Bunuel
Ethicist: People who avoid alcoholic beverages simply because they regard them as a luxury beyond their financial means should not be praised for their abstinence. Similarly, those who avoid alcohol simply because they lack the desire to partake should not be praised, unless this disinclination has somehow resulted from an arduous process of disciplining oneself to refrain from acting indiscriminately on one’s desires.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist’s claims?
(A) Whether behavior should be regarded as praiseworthy is a function of both its consequences and the social context in which the agent acts.
(B) A person should be blamed for an action only if that action was not motivated by a desire to be virtuous or if the person did not have to overcome any obstacles in order to perform that action.
(C) A person is praiseworthy for a particular behavior only if, in order to adopt that behavior, the person at some point had to overcome a desire to do something that she or he felt able to afford to do.
(D) The extent to which the process of acquiring self-discipline is arduous for a person is affected by that person’s set of desires and aversions.
(E) The apportionment of praise and blame should be commensurate with the arduousness or ease of the lives of those who receive praise or blame.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This ethicist seems like a dick. Basically, it’s, “Don’t praise teetotalers who are just frugal,” and also, “Don’t praise teetotalers who are just not interested.” The ethicist doesn’t want to praise anybody. The term “unless” indicates that the ethicist sees “an arduous process of self-discipline” as a
necessary condition for praising someone. And even if the teetotaler
had gone through such an arduous self-discipline process, the ethicist
still might not praise her, because satisfaction of a necessary condition doesn’t
force the sufficient condition to be true, it only makes it possible.
We’re asked to strengthen the ethicist’s position. I see three different claims here, without any evidence: 1) Don’t praise teetotalers who are frugal, 2) don’t praise teetotalers who are naturally uninterested, and 3) don’t praise people who eliminated the desire unless they went through an arduous self-discipline process.
A) Not what we’re looking for. There is no way we should even try to parse this one until we’ve first seen all five answer choices.
B) Nah, “blame” is not the issue here. The issue was “praise.” This rule is irrelevant.
C) Sure, I think this strengthens the argument quite a bit. It matches our prediction, in that it makes self-discipline necessary for praise. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that it also eliminates those who did the self-discipline for monetary reasons. We’ve gotta like this one.
D) What? No, the argument wasn’t about what
causes a process to be arduous. This answer has some of the right words, but it just doesn’t address the issue we’re trying to address.
E) Nah. The arduousness of someone’s
life is not at issue, only the arduousness of avoiding booze.
Our answer is C.