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?
- rejecting a general claim by demonstrating that its acceptance would lead to the loss of a meaningful and established conceptual distinctionCevap
- Bcriticizing a viewpoint by pointing out that it relies on using a crucial term in two entirely different senses
- Cattempting to undermine an opposing position by presenting empirical evidence that directly contradicts one of its stated premises
- Darguing that just because a specific motivation applies to certain individual actions, it does not necessarily apply to human behavior as a whole
- Eattempting to resolve a theoretical debate by redefining the central concept in a way that neither side actually intended
Cevap
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.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
General Method of Reasoning