What is your answer?
We can escape Ima Prescriptivist's golden rule arguments by
{ 1 } - using "ought" in a way that doesn't express a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - accepting the reversed-situation treatment ourselves.
{ 3 } - refusing to make ought judgments.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
{ 5 } - none of the above -- there's no way to escape the argument.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 5.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
We can escape Ima Prescriptivist's golden rule arguments by
{ 1 } - using "ought" in a way that doesn't express a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - accepting the reversed-situation treatment ourselves.
{ 3 } - refusing to make ought judgments.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
{ 5 } - none of the above -- there's no way to escape the argument.
Ima's GR consistency condition presumes that we're using "ought" in a way that is universalizable (entails the same evaluation about any similar case) and expresses a prescription (an imperative about how to live).
But there also are other ways of escape.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
We can escape Ima Prescriptivist's golden rule arguments by
{ 1 } - using "ought" in a way that doesn't express a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - accepting the reversed-situation treatment ourselves.
{ 3 } - refusing to make ought judgments.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
{ 5 } - none of the above -- there's no way to escape the argument.
This is what fanatics do. Fanatics are so strongly committed to an ideal (like racial purity) that they don't care how badly they or others are hurt in pursuit of this idea.
But there also are other ways of escape.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
We can escape Ima Prescriptivist's golden rule arguments by
{ 1 } - using "ought" in a way that doesn't express a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - accepting the reversed-situation treatment ourselves.
{ 3 } - refusing to make ought judgments.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
{ 5 } - none of the above -- there's no way to escape the argument.
Ima's GR arguments test whether we're consistent in our moral judgments. They only apply to us if we make moral judgments.
But there also are other ways of escape.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is correct!
We can escape Ima Prescriptivist's golden rule arguments by
{ 1 } - using "ought" in a way that doesn't express a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - accepting the reversed-situation treatment ourselves.
{ 3 } - refusing to make ought judgments.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
{ 5 } - none of the above -- there's no way to escape the argument.
Another way to escape is to say "I'm inconsistent -- but I don't care about this."
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
5 is wrong. Please try again.
We can escape Ima Prescriptivist's golden rule arguments by
{ 1 } - using "ought" in a way that doesn't express a universalizable prescription.
{ 2 } - accepting the reversed-situation treatment ourselves.
{ 3 } - refusing to make ought judgments.
{ 4 } - all of the above.
{ 5 } - none of the above -- there's no way to escape the argument.
Ima recognizes various ways to escape.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end