What is your answer?
Suppose that Ima believes that all short people ought to be beat up, just because they're short. On the approach in the book,
{ 1 } - we should test Ima's principle by appealing to our moral intuitions.
{ 2 } - we can criticize Ima's principle by appealing to consistency.
{ 3 } - we can't criticize Ima's principle (since we can't dispute first principles).
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Suppose that Ima believes that all short people ought to be beat up, just because they're short. On the approach in the book,
{ 1 } - we should test Ima's principle by appealing to our moral intuitions.
{ 2 } - we can criticize Ima's principle by appealing to consistency.
{ 3 } - we can't criticize Ima's principle (since we can't dispute first principles).
The approach in the book would appeal to consistency.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is correct!
Suppose that Ima believes that all short people ought to be beat up, just because they're short. On the approach in the book,
{ 1 } - we should test Ima's principle by appealing to our moral intuitions.
{ 2 } - we can criticize Ima's principle by appealing to consistency.
{ 3 } - we can't criticize Ima's principle (since we can't dispute first principles).
Have Ima vividly imagine being short himself. Then ask him:
* Do you believe that if you were short then you ought to be beat up?
* Do you honestly desire that if you were short then you be beat up?
To be consistent, Ima has to answer yes to both questions -- which is unlikely.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Suppose that Ima believes that all short people ought to be beat up, just because they're short. On the approach in the book,
{ 1 } - we should test Ima's principle by appealing to our moral intuitions.
{ 2 } - we can criticize Ima's principle by appealing to consistency.
{ 3 } - we can't criticize Ima's principle (since we can't dispute first principles).
We can criticize it by appealing to consistency.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end