It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if it benefits another person and was performed with that int...

Naz February 5, 2014

Let's diagram the argument.

"It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if it benefits another person and was performed with that intention;"

P1: MG ==> BAP & PI
not BAP or not PI ==> not MG

"whereas an action that harms another person is morally bad either if such harm was intended or if reasonable forethought would have shown that the action was likely to cause harm."

Under the condition that an action harms another person:

P2: HI or RF ==> MB
not MB ==> not HI & not RF

It's important to note that the second premise only applies to actions that harm another person. If the action does not harm the other person, then the premise is no longer necessarily true.

The reason answer choice (A) is incorrect is that even though Pamela intended harm by writing her letter, the letter actually had an entirely opposite effect, i.e. the action was not harmful.

Since we do not have the condition of an action being harmful, we cannot invoke the second premise with the knowledge that Pamela intended harm.

Hope that helped! Please let us know if you have any more questions.

Batman February 6, 2014

lol !!!! Thanks

NicoCapri September 10, 2014

Can you please diagram answer choice E? I also chose A.
When I diagram E it shows that 'no harm intended...morally bad'.
I'm not clear how this is in keeping with the original principal of 'no harm intended...not morally bad'. Thanks!

Naz September 16, 2014

Well, none of the answer choices are Sufficient & Necessary statements or Quantifier statements, so we cannot diagram them.

Answer choice (E) is the correct answer because we know from the stimulus that "if such harm was intended or if reasonable forethought would have shown that the action was likely to cause harm," then "an action that harms another person is morally bad."

HI or RF ==> MB
not MB ==> not HI & not RF

Reasonable forethought would show that if you do not pay attention to a three year old as they play by themselves, it is likely that they will be harmed. Thus, we have the sufficient condition "RF," which--according to the principle--means that Jonathan's action was morally bad. Thus, the judgment in answer choice (E) closely conforms to the principle in the passage.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Theresaturner September 28, 2015

Can you please explain why p2 is not diagramed as MB==>HI or RF

Theresaturner September 28, 2015

Never mind I confused the terminology for sufficient and necessary