My philosophy teacher suggested I read The Elements of Moral Philosophy to get a good introduction to moral philosophy (because I don’t have much of a philosophy background outside of English courses). I’m not so far into the book, but pretty quickly I have to doubt the inclusive nature of the book (or lack thereof). When writing about moral dilemmas around conjoined twins (a case where conjoined twins were born and one was pretty much living off the other), the author James Rachels writes:
Some sets of conjoined twins do well. They grow to adulthood and sometimes marry and have children themselves. (6)
So, the sign of doing well is to “marry and have children”? Seems like a pretty limited definition of a successful life. What about, you know, being happy or fulfilled?
This comes as even more disturbing in a book about moral philosophy when after only a few pages earlier there was a somewhat heterosexist example. *shakes head*
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003.
