PrepTest 39, Section 2, Question 4
Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience store a 10-dollar bill to pay for my purchase, and he mistakenly gave me change for a 20-dollar bill. I kept the extra 10 dollars. Since I did not trick, threaten, or physically force the cashier into giving me the extra money, it was not morally wrong for me to keep it.
Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience store a 10-dollar bill to pay for my purchase, and he mistakenly gave me change for a 20-dollar bill. I kept the extra 10 dollars. Since I did not trick, threaten, or physically force the cashier into giving me the extra money, it was not morally wrong for me to keep it.
Julia: Nonsense. If you mistakenly hand me your coat, thinking it is my coat, then even though I did not get the coat by means of any deception, threats, or violence against you, I am not morally entitled to keep it for myself.
Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience store a 10-dollar bill to pay for my purchase, and he mistakenly gave me change for a 20-dollar bill. I kept the extra 10 dollars. Since I did not trick, threaten, or physically force the cashier into giving me the extra money, it was not morally wrong for me to keep it.
Julia: Nonsense. If you mistakenly hand me your coat, thinking it is my coat, then even though I did not get the coat by means of any deception, threats, or violence against you, I am not morally entitled to keep it for myself.
Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience store a 10-dollar bill to pay for my purchase, and he mistakenly gave me change for a 20-dollar bill. I kept the extra 10 dollars. Since I did not trick, threaten, or physically force the cashier into giving me the extra money, it was not morally wrong for me to keep it.
Julia's response functions in which one of the following ways?
It strongly questions the application of Marie's principle to the case that Marie described, while accepting that principle.
It offers an additional reason to accept Marie's conclusion.
It challenges Marie's conclusion by claiming that the proper conclusion to draw in a relevantly similar situation would be the opposite of Marie's.
It uses Marie's criterion as a means of solving a moral problem Julia herself faces.
It proposes a radically different principle by which Marie's action might be judged, but reserves judgment as to whether Marie acted rightly.
0 Comments