Top Law Schools

Can someone explain why E is wrong?

I thought of it like:

Moral principle - it is unethical for journalists to lie

Case 1 - failing to prevent a false belief
Case 2 - actively encouraging one

Principle applies to case 2 because it describes a lie, but not to case 1, which doesn't make for a lie.

Is the ONLY thing wrong about E the language regarding "defending" the moral principle? The author takes the principle to be true, which I guess isn't the same as actively defending it...

The moral principle that the Journalist is defending is "withholding relevant infomration in interviews." E says The journalist argues by "clarifying and defending a moral principle [withholding information] by comparing a case in which it applies to one in which it does not apply." But the journalist never does this. There is no example case used in which he claims withholding information is acceptable. The journalist also does not give an example of a case in which it does not apply.

Instrumental wrote:The moral principle that the Journalist is defending is "withholding relevant infomration in interviews." E says The journalist argues by "clarifying and defending a moral principle [withholding information] by comparing a case in which it applies to one in which it does not apply." But the journalist never does this. There is no example case used in which he claims withholding information is acceptable. The journalist also does not give an example of a case in which it does not apply.

thanks for the explanation!

How do we know the moral principle is "withholding information in interviews" rather than "it is unethical for journalists to lie"?

tskela wrote:thanks for the explanation!

How do we know the moral principle is "withholding information in interviews" rather than "it is unethical for journalists to lie"?

The way to identify it is that after he brings up withholding relevant information, he brings up people who argue that withholding information is lying and then he goes on to defend withholding information. There isn't anyone challenging the claim that it's unethical for journalists to lie, so there is no argument for the journalist to be make in that respect. However, there is an argument on what constitutes lying, in this case specifically, whether withholding information is lying.

Instrumental wrote:

tskela wrote:thanks for the explanation!

How do we know the moral principle is "withholding information in interviews" rather than "it is unethical for journalists to lie"?

The way to identify it is that after he brings up withholding relevant information, he brings up people who argue that withholding information is lying and then he goes on to defend withholding information. There isn't anyone challenging the claim that it's unethical for journalists to lie, so there is no argument for the journalist to be make in that respect. However, there is an argument on what constitutes lying, in this case specifically, whether withholding information is lying.

Ahhh gotcha. Thanks!!