The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: re: Natalia's critique
Review: DISCLAIMER: The 4 rating is a not-so-random guess, as I haven't read the whole book yet, but had to put a number down in order to give this critique of Natalia's post. As soon as I bought this book, I read the section on Infanticide, which Natalia so poorly criticized. Natalia's criticism is so poor that you don't even need to read the article to critique her criticism, but I thought I would read it first in case anyone thought differently. She basically argues that even in cases where the baby is a 'vegetable', that it's still good to keep him or her alive because of the benefits they will serve to others. Is there a less compassionate and more selfish position possible than this? I've read a few articles from this book, mainly essays by professional philosophers who give at least strong, if not compelling, arguments for their positions. Rachels himself is good philosopher, specifically a good ethicist, so I recommend him for the strength of his arguments and the lucidity of his writing.

Rating:
Summary: Not just a textbook
Review: My sister bought this book as a text book for a introduction into philosophy class. I found it on the family book shelf later on and started flipping through it. The book is well written and interesting; although for the price there must be something better. I came on Amazon today looking for books to read on long trip and this came to mind. It has been a few years since I first read it and I'd like to read it again. I highly suggest you read this book; regardless of the other reviewer (who's two critizisms come from the first chapter).

Rating:
Summary: insensitive
Review: The section on handicapped babies is atrocious. Rachel's opinionon is that in the end a brainless baby has less worth than one with a brain. He states derisively that if we simply remove our religious "blinkers" we would see the same. Religion is not a windshield my friend. SUch a child wouldn't contribute to society and be economically worthless since nowadays a person who can't contribute to the economy or jobmarket in any way is a brute. However, lets say everyone on earth was eradicated except for one doctor and a bunch of his very able helper robots. Would this doctor want to keep this baby? Because even though it is almost "inhumane" (as Rachels would gladly have put it) the baby would be the only other human being.
Perhaps it's not a question of worth so much as a life of fullness that is attempted by any human that is more the question. Looking at this unselfishly that child would most likely never achieve this. Forget its lack of contributions to society but concentrate on itself and honestly it shouldn't have to live in a condition of pain? anguish? We should not allow it to live. We have a moral responsibility to do this.
The book gave another example about a famous trial with a DOwn Syndrom child who didn't recieve treatment for his treatable intestinal disease. This is another point. Because the child is born with congenital brain damage yet he can experience life and "take away" from it. At the same time the other human population also "takes away" from him, learns to appreciate itself and learns from him. Because humans are life learners, it's only fair if there is an exchange of learning from both parties- between teh handicapped and not. A child born without a brain our a constant brain hemoraging cannot take away from society, yet it can contribute because every still object to the most restless pebble on the surf has something to teach. Yet it wouldn't be fair to it because it wouldn't be able to take away. There must be an exchange of learning, and teaching.

Rating:
Summary: insensitive
Review: The section on handicapped babies is atrocious. Rachel's opinionon is that in the end a brainless baby has less worth than one with a brain. He states derisively that if we simply remove our religious "blinkers" we would see the same. Religion is not a windshield my friend. SUch a child wouldn't contribute to society and be economically worthless since nowadays a person who can't contribute to the economy or jobmarket in any way is a brute. However, lets say everyone on earth was eradicated except for one doctor and a bunch of his very able helper robots. Would this doctor want to keep this baby? Because even though it is almost "inhumane" (as Rachels would gladly have put it) the baby would be the only other human being.
Perhaps it's not a question of worth so much as a life of fullness that is attempted by any human that is more the question. Looking at this unselfishly that child would most likely never achieve this. Forget its lack of contributions to society but concentrate on itself and honestly it shouldn't have to live in a condition of pain? anguish? We should not allow it to live. We have a moral responsibility to do this.
The book gave another example about a famous trial with a DOwn Syndrom child who didn't recieve treatment for his treatable intestinal disease. This is another point. Because the child is born with congenital brain damage yet he can experience life and "take away" from it. At the same time the other human population also "takes away" from him, learns to appreciate itself and learns from him. Because humans are life learners, it's only fair if there is an exchange of learning from both parties- between teh handicapped and not. A child born without a brain our a constant brain hemoraging cannot take away from society, yet it can contribute because every still object to the most restless pebble on the surf has something to teach. Yet it wouldn't be fair to it because it wouldn't be able to take away. There must be an exchange of learning, and teaching.