What is your answer?
What premise is missing in this consequentialist argument for abortion?
[... missing premise ...]
Having this abortion would have the best consequences.
So we ought to have this abortion.
{ 1 } - We ought to do whatever has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - Abortion is legal.
{ 3 } - A fetus isn't human life.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is correct!
What premise is missing in this consequentialist argument for abortion?
[... missing premise ...]
Having this abortion would have the best consequences.
So we ought to have this abortion.
{ 1 } - We ought to do whatever has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - Abortion is legal.
{ 3 } - A fetus isn't human life.
This consequentialist premise is questionable. It justifies killing innocent humans (including the sick, handicapped, and elderly) when this produces even a tiny increase in good consequences. It has many bizarre implications (which you might recall from Chapter 10) and is difficult to hold in a consistent way.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
What premise is missing in this consequentialist argument for abortion?
[... missing premise ...]
Having this abortion would have the best consequences.
So we ought to have this abortion.
{ 1 } - We ought to do whatever has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - Abortion is legal.
{ 3 } - A fetus isn't human life.
This premise won't get us to the conclusion.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
What premise is missing in this consequentialist argument for abortion?
[... missing premise ...]
Having this abortion would have the best consequences.
So we ought to have this abortion.
{ 1 } - We ought to do whatever has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - Abortion is legal.
{ 3 } - A fetus isn't human life.
This premise won't get us to the conclusion.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end