Students in a college ethics

Answer choices

1. A

   No Distinction2% picked this

   It is wrong to publish messages that could cause direct or indirect harm

   This rule is saying "if you published something that could cause direct or indirect harm to innocent people, then you did something wrong". We could debate whether publishing the offensive ad counts as "directly / indirectly harming innocent people", but the easier way to know this answer is wrong is that this rule would apply equally to both the 1st and the 2nd magazine. They both published the offensive ad, so if "publishing offensive ad = did something wrong" then both magazines did something wrong.

   2%
2. B

   Opposite7% picked this

   Anyone regularly transmitting messages to the public has a moral responsibility to monitor the content

   This rule would make it seem like the 1st magazine was being morally responsible (since they were monitoring the content of the ads they were about to publish) whereas the 2nd magazine wasn't. We're trying to make the 1st magazine seem morally deficient and the 2nd magazine seem morally okay.

   7%
3. C

   No Distinction3% picked this

   If two similar agents commit two similar actions, those agents should be held to the

   This rule would apply equally to both the 1st and the 2nd magazine. Since both magazines committed two similar actions (publishing the offensive ad), according to this rule they're either both morally responsible or both not morally responsible. We need an answer that differentiates between the two.

   3%
4. D

   Correct80% picked this

   Failure to uphold a moral standard is not necessarily a moral failing except for those who have specifically committed

   Why this is right

   This points to the causal difference-maker between the 1st and 2nd magazines. The students think the 1st magazine was morally delinquent because they set out to try to eliminate offensive ads from their publication, and they failed to eliminate the offensive one that got published. They "specifically committed themselves to upholding a standard of no offensive ads", but ended up publishing an offensive ad anyway. The 2nd magazine didn't commit themselves to upholding any standard. They had a policy of "we'll publish anything", so their failure to prevent an offensive ad from running in their magazine "is not necessarily a moral failing". In other words, "whether or not we consider your publishing of an offensive ad a moral failing comes down to whether or not you specifically committed yourself to trying to avoid publishing an offensive ad (as magazine 1 did, but magazine 2 didn't)."

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%
5. E

   Doesn't Incriminate 1st Magazine8% picked this

   A magazine should not be considered at fault for publishing a classified advertisement if that advertisement would not be offensive to

   This rule would have no power to support the idea that the 1st magazine was morally delinquent, since it looks like this: if an ad wouldn't be magazine shouldn't offensive to any ? be considered at subscribers fault for publishing This rule really has no applicability to either magazine, because they both published an ad that was offensive to subscribers. But seeing that it has no power to prove "morally delinquent" is probably the quickest way to see that it's useless for our goal of proving the 1st magazine was morally delinquent.

   8%