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.
[... missing step ...]
Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 1 } - Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 2 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 3 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 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.
[... missing step ...]
Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 1 } - Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 2 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 3 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
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.
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.
[... missing step ...]
Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 1 } - Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 2 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 3 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
This isn't what the argument requires.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 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.
[... missing step ...]
Then, to be consistent, you must desire that your bicycle be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 1 } - Then, to be consistent, you must believe that your bicycle ought to be stolen if you were in her place.
{ 2 } - An ought judgment is a universalizable prescription.
{ 3 } - Detra will steal my bicycle if I steal hers.
This isn't what the argument requires.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end