Chat with AIExam 7: Right and Wrong Thomas Nagel
Nagel claims that the basis of morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people is good or bad just from their point of view.
(44) 
VerifiedFalse
Nagel claims that answering the question "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" reveals why you should not treat others badly. Suppose someone answers: "I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me. But luckily no one is doing it to me. I'm doing it to someone else, and I don't mind that at all!" How does this response miss the point of the question?
(32) 
Answered by Examlex AI CopilotThe response provided misses the point of the question "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" because it fails to engage with the empathetic and moral reasoning that underlies the question. The question is designed to prompt one to consider the perspective of the other person and to recognize the shared capacity for suffering and the desire for fair treatment that is common to all human beings.
Philosopher Thomas Nagel would argue that the question is meant to invoke the principle of moral reciprocity and the recognition of others as beings with their own experiences and rights. It is an appeal to the Golden Rule, which is a foundational ethical principle found in many cultures and moral systems that states one should treat others as one would like to be treated oneself.
By saying, "I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me. But luckily no one is doing it to me. I'm doing it to someone else, and I don't mind that at all!" the respondent is demonstrating a lack of empathy and a disregard for the well-being of others. They are effectively saying that their own experiences and desires are the only ones that matter, which is a self-centered viewpoint that ignores the basic tenets of ethical conduct and social cooperation.
The point of the question is to encourage individuals to transcend their own perspective and to consider the impact of their actions on others. It is an exercise in moral imagination that asks us to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and to recognize that causing harm to another is wrong, not simply because we wouldn't want it done to us, but because it violates the other person's dignity and autonomy.
In summary, the response provided is dismissive of the moral and empathetic engagement that the question seeks to elicit. It overlooks the fundamental ethical principle of treating others with the same respect and consideration that one would wish for oneself, which is essential for a just and compassionate society.
According to Nagel, if you think your own interests provide others with reasons not to treat you badly, then you have reason not to treat others badly.
(40) VerifiedTrue
Nagel assumes that everyone has at least some degree of concern for other people.
(33) What difference, if any, is there between something being wrong and something being against the law?
(44) Nagel believes that a persuasive argument for not harming others is implicit in which of the following questions?
(42) Nagel denies that whether something is right or wrong depends entirely one one's own interests.
(31) According to Nagel, morality is based in which of the following beliefs?
(43) The thought that an action is wrong usually depends on the impact that action has on other people.
(31) To admit that you would feel resentment toward someone who hurt you, Nagel argues, is to admit that
(34) According to Nagel, what follows from the belief that others have a good reason to care not just about their own interests but about our interests as well? Explain his position. Do you agree with his claim that virtually all of us share this belief? Why or why not?
(35) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)