What is your answer?
In attacking Ima Racist's arguments, formal ethics suggests that we
{ 1 } - appeal to the obviousness of the principle that all people ought to be treated equally regardless of their race.
{ 2 } - express Ima's premises and conclusion clearly, criticize validity and factual premises, and see whether he accepts the logical implications of his ethical premises (especially as applied to his own race).
{ 3 } - show that the ethical premises behind Ima's argument can't be proven and thus are irrational.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
In attacking Ima Racist's arguments, formal ethics suggests that we
{ 1 } - appeal to the obviousness of the principle that all people ought to be treated equally regardless of their race.
{ 2 } - express Ima's premises and conclusion clearly, criticize validity and factual premises, and see whether he accepts the logical implications of his ethical premises (especially as applied to his own race).
{ 3 } - show that the ethical premises behind Ima's argument can't be proven and thus are irrational.
This is obvious to me and to you. But how do we make it obvious to Ima? Our first step is to demolish Ima's racist arguments.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is correct!
In attacking Ima Racist's arguments, formal ethics suggests that we
{ 1 } - appeal to the obviousness of the principle that all people ought to be treated equally regardless of their race.
{ 2 } - express Ima's premises and conclusion clearly, criticize validity and factual premises, and see whether he accepts the logical implications of his ethical premises (especially as applied to his own race).
{ 3 } - show that the ethical premises behind Ima's argument can't be proven and thus are irrational.
Suppose that Ima says that we ought to treat blacks poorly because they are less intelligent. This presumes a premise like "All who are less intelligent ought to be treated poorly." But clearly some blacks are more intelligent than some whites, just as some whites are more intelligent than some blacks. So Ima will be unable to specify a premise that prescribes poor treatment for all blacks without also prescribing poor treatment for many whites.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
3 is wrong. Please try again.
In attacking Ima Racist's arguments, formal ethics suggests that we
{ 1 } - appeal to the obviousness of the principle that all people ought to be treated equally regardless of their race.
{ 2 } - express Ima's premises and conclusion clearly, criticize validity and factual premises, and see whether he accepts the logical implications of his ethical premises (especially as applied to his own race).
{ 3 } - show that the ethical premises behind Ima's argument can't be proven and thus are irrational.
This will get us into trouble, since we can't prove our basic ethical premises either.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end