What is your answer?
While we've formulated the golden rule as an imperative or an ought judgment, we could also formulate it in terms of
{ 1 } - the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation).
{ 2 } - hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR").
{ 3 } - a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR").
{ 4 } - any of the above.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
While we've formulated the golden rule as an imperative or an ought judgment, we could also formulate it in terms of
{ 1 } - the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation).
{ 2 } - hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR").
{ 3 } - a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR").
{ 4 } - any of the above.
This accords with an "ethics of virtue" approach, which would talk about impartiality, conscientiousness, and the golden rule in terms of internalized dispositions to behave in certain ways.
But other approaches are possible too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
While we've formulated the golden rule as an imperative or an ought judgment, we could also formulate it in terms of
{ 1 } - the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation).
{ 2 } - hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR").
{ 3 } - a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR").
{ 4 } - any of the above.
This accords with an "ethics of hypothetical imperatives" approach, which sees ethics as about how to achieve our goals.
But other approaches are possible too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
While we've formulated the golden rule as an imperative or an ought judgment, we could also formulate it in terms of
{ 1 } - the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation).
{ 2 } - hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR").
{ 3 } - a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR").
{ 4 } - any of the above.
This accords with an "ethics of description" approach, which sees ethics as describing different sorts of behavior.
But other approaches are possible too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is correct!
While we've formulated the golden rule as an imperative or an ought judgment, we could also formulate it in terms of
{ 1 } - the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation).
{ 2 } - hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR").
{ 3 } - a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR").
{ 4 } - any of the above.
Different approaches might prefer different ways to formulate GR. I see formal ethics as embracing all these formulations.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end