PT51, S1, Q9

Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

PT51, S1, Q9

Postby MissLucky » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:59 pm

hi friends,

Can you help me understand why B and D are wrong?

Here is how the formal logic for the principle goes:
If an action both achieves the agent's intended goal AND benefits someone other than the agent --> the action is morally good.

The contra positive being:
If an action is NOT morally good --> the action do NOT achieve the agent's intended goal OR the action does NOT benefit someone other than the agent.

In my initial assessments of B and D where I found them to be very tempting, I think I am mistaking the fact that in both answer choices, the necessary condition for NOT acting morally is met and from there I accept the conclusion that the particular action was not morally good. When I can't really do that unless I have a sufficient condition? Is this analysis correct?

For example, in B - I thought sure Derek's action was NOT morally good because it did NOT achieve Derek's intended goal (of welcoming the new neighbors - while the neighbors were grateful for his EFFORT to welcome them, they were not flatly welcomed...I suppose this could be debatable?...but even assuming that it was explicitly stated that the neighbors were NOT welcomed, B would still be wrong, right? Because just because a necessary condition for an action NOT being morally good is met, it does not mean that that action was necessarily NOT morally good).

In D, I thought again, sure Louisa's action was NOT morally good because it did NOT achieve its intended goal - but is my error the fact that I am taking achieving a necessary condition as sufficient to conclude that it's NOT morally wrong?

Essentially then, for this question we cannot really conclude that ANY action is NOT morally good because we have no sufficient conditions for it. is that correct?

help please - I feel like I am making a HUGE Formal Logic blunder that i've never run into before....

thanks a lot

Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: PT51, S1, Q9

Postby whymeohgodno » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:11 pm

B is wrong because it didn't benefit someone other than the agent. The neighbors were vegetarians so they didn't benefit from not being able to eat steak.

D is wrong because it's reasoning is wrong. The reason the action wasn't morally good was because it didn't achieve it's intended goal, not because it intended to harm Henry.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greenteachurro, nimbus cloud and 7 guests