CONTENT REVIEW 4
I think that you are totally right in your explanation of how morality is a separate entity (noun) on its own that does not need the support of “other things” to exist. In fact, like you said, morality is made impure by the “other things” that try to help define it. Whereas holiness is dependent on how the society views an individual, morality is its own person independent of the society. However, people have always tried to reduce morality by defining what is right and wrong and have also always changed the meanings to suit their own needs, something that is just wrong.
Again, I totally agree with your opinion concerning the actions of the doctors in as far as Mill’s standards of utilitarian are concerned. According to Mill, people should live a life of enjoyment and happiness, and if any pain has to become them, then it should come in the most painless way possible. Since the level 3 patients were deemed incapable of surviving, if utilitarian standards were to be followed, then the best way was to kill them. Killing them would save them from all the pain and suffering they would suffer before eventually dying. However, like you said, the doctors should have considered a better way of choosing targets to kill to avoid killing people who could actually survive.
I agree with your assessment that morals and ethics overlap in large part with epistemology, and it becomes even hard to understand which one to know first. Where some may suggest that Euthyphro should come first, I think that it is hard to try understanding it before one knows about epistemology. Finally like you said, morals are just statutes imposed on the human race by humans themselves and can always be changed so that what is right or wrong in the eyes of the people is changed. As in the case of the New Orleans hospital, the doctors chose what they thought was morally right, and they went ahead and did it.
Mill,John Stuart, and Roger Crisp. "Chapter II &IV." Utilitarianism.Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. N. page. Print.