Thanks for the question! So the first premise, remember, is
Morally good —> Benefits another person & Performed with that intention
The contrapositive of this statement is
~Benefits another person v ~performed with that intention —> ~Morally good
Now it’s certainly true that Pamela did not actually benefit another person by writing that letter, which in itself is enough to satisfy the sufficient condition. Which means that we can certainly conclude that her action was not morally good. However, we cannot jump from that and say that the action is morally bad! And that’s because there’s a difference between “not morally good” and “morally bad.” Consider: I wake up in the morning. Is this a morally good action? No, it’s not a morally good action; it didn’t benefit another person. But does that make it a morally bad action? No, since no harm was intended and it wasn’t likely to cause harm. It’s just a morally neutral action. And so we can conclude from the contrapositive of the first statement that what Pamela did was not morally good, but we can’t take it a step further and say that what she did was morally bad.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
EmmaklivelyJune 24, 2021
I am still a little confused because the question states:
if Harm is intended (HI) or reasonable forethought could have shown the action likely to cause harm (RF) ---> Morally Bad (MB)
And in answer choice A, it says that Pamela wrote a letter attempting to cause trouble (HI) and therefore ---> action was morally bad (MB).
The latter part of the answer choice, about the ramifications of her actions, are irrelevant. Can you help?
