What is your answer?
We ought to keep a promise
{ 1 } - only when doing so has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - in most cases but not under some extenuating circumstances.
{ 3 } - in all cases.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
We ought to keep a promise
{ 1 } - only when doing so has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - in most cases but not under some extenuating circumstances.
{ 3 } - in all cases.
Ross says that our duty to keep a promise isn't automatically overridden if some other action would bring about slightly more total good.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is correct!
We ought to keep a promise
{ 1 } - only when doing so has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - in most cases but not under some extenuating circumstances.
{ 3 } - in all cases.
You promise to take your children to the zoo, but your uncle has a emergency and needs to be driven to the hospital. Here it's all right to break the promise. The duty to keep the promise is overridden by a more pressing duty.
Ross would add that you still owe something to your children. Explain that you're sorry and take them to the zoo later.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
3 is wrong. Please try again.
We ought to keep a promise
{ 1 } - only when doing so has the best consequences.
{ 2 } - in most cases but not under some extenuating circumstances.
{ 3 } - in all cases.
Ross says that we ought to break a trivial promise when this avoids great harm or produces much good.
He opposes exceptionless principles because he thinks that extenuating circumstances are always possible.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end