What is your answer?
Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?
{ 1 } - We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).
{ 2 } - We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.
{ 3 } - We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.
{ 4 } - Any of these are possible answers.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?
{ 1 } - We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).
{ 2 } - We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.
{ 3 } - We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.
{ 4 } - Any of these are possible answers.
The other answers are possible too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?
{ 1 } - We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).
{ 2 } - We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.
{ 3 } - We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.
{ 4 } - Any of these are possible answers.
The other answers are possible too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?
{ 1 } - We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).
{ 2 } - We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.
{ 3 } - We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.
{ 4 } - Any of these are possible answers.
The other answers are possible too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is correct!
Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?
{ 1 } - We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).
{ 2 } - We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.
{ 3 } - We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.
{ 4 } - Any of these are possible answers.
For practical purposes, it doesn't matter which answer we give.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end