June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 23

Difficulty:

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right.

Question

The philosopher's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

No action is both right and wrong.

Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

Only right actions have good consequences.

Raise Hand ✋

Explanations

Moral aggregate

Huh? No, that’s a huge jump. “If and only if” means the following condition is sufficient and necessary. Thus, if an action decreases the overall well-being, it is morally wrong; if an action does not do that, it is not morally wrong. However, “not morally wrong” is not the same as “right.” The philosopher even gives a definition of “right”—an action that doesn’t affect the overall well-being wouldn’t fit into that definition.

Therefore, this missing piece is that “not wrong” means “right.” We need to expand the philosopher’s definition of “right.”

This is already inferable based on the second sentence. Therefore, it isn’t an assumption.

Close, but I want “an action that isn’t wrong is right.”

Perfect, just as predicted.

The conclusion is that, if there are such actions, then ____. Thus, the existence of those actions doesn’t help.

If “good consequences” means “increases the aggregate well-being,” then this is already proven. So like A, this wouldn’t be an assumption.