Q23 - Philosopher: An action is morally

[dan]

23. (C)
Question Type: Assumption
Before we even get to the answer choices, we can spot a gap in this argument. An action is wrong if, and only if, it reduces the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. The author concludes that any action that does NOT reduce the aggregate well-being is by default right. The author assumes that there are only two kinds of actions: right and wrong. Answer choice (C) expresses this assumption in clear terms.

(A) is incorrect. We’re interested in actions that leave the aggregate well-being unchanged. What do we call these actions?
(B) is tempting, but it misses the issue. We don’t care if an action can be both right and wrong. The issue is whether it can be neither.
(D) misses the issue as well. We don’t care if there are such actions, but rather what to call them (right, wrong, or something else) if they did exist.
(E) is out scope. "Consequences" in general is a concept that is beyond the scope of the argument.


#officialexplanation

[acisne7]

I was a little confused on this question, I read the explanation but I think that I am not writing out the core correctly. Can you please write out the core and explain the "if and only if" part of the stimulus.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one is tough so bear with me on it for a second. There are a series of conditional relationships that we need to piece together in a specific pattern and some of the relationships are pretty tricky.


↑AWB ---> MR
↓AWB <---> MW
-------------------
~↑AWB + ~↓AWB ---> MR

(Notation Key: ↑AWB = increase the aggregate well-being, ↓AWB = decrease the aggregate well-being, MR = morally right, MW = morally wrong)

The conclusion above reads if it the aggregate well being is unchanged which can be indicated by saying that the aggregate being will both not increase and not decrease.

Here's where it get's really trick and it's not apparently obvious that you can do this at first. But it is true that if the aggregate being is unchanged then it is not decreasing and in connection with the second premise it would imply that the action is not morally wrong.

If we add the assumption from answer choice (C) that any action that is not morally wrong is morally right, the conclusion that "actions that would leave unchanged the aggregate well-being are morally right" would follow.

here's the chained logic

leave unchanged aggregate well-being ---> not decrease the aggregate well-being ---> not morally wrong ---> morally right

Each one of those segments is accounted for with the addition of answer choice (C).

Let me know if you still have another question on this one.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello!
Can anyone explain to me why (B) is incorrect?
I read the explanation from the pdf file posted with all of the June 2007 solutions, and it said:

(B) is tempting, but it misses the issue. We don’t care if an action can be both right and wrong. The issue is whether it can be neither.

Is it because (B) doesn't tell us why the unchanged actions are also "right" instead of "wrong"? Assuming (B) doesn't really help us in making the author's conclusion, right? Whereas in (C), since ONLY actions that reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people are WRONG; if we assume that every action that is not morally wrong is right; since"unchanged" actions is obviously not "reducing", and since it is not a "reduced" action, therefore it has to be right -- which makes the author's conclusion sound, right?

I guess I just answered my own question while writing this -- but is my reasoning sound? I don't want to understand the correct answer as correct for the wrong reason...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Is it because (B) doesn't tell us why the unchanged actions are also "right" instead of "wrong"? Assuming (B) doesn't really help us in making the author's conclusion, right?

That's exactly right. Answer choice (B) won't allow you to make the final link

Leave Unchanged ---> ~Morally Wrong ----> Morally Right

Answer choice (B) prohibits something from being both "right" and "wrong", but it still leaves open the possibility that something could be neither, and so the gap between something not being morally wrong, therefore it's morally right would be left open.

And your process on (C) picks up on that and is correct, nice work!

[JosephV]

The very end of the stimulus is where I got tripped up: "are also right." From the discussions above I see that everyone effortlessly equated MORALLY RIGHT = RIGHT.

Is it because the stimulus says "ALSO right" that we can do that from contextual clues: if A is morally right and it says about B that it is "also right" I can conclude that B is morally right.

Cheers.
Joseph

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, that's exactly right.

Other senses of "right" just wouldn't belong in the context of this argument.