User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Q4 - Marie: I gave the cashier

by WaltGrace1983 Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:58 pm

This question is asking about the role of Julia's response. So let's look at what is going on in both of these arguments.

Marie:
    I did not trick, threaten, or physically force to get money
    →
    Not morally wrong to keep money


Julia:
    A similar situation (the jacket example) with the same principles applied would elicit an opposite conclusion
    →
    Marie's argument is nonsensical


Before going into the answer choices, we should have a very good idea of what the right answer would look like. So let's think about this. The right answer, showing the "role" of Julia's statement, would probably both say that Julia (1) offers a similar situation or analogy that corresponds with Marie's principles and (2) that she uses this analogy to question - or even disagree with - Marie's assertion.

Now we are set for the answer choices.

(A) Julia never "questions" Marie's application that case. She does however say that the principle is "nonsense," clearly showing that Julia never "accepts that principle." (A) is wrong for that reason alone.

(B) No! Julia's response gives a reason to reject Marie's conclusion! She does this by giving an analogy that, while having the same sufficient condition of Marie's principle, does not entail Marie' conclusion.

(C) "It challenges Marie's conclusion..." is a very good start! We know that Julia does this. This answer choice also gives us discussion of "a relevantly similar situation" that would "draw the opposite of Marie's conclusion." Yes! This is exactly what Julia does! She does challenge, she does offer a similar situation, she does show how this situation would entail the opposite of Marie's conclusion. Very good! Now let's look at the others to just make sure.

(D) Julia never faces this problem. She is merely offering a hypothetical! Also, why would Julia use Marie's example to help her solve a problem? Julia doesn't even agree with Marie! This answer choice is no good!

(E) There are two things wrong with this: (1) is that Julia never offers a new principle. She instead comments upon Marie's principle. (2) is that Julia doesn't exactly "reserve judgment." While Julia never says "you are wrong and I hate you," she does say that Marie's principle is "nonsense."
 
mkd000
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 38
Joined: March 14th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q4 - Marie: I gave the cashier

by mkd000 Tue May 19, 2015 7:45 pm

I'm having trouble understanding why (C) is correct. Originally, I narrowed down the answer choices to C/E and picked E. My reasoning was that unlike what C states, Julia does not claim a conclusion that is the opposite of Marie's conclusion. I came to this conclusion given that "not morally wrong" is not the opposite of "not morally entitled". The logical opposite to "not morally wrong" would be "morally wrong". Being "right" versus being "wrong" is very different that being "entitled" versus "not entitled".

For this reason, I defaulted to E (since the other answer choices are very obviously wrong), and reasoned that maybe one could consider the two arguments to be "different principles" (as per my above discussion) - although I'm not sure to what extent they could be considered "radically different". I also reasoned that Julia does reserve some sort of judgement as to whether Marie acted rightly ("Nonesense").

I've reviewed this question a few times and I really think that (C) is inadequate. Please help! I think this is supposed to be an easy question and it was one of the few I got wrong, so its really frustrating/disheartening.

Thanks
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q4 - Marie: I gave the cashier

by ohthatpatrick Wed May 20, 2015 5:22 pm

I see your hesitation about (C).

Let’s talk about what’s wrong with (E) real quickly:
1. Julia’s proposal isn’t radically different. It still deals with the morality of keeping something, despite not having deceived or threatened anyone.

2. Julie does NOT reserve judgment. I think you misunderstood what that expression means. To reserve judgment means “to NOT make a judgment”. I can either tell you my opinion or I can reserve judgment. Julie does not reserve judgment. She tells us her opinion: Nonsense!

So while I sympathize with the language shift you noticed between “morally wrong” and “morally entitled”, this falls into the category of “imperfect but pretty close”, whereas (E) falls into the category of “contradicts what we actually read”.

I don’t think I can coherently argue that (C) really IS a perfectly fair correct answer.

If Julia were deriving the opposite conclusion, it would be “it WAS morally wrong for me to keep it”.

Julia’s conclusion was “I am NOT morally entitled to keep it.”

Right/wrong vs. entitled / non-entitled does strike me as a slightly different debate. The problem is that there seems to be a middle ground between morally right / wrong.

It is not morally wrong for me to hop up and down on one foot right now.
Does that mean that it’s morally RIGHT for me to hop up and down right now?

That seems weird to say. Some actions don’t seem to be right or wrong. They’re just neutral. But if we think of morality as “moral actions are permissible”, “Immoral actions are impermissible”, then hopping up and down IS a moral action. It is permissible.

I think that’s the sense of language being employed here in trading between right and entitled.

If you swapped out ‘entitled’ with ‘allowed’, Julia’s conclusion is saying
“I am not morally allowed to keep it.”
That does sound pretty similar to the OPPOSITE of Marie’s conclusion, which would be:
“It is morally wrong for me to keep it.”

Hope this helps.