Q26 - Students in a college ethics class

[tzyc]

I got to (D) by eliminating the other choices. I understand what the stimulus says, but not sure what (D) means...
Could anyone explain what (D) says in different words plz?
(I thought the principle would be something like;
To make a distinction is morally delinquent, to accept all without exception is not morally delinquent...
)
Thanks.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, tz_strawberry. For principle support, we're back to the assumption family so we need to pull out the argument core. I've got:

First magazine screened ads before printing the bad one; second magazine didn't screen at all -----> First magazine is guilty of a moral failing and second wasn't

So the gap is that the moral responsibility comes in the conclusion without any support in the premise.

(D) plugs the gap. If it's not a moral failing to print offensive material generally, that takes the second mag off the hook. The first mag is still responsible because it does become a moral failing if you have specifically committed yourself to upholding a standard (here, printing non-offensive ads).

Wrong answers:

(A) doesn't explain why one magazine is in trouble and the other isn't. If they both printed it, should they both be moral failures?

(B) is backwards. Here, the moral failing was with the second magazine because it didn't screen. But the students said the one that DID screen had the moral failure.

(C) is just like (A). They should both be considered responsible because they both printed the ad.

(E) is a relativist approach. Magazines are only at fault if they offend their readers. But the ad was described as highly offensive and demeaning. We have no way of knowing if that was to the readers of either of the magazines or both magazines.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri