Philosopher: Ethical egoism, the view that one ought always to act in one's own self-interest, cannot be a universally applicable moral theory. If everyone were to act solely in their own self-interest, then in situations where interests conflict, no one would be willing to compromise. Such a state would lead to chaos, making a stable society impossible, which is ultimately not in anyone's long-term self-interest. Therefore, ethical egoism is self-defeating.
- AIt fails to consider that one's self-interest might sometimes align with the interests of others.
- BIt assumes that individuals are always aware of their true long-term self-interest.
- CIt infers that a theory is flawed simply because its universal application leads to negative consequences.
- DIt presumes that a stable society is a prerequisite for individuals to achieve their self-interest.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. It infers that a theory is flawed simply because its universal application leads to negative consequences.
The philosopher argues that ethical egoism is self-defeating because its universal application leads to chaos, which is not in anyone's self-interest. The flaw is in concluding that a theory is invalid or 'self-defeating' based solely on the negative consequences of its universal application, rather than on its internal consistency or moral merit. This is a form of an appeal to consequences or a 'slippery slope' argument, implying that a theory is wrong because of undesirable outcomes, without necessarily demonstrating a logical flaw within the theory itself.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. While a valid point against ethical egoism in general, the philosopher's argument specifically focuses on *conflicting* interests and the outcome of universal application, so this isn't the primary structural flaw.
- B. This is an assumption, but not the core flaw in the argument's structure; the argument's conclusion rests on the *consequences* of universal application, not necessarily perfect knowledge of self-interest.
- D. This is a premise the philosopher uses to link chaos to not being in self-interest, not a flaw in the reasoning that leads to the 'self-defeating' conclusion.
Appeal to Consequences (Argumentum ad Consequentiam)
An appeal to consequences is a fallacy where a belief is judged to be true or false based on the desirability of its consequences, rather than on its truth value or internal logic. It asserts that if a belief leads to a good outcome, it must be true, or if it leads to a bad outcome, it must be false.
- Evaluates a claim based on the outcomes of believing or acting on it.
- Does not address the logical validity or truth of the claim itself.
- Often takes the form: 'X causes Y; Y is bad, so X is false/bad.'
Memory trick: Don't judge the idea by the play's ending, but by the script's logic.