Exam 15: What Should We Do part II?

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

This claim suggests that if two actions or situations are morally different, then there must be a difference in their morally relevant, naturalistic properties. In other words, the moral distinction between two actions or situations is based on their underlying naturalistic properties.

For example, let's consider the actions of stealing and borrowing. From a moral standpoint, stealing is generally considered to be wrong, while borrowing is not necessarily morally wrong. According to the claim, the moral difference between stealing and borrowing must be rooted in their naturalistic properties. In this case, the naturalistic properties of stealing may include elements such as taking something without permission, causing harm to the owner, and violating property rights. On the other hand, the naturalistic properties of borrowing may involve obtaining something with permission, returning it in a timely manner, and respecting the owner's rights.

Similarly, consider the situations of self-defense and aggression. Self-defense is often seen as morally justifiable, while aggression is typically viewed as morally wrong. According to the claim, the moral distinction between self-defense and aggression must be based on their naturalistic properties. In this case, the naturalistic properties of self-defense may include elements such as protecting oneself or others from harm, using proportional force, and acting out of necessity. On the other hand, the naturalistic properties of aggression may involve initiating harm, using excessive force, and acting out of malice.

In both examples, the moral difference between the actions or situations is reflected in their underlying naturalistic properties. This supports the claim that if two actions or situations are morally different, then they must also differ in their morally relevant, naturalistic properties.