lives can be both saved and
lost.)

2. Morality is also about trying to be fair and just. (This is clear in a case like Baby Theresa
because the case pits the life of Baby Theresa against the life of other babies, and therefore our
sense of morality requires that we find some way of saying that what we do to Baby Theresa is
fair or just.)
There are some technical use of vocabulary that is important to have clear:
First is how moralists or ethicists use the terms, good/bad and right/wrong.
Moral right and wrong usually refers to the moral rightness or wrongness of a particular action.
Moral good and evil/bad usually refers to the quality of a person, community or institution. So we might
ask, What makes a person good? We might answer that they are merciful, kind, and just.
We might also ask what makes for a good life. And we might answer, A good life is a happy one, that is,
one in which a person is able to develop their talents to contribute to their own life, the lives of others
around them, and to society.
We also must understand some other terms: amoral, pre-moral, immoral, moral
Amoral and pre-moral are nearly identical. When we say something is amoral, we say it has no moral
relevance. When we say it is pre-moral we are saying it does not yet have any moral relevance. The
scientific facts that go into the making of a nuclear bomb are simply facts, they are therefore amoral or
pre moral. How they end up being used is another matter.
When we say something is immoral we are normally saying that the action is morally wrong should not
be done.
When we say something is moral, we are saying that the action is morally right should be done.

I.

After class 1 and 2, what a student should be able to do:

A.

Should be able to do the following:

1.
Illustrate a moral argument for the harvesting of baby Theresas organs
using the Benefits argument. This argument should attempt to answer the
objections that might arise.
2.
Illustrate a moral argument against the harvesting of baby Theresas
organs using the moral law that one should not kill another human being. This
argument should attempt to answer the objections that might arise.
3.
Illustrate a moral argument for or against the harvesting of baby Theresas
organs using the moral precept that one should not use other human persons for
gain except under certain conditions. This argument should attempt to answer
the objections that might arise.

B.
Should be able to give a basic definition of what morality or moral living is
about.
C.
Should be able to distinguish between the moral right and the good (moral
wrong and moral bad/evil).
D.
Should be able to define the moral right and the moral good.
E.
Should be able to define pre-moral/amoral, moral, & immoral.
F.
Should be able to distinguish between morally relevant and irrelevant facts
in a particular case or scenario.
There will be an exam the week of October 5th. This exam will cover classes 1 & 2, and the notes for
classes 1 & 2.