Philosopher:  An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of t...

Michael on February 21 at 06:52PM

Please Explain

I found this argument a little confusing since I took morally right to be the contrapositive of morally wrong. It seems to me after I first read this that they could be interpreted as logical opposites but after watching the video this is not the case. Is there a middle ground where an action not morally right/wrong? The argument seemed to lead me away from that idea at the end.

1 Reply

Skylar on February 22 at 04:11PM

@masommar, happy to help.

Your post gets to the heart of this question. How do we know that an action is either morally right or morally wrong? Can an action fall in the middle of these two extremes? The passage does not address this and, as you note, is therefore a little confusing. However, this logical gap is key because we are asked to identify the answer choice that would allow the passage to flow logically, which means the answer choice that addresses this gap.

(C) states that "Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right." This clarifies the gap by eliminating the possibility of any middle ground and establishing a binary (either morally right or morally wrong). It is also phrased in a way that gives more room to the morally right side, which falls consistently with the conclusion of the passage.

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!