Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardGeneral Method of Reasoning

Philosopher: Psychological egoists claim that every human action is ultimately motivated by self-interest. If this were true, the concept of "selfishness" would lose all its descriptive utility. We rely on the term "selfish" precisely to distinguish certain actions—such as betraying a colleague for personal gain—from other actions, like anonymously donating to charity. If all actions are fundamentally selfish, this necessary distinction evaporates, rendering the term empty. Because the distinction between these behaviors is clearly meaningful, the egoists' universal claim cannot be correct.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed by the philosopher?

  1. rejecting a general claim by demonstrating that its acceptance would lead to the loss of a meaningful and established conceptual distinctionAnswer
  2. B
    criticizing a viewpoint by pointing out that it relies on using a crucial term in two entirely different senses
  3. C
    attempting to undermine an opposing position by presenting empirical evidence that directly contradicts one of its stated premises
  4. D
    arguing that just because a specific motivation applies to certain individual actions, it does not necessarily apply to human behavior as a whole
  5. E
    attempting to resolve a theoretical debate by redefining the central concept in a way that neither side actually intended

Answer

rejecting a general claim by demonstrating that its acceptance would lead to the loss of a meaningful and established conceptual distinction
The correct answer accurately captures the structural approach of the stimulus. The philosopher uses a form of 'reductio ad absurdum.' They hypothetically accept the egoists' general claim (all actions are selfish) to demonstrate that this leads to an unacceptable consequence (we can no longer conceptually distinguish between betraying a friend and donating to charity). Because losing this distinction is absurd, the philosopher rejects the initial claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the opponent's position.
The psychological egoists' claim is that 'every human action is ultimately motivated by self-interest.'
Identifying the target of the critique is necessary to understand how the author attacks it.
2
Determine how the author responds to this position.
The author explores what would happen 'If this were true.'
This indicates a reasoning method that traces the logical implications of a claim.
3
Identify the consequence presented by the author.
The consequence is that the concept of 'selfishness' would lose its descriptive utility, meaning we could no longer distinguish between truly selfish acts and charitable ones.
This is the core of the author's counter-argument: the outcome of the opponent's premise.
4
Abstract the method.
The author takes a theoretical claim, shows that it results in the destruction of a necessary practical distinction, and uses that absurdity to conclude the claim is false (reductio ad absurdum).
Abstracting the structural elements allows you to match the argument to the correct formal description in the options.

Key Concept

General Method of Reasoning
Rate this question

Topics

General Method of Reasoning

More questions from this topic