About this video
Two speakers, Laurel and Miriam, debate whether a moral theory must give guidance in extreme cases. Laurel says theories that fail there should be discarded, while Miriam says being useful across common circumstances is all that is needed. The video models how to pick the answer that matches the debate's actual claim.
You'll be able to
- identify the point on which two speakers in a passage disagree.
- rule out answer choices that go beyond what the speakers actually say.
- explain why a moral theory might be judged by common or extreme cases.
Key words
- Moral theory
- A general framework for judging what is right and wrong in human conduct.
- Extreme cases
- Unusual, high-stakes situations that a theory may or may not cover.
- Common circumstances
- Everyday situations in which a theory is expected to give useful guidance.
- Disagreement question
- A question asking what two speakers differ on, answered by comparing their statements.
Transcript
- Laurel says: Modern moral theories must be jettisoned, or at least greatly reworked because they fail to provide guidance in extreme cases, which are precisely the times when people most need guidance. Miriam says: A moral theory, like an overcoat, can be quite useful even if it is not useful in every possible situation.
Being useful in a wide variety of common circumstances is all we need from a moral theory. This is interesting. Let's think about where they agree and where they disagree. So where they agree: they both say that these moral theories don't cover every circumstance.
So moral theories don't cover every case. Don't cover every case. Now what are they disagreeing about? Laurel is saying that's not good enough. You need the moral theories in the extreme cases and if they're not covering that, well we got to throw these away. Come up with new ones, or at least to rework them.
But Miriam is saying no, no, no. As long as they cover a broad class of cases, even if they are not covering the extreme cases, they are still useful. It's being useful in a wide variety of common circumstances is all we need from a moral theory. So not only is Miriam saying that it's useful but she's saying that it's all we need from a moral theory.
So let's see what they're asking us about this. Laurel's and Miriam's statements provide the most support for the claim that they disagree about whether: A. It is preferable to develop a moral theory that provides solutions to all the moral dilemmas that could arise.
That does look like what they're disagreeing about 'cause Miriam is saying hey, you just need the common circumstances while Laurel says hey, we need to find guidance in the extreme cases. So this choice looks interesting but before we pick it let's see if we can rule out the other choices.
People abandon earlier moral theories when they encounter dilemmas that those theories did not adequately address. So they're not making any statements. Neither of them are making any statements about why people abandon earlier moral theories. Laurel is saying that we have to abandon current ones because they're not covering the extreme cases.
Miriam says no, no, no. Moral theory is okay if it covers the common ones, the common circumstances. That's actually all you need. But they're not debating why people have abandoned earlier moral theories. So I will definitely rule this one out. Rule that one out.
Alright. C. A Moral theory's adequacy depends on its ability to provide guidance in extreme cases. Now this looks even better 'cause this is getting really to the heart of it because Laurel says look, if you can't provide guidance in extreme cases, throw out that thing.
Jettison it. It's not adequate. While Miriam says, not only is it adequate, that's all you need. So I actually like choice C better than choice A. A was it is preferable to develop a moral theory that provides solutions to all the moral dilemmas that could arise.
So their debate here, their statements, it's really talking about whether a moral theory is adequate or not. It's not talking developing moral theories or how you'd want to go about developing it. So even though I kind of liked A in the beginning, I'm going to rule that out because C is looking very strong.
They're debating about what makes a moral theory adequate in terms of whether it covers extreme cases or not. Choice D: Just as people need different overcoats in different climates, so too do they need different moral theories on different occasions. No, neither of them are talking about needing different moral theories in different circumstances.
So I would rule that one out. C is looking very strong. Let's see what E tells us. A moral theory developed in the light of extreme cases, is unlikely to provide adequate guidance in more usual cases. No, neither of them are making that argument. Neither of them is saying on either side of the argument that hey, if you focus on the extreme, that you're not going to be able to do the common or vice versa.
So rule that one out. And we should feel pretty good about picking choice C.
Video © Khan Academy, used under CC BY-NC-SA. Watch on Khan Academy. Puzzicle is not affiliated with Khan Academy.