Ethicist: Some argue that corporations have a moral obligation to maximize the happiness of their employees, reasoning that corporations function like small governments, which have a duty to their citizens. However, if corporations were truly obligated to maximize employee happiness, they would be ethically required to distribute all profits as bonuses rather than reinvesting in the business. Since a corporation that cannot reinvest will inevitably go bankrupt—thereby eliminating jobs and causing widespread unhappiness—this view is clearly flawed.
Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the ethicist's argument?
- Undermining a normative claim by demonstrating that its logical implications would thwart the very goal it seeks to achieve.Cevap
- BChallenging the validity of an analogy by highlighting a fundamental difference between the entities being compared.
- CRejecting a proposed obligation on the grounds that it is based on an ambiguous definition of a key concept.
- DRefuting a general principle by presenting a specific counterexample in which the principle fails to hold true.
- EDismissing an argument because it mistakenly elevates an intermediate conclusion to the status of a main conclusion.
Cevap
The argument undermines a normative claim by demonstrating that its logical implications would thwart the very goal it seeks to achieve.
The correct answer accurately captures the argumentative strategy: it takes the proposed rule ('maximize happiness') and shows that strictly following it leads to bankruptcy, which results in the exact opposite of the intended goal ('widespread unhappiness'). This is a classic form of demonstrating that an argument's implications are self-defeating.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
General Method of Reasoning