What is your answer?
Formal ethics attacks incorrect formal ethical principles by showing that they have absurd consequences. How would it respond to the objection that this won't give uncontroversial results, since moral intuitions vary greatly -- what is absurd to one person needn't be absurd to another?
{ 1 } - For any given person, we can find examples that would strike that particular person as absurd.
{ 2 } - We can appeal to widely shared moral intuitions -- for example, that one ought not to commit mass murder.
{ 3 } - For incorrect formal ethical principles, we can generally derive, not just implausible results, but self-contradictory results.
{ 4 } - All of the above.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Formal ethics attacks incorrect formal ethical principles by showing that they have absurd consequences. How would it respond to the objection that this won't give uncontroversial results, since moral intuitions vary greatly -- what is absurd to one person needn't be absurd to another?
{ 1 } - For any given person, we can find examples that would strike that particular person as absurd.
{ 2 } - We can appeal to widely shared moral intuitions -- for example, that one ought not to commit mass murder.
{ 3 } - For incorrect formal ethical principles, we can generally derive, not just implausible results, but self-contradictory results.
{ 4 } - All of the above.
This, and more.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Formal ethics attacks incorrect formal ethical principles by showing that they have absurd consequences. How would it respond to the objection that this won't give uncontroversial results, since moral intuitions vary greatly -- what is absurd to one person needn't be absurd to another?
{ 1 } - For any given person, we can find examples that would strike that particular person as absurd.
{ 2 } - We can appeal to widely shared moral intuitions -- for example, that one ought not to commit mass murder.
{ 3 } - For incorrect formal ethical principles, we can generally derive, not just implausible results, but self-contradictory results.
{ 4 } - All of the above.
This, and more.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Formal ethics attacks incorrect formal ethical principles by showing that they have absurd consequences. How would it respond to the objection that this won't give uncontroversial results, since moral intuitions vary greatly -- what is absurd to one person needn't be absurd to another?
{ 1 } - For any given person, we can find examples that would strike that particular person as absurd.
{ 2 } - We can appeal to widely shared moral intuitions -- for example, that one ought not to commit mass murder.
{ 3 } - For incorrect formal ethical principles, we can generally derive, not just implausible results, but self-contradictory results.
{ 4 } - All of the above.
This, and more.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is correct!
Formal ethics attacks incorrect formal ethical principles by showing that they have absurd consequences. How would it respond to the objection that this won't give uncontroversial results, since moral intuitions vary greatly -- what is absurd to one person needn't be absurd to another?
{ 1 } - For any given person, we can find examples that would strike that particular person as absurd.
{ 2 } - We can appeal to widely shared moral intuitions -- for example, that one ought not to commit mass murder.
{ 3 } - For incorrect formal ethical principles, we can generally derive, not just implausible results, but self-contradictory results.
{ 4 } - All of the above.
The objection about the variability of intuitions may be correct for material ethical principles. Abstract formal principles (of logic or ethics) are different; here the incorrect forms, if expressed clearly, generally lead to clear-cut absurdities and contradictions.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end