Q16 - Ethicist: In a recent judicial

[skapur777]

Sorry for all the posts, I just bought ur books and logged in for the 'blue status' thing that people seem to have (using the book code) but my name still isn't blue! hahah anyways, i totally bombed this section and was wondering why B isn't correct. I don't even know what B is saying to be honest, and there lies my confusion!

[bbirdwell]

Again, let's get clear about the core of the argument first.

Conclusion:
Morally wrong for company to seek restitution

Premise:
contractor ordered to make restitution even though there was an agreement that the contractor would not be liable

The part that jumps out of the conclusion is the phrase "morally wrong."

Our job here is to connect the situation at hand to the idea of "morally wrong." Plain and simple.

(A) Eliminate. There may be other situations where it's also morally wrong -- we are only concerned with this one.

(B) Eliminate. The key here is the phrase "unable." The argument does not say that the contractor is unable to make restitution, so this is not a good match.

(C) is not a good match, either. The central evidence in the original argument is about the liability agreement, not about the contractor being "induced" to do the work. it's also a bad match because the choice is person to person and the original is person to company.

(D) is a bad match, again, for the inclusion of the word "only." It's also out of scope, s there is nothing in the original about legal permissibility.

(E) ah-ha! The right answer! "Promise to forgo compensation" is exactly what the original agreement was.

Do you see it now?

[skapur777]

Yes! Thank you!

Quick question on A. Why couldn't this be correct? It is morally wrong for one party (the company) not to abide by its part of an agreement (to seek restitution for shitty job) only if the other party (contractor) abides by its part of the agreement (to undertake construction job).

So, Morally Wrong--> contractor abides by its part of the agreement

which is what happened, right?
The contractor did his deed yet the company went against the agreement regardless of this..

[bbirdwell]

(A) is wrong because of the "only."

Sure, (A) says: morally wrong ---> other party abides

This does not help to validate our argument, as the order is reversed.

In order to help the argument, it'd have to say: other party abides --> morally wrong...

[Mab6q]

Would C also be wrong because it states the relationship between two people, instead of extending it to a corporation?

[tommywallach]

Hey Mab,

No. C is wrong because nobody induced anyone to perform any action here. Everything was done independently.

-t