What is your answer?
What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against STEALING?
If you're consistent and think that STEALING is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
[... missing premise ...]
So if you're consistent, then you won't think that STEALING is normally permissible.
{ 1 } - Stealing is against the law.
{ 2 } - People have an inherent right to have their property respected.
{ 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against STEALING?
If you're consistent and think that STEALING is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
[... missing premise ...]
So if you're consistent, then you won't think that STEALING is normally permissible.
{ 1 } - Stealing is against the law.
{ 2 } - People have an inherent right to have their property respected.
{ 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
This premise won't get us to the conclusion.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against STEALING?
If you're consistent and think that STEALING is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
[... missing premise ...]
So if you're consistent, then you won't think that STEALING is normally permissible.
{ 1 } - Stealing is against the law.
{ 2 } - People have an inherent right to have their property respected.
{ 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
This premise won't get us to the conclusion.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against STEALING?
If you're consistent and think that STEALING is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
[... missing premise ...]
So if you're consistent, then you won't think that STEALING is normally permissible.
{ 1 } - Stealing is against the law.
{ 2 } - People have an inherent right to have their property respected.
{ 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of others STEALING from you in normal circumstances.
This argument illustrates the kind of reasoning used in the argument about abortion. Both arguments have the same form. Both have a premise about a desire that most people can be presumed to have. And both have a conclusion about the consistency of holding a given moral belief.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end