What is your answer?
Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because
{ 1 } - it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.
{ 2 } - it's internally inconsistent.
{ 3 } - it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.
{ 4 } - it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is correct!
Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because
{ 1 } - it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.
{ 2 } - it's internally inconsistent.
{ 3 } - it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.
{ 4 } - it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.
Ima mentioned a case where a couple promised to pay her for baby-sitting. Utilitarianism says that they should give the money to the poor, instead of to her, if this would have slightly better consequences. The fact that they promised carries no special moral weight. Ima says that this is an absurd idea; she'd protest if people took so lightly the promises that they make to her.
Ima holds that it's wrong in itself to break our promises. Keeping promises is an independent duty, not just a "rule of thumb" to promote good consequences.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because
{ 1 } - it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.
{ 2 } - it's internally inconsistent.
{ 3 } - it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.
{ 4 } - it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.
She doesn't mention this objection.
By the way, why would utilitarianism be internally inconsistent?
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because
{ 1 } - it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.
{ 2 } - it's internally inconsistent.
{ 3 } - it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.
{ 4 } - it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.
Ima doesn't recognize them either.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because
{ 1 } - it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.
{ 2 } - it's internally inconsistent.
{ 3 } - it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.
{ 4 } - it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.
She doesn't mention this objection. But utilitarians need to deal with it.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end