Philosopher: An action is morally right if

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal15% picked this

   Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people

   We need to be convinced that if something "isn't wrong" then it's "right". This doesn't have any power to do such a thing. This actually reiterates part of what we get from the bi-conditional rule. if it decreases well being, then wrong.

   15%
2. B

   No Impact8% picked this

   No action is both right and

   We need to know that if an action "isn't wrong" then it's "right". In other words, we want to know that every action is either right or wrong. This answer tells us that no actions are BOTH right and wrong. But it still leaves open the possibility that some actions are neither right nor wrong. There might be three types of actions: right, wrong, neutral The actions our conclusion cares about are actions that don't affect well-being. We know from one of the conditional premises that such actions are "not wrong". But this answer leaves open the possibility that such actions could be Right or just Neutral. So we haven't proven the conclusion. We haven't proven that such actions are Right.

   8%
3. C

   Correct61% picked this

   Any action that is not morally wrong is

   Why this is right

   We were looking for "If it isn't wrong, then it's right", and that's exactly what this is giving us. Since actions that don't affect well-being don't decrease well-being, we know (from the premises) that they are not morally wrong. Now, according to this answer, we know that if they are not morally wrong, then they are morally right. So we've proven that actions that don't affect well-being are morally right.

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

   61%
4. D

   Too Weak14% picked this

   There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the

   This is necessary for the argument to be valid, but is not sufficient to guarantee that such actions are morally right. This is telling us that "actions that don't affect well-being" do in fact exist. We know from the premises that such actions aren't morally wrong. But we need to be able to prove that they are morally right, and this answer has no power to prove that something is morally right.

   14%
5. E

   Bad Evidence/Trigger Match2% picked this

   Only right actions have good

   This provides a conditional that allows us to prove that an action is "right", which is our whole goal! (Only this and choice (C) have that essential feature) The rule is "if an action has good consequences, then it's right" Okay, did the evidence establish that "actions that don't affect well-being have good consequences"? No, it didn't. In fact, it's almost a self-contradiction. If it doesn't affect well-being, then how could it have good consequences. Since the actions we're dealing with in the conclusion don't trigger this conditional, it's useless to us.

   2%