Philosopher: Ethical egoism, the view that one ought always to act in one's own self-interest, cannot be a valid moral theory. If everyone were to act solely in their own self-interest, society would descend into chaos, making life unbearable for all. Therefore, ethical egoism is untenable.
- AThe philosopher fails to consider that individual self-interest might sometimes align with the common good.
- BThe philosopher does not provide a definition of 'chaos' or 'unbearable life'.
- CThe philosopher assumes that a moral theory must lead to a desirable societal outcome.
- DThe philosopher overlooks the possibility that some individuals might find chaos personally appealing.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. The philosopher assumes that a moral theory must lead to a desirable societal outcome.
The argument concludes that ethical egoism is invalid because its consequences (societal chaos) are undesirable. This implicitly assumes that the validity of a moral theory is determined by the desirability of its outcomes. However, a moral theory's validity could be judged on other grounds, such as logical consistency or adherence to certain foundational principles, regardless of its practical effects.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This would challenge a premise of the argument, but the core flaw is the *type* of reasoning used to dismiss the theory.
- B. Lack of definition is a minor weakness, not the central logical flaw.
- D. This is an extreme and unlikely scenario, and doesn't address the fundamental flaw in reasoning.
Appeal to Consequences (LSAT)
A fallacy where an argument concludes that a premise is true or false based on whether the consequences of accepting or rejecting it are desirable or undesirable, rather than on its inherent truth or falsity.
- Focuses on outcomes rather than intrinsic merit.
- Often used in moral or ethical arguments.
- Assumes 'good outcome = true' or 'bad outcome = false'.
Memory trick: Don't judge the truth by the results; truth stands alone.