What is your answer?
Ima Prescriptivist argues that you're inconsistent if you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle but don't desire that the your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place. What premise is missing from Ima's argument?
Assume that you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle.
Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
[... missing step ...]
{ 1 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
{ 3 } - Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Prescriptivist argues that you're inconsistent if you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle but don't desire that the your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place. What premise is missing from Ima's argument?
Assume that you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle.
Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
[... missing step ...]
{ 1 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
{ 3 } - Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
This isn't what the argument requires.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Prescriptivist argues that you're inconsistent if you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle but don't desire that the your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place. What premise is missing from Ima's argument?
Assume that you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle.
Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
[... missing step ...]
{ 1 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
{ 3 } - Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
This isn't what the argument requires.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Ima Prescriptivist argues that you're inconsistent if you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle but don't desire that the your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place. What premise is missing from Ima's argument?
Assume that you believe that you ought to steal Detra's bicycle.
Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
[... missing step ...]
{ 1 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
{ 3 } - Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
These steps follow because "ought" expresses a universalizable prescription. An ought judgment expresses what we desire to be done in all similar cases, regardless of where we imagine ourselves in the situation.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end