What is the best match?
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided.
{ 1 } - prescriptivism justification
{ 2 } - ideal-observer-theory justification
{ 3 } - Kantian justification
{ 4 } - divine-command-theory justification
{ 5 } - prima-facie-duty justification
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 5.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided.
{ 1 } - prescriptivism justification
{ 2 } - ideal-observer-theory justification
{ 3 } - Kantian justification
{ 4 } - divine-command-theory justification
{ 5 } - prima-facie-duty justification
Since an ought judgment is a prescription that logically entails the corresponding imperative (and not a factual claim), ought judgments logically commit us to action under pain of inconsistency. Thus conscientiousness is justified as a species of logical consistency. <=> prescriptivism justification
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided.
{ 1 } - prescriptivism justification
{ 2 } - ideal-observer-theory justification
{ 3 } - Kantian justification
{ 4 } - divine-command-theory justification
{ 5 } - prima-facie-duty justification
We ought to be conscientious because an ideal observer would desire this. <=> ideal-observer-theory justification
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided.
{ 1 } - prescriptivism justification
{ 2 } - ideal-observer-theory justification
{ 3 } - Kantian justification
{ 4 } - divine-command-theory justification
{ 5 } - prima-facie-duty justification
Since an ought judgment is a truth that logically entails the corresponding imperative, such judgments have a rational authority. If we accept an ought judgment but don't act on it, then we are logically inconsistent and violate rationality. <=> Kantian justification
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided.
{ 1 } - prescriptivism justification
{ 2 } - ideal-observer-theory justification
{ 3 } - Kantian justification
{ 4 } - divine-command-theory justification
{ 5 } - prima-facie-duty justification
We ought to be conscientious because God desire this. <=> divine-command-theory justification
<= back | menu | forward =>
5 is correct!
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided.
{ 1 } - prescriptivism justification
{ 2 } - ideal-observer-theory justification
{ 3 } - Kantian justification
{ 4 } - divine-command-theory justification
{ 5 } - prima-facie-duty justification
Violating conscientiousness is inherently bad and thus ought other-things-equal to be avoided. <=> prima-facie-duty justification
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end