Bunuel
Most business ethics courses and textbooks confine themselves to considering specific cases and principles. For example, students are often given lists of ethical rules for in-class discussion and role-playing. This approach fails to provide a framework for understanding specific principles and should thus be changed to include abstract ethical theory.
Which one of the following, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?
(A) A moralizing approach that fails to recognize the diversity of the ethical rules in use is unacceptable.
(B) Courses that concentrate mainly on role-playing are undesirable because students must adopt alien personae.
(C) People have no obligation to always behave ethically unless they are acquainted with abstract ethical theory.
(D) Abstract ethical theory is the most appropriate of any context for understanding specific principles.
(E) An ethics course should acquaint students with a wide range of specific principles and appropriate applications.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Oops, I missed this one. I’ll talk you through what I was thinking then, and what I think now after seeing the correct answer.
My prediction here dealt with the word “should” in the conclusion. There’s no premise that says we “should” provide a framework for understanding specific principles. This seems to be assumed, rather than stated. If it were stated, then the logic would seem pretty tight. So that’s what I was looking for… something like, “We should provide a framework.”
A) What is a “moralizing approach”? I don’t see what this has to do with anything.
B) The argument never recommends getting rid of role-playing; it only says the abstract ethical theory should be added; so this can’t be the answer.
C) I need something that says whether we
should adopt the change recommended by the argument. The argument is not at all about how people are obligated to act. This can’t be it.
D) I thought this
would have been a good answer if we already had a premise that said, “We should provide a framework for understanding specific principles.” But we didn’t have that, so I didn’t think this could be the answer. However, it’s not a huge leap to think that education has “understanding” as a primary goal, and it’s therefore not a huge leap to think that we “should” do things that promote understanding. Given that, I can then see how D links to the specific plan of adding “abstract legal theory” that was mentioned in the conclusion only. In retrospect, this is the best answer.
E) I chose this, but I can see how I was wrong. I thought we needed, “We should provide a framework,” but that’s not even what this says. I sort of hurt myself here by falling in love with my prediction a little too much and not realizing that “abstract ethical theory” needed to be part of the answer. As I went through the answers the first time, I also let myself like E a little too much just because I’d already disliked A through D. That’s flawed thinking. I should have remained skeptical of E, and if I eliminated all five answers, gone back and reconsidered the best of all five.
Again, tough question. Our answer is D.