What is your answer?

Ima Racist tells us, "We ought to treat blacks poorly -- because they're inferior." We could use logicality to attack his view by

    { 1 } - showing that his views are irrational since he can't prove them.
    { 2 } - getting him to clarify his implicit principle and then seeing whether he applies the principle consistently.
    { 3 } - attacking his factual claims.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

Ima Racist tells us, "We ought to treat blacks poorly -- because they're inferior." We could use logicality to attack his view by

This will get us into trouble, since we can't prove our basic ethical premises either.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is correct!

Ima Racist tells us, "We ought to treat blacks poorly -- because they're inferior." We could use logicality to attack his view by

    { 1 } - showing that his views are irrational since he can't prove them.
    { 2 } - getting him to clarify his implicit principle and then seeing whether he applies the principle consistently.
    { 3 } - attacking his factual claims.

Ima presumes a premise like "All who are inferior ought to be treated poorly." To criticize this, we must first clarify its meaning. Suppose that Ima by "inferior" means "of low IQ" (less than 80). Does he apply his principle to whites too? Does he think that whites of low IQ ought to be treated as he treats blacks? As a racist, he won't accept this. But then he accepts a principle and yet refuses to accept its logical consequences.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is wrong. Please try again.

Ima Racist tells us, "We ought to treat blacks poorly -- because they're inferior." We could use logicality to attack his view by

    { 1 } - showing that his views are irrational since he can't prove them.
    { 2 } - getting him to clarify his implicit principle and then seeing whether he applies the principle consistently.
    { 3 } - attacking his factual claims.

This wouldn't appeal to "logicality" (logical consistency) -- but rather to the demand that we be factually informed when making ethical judgments.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end