Implications

When thinking about a view or an argument, it’s very important to be able to figure out what follows from it. Often this requires making rather subtle distinctions, not an easy task.

For example, consider the following statement S:

“Human beings are perfect egoists: all of us do only what we believe to be in our own best interest.”

Which of the following, if any, can be reasonably inferred from S?

Before you answer, reread S carefully, as if it were a message you really cared about. Although this is difficult, don’t read into S more or less than it says. Keep in mind that if P can be reasonably inferred from S, then if P is false, S is false, or probably false, as well.

1. Sometimes, saintly people favor what they take to be the interest of others over what they believe to be their own

2. If one helps another in need, one must believe that it’s to one’s advantage to do so.

3. Nobody does anything that is in someone else’s interest

4. Nobody feels compassion towards anybody else

5. If one does what’s against one’s self interest, then one is not a perfect egoist

The correct answer is (2). Here’s why. (1) contradicts the claim that we are perfect egoists, and therefore it cannot be reasonably inferred from S. (2) must be true if S is true; if I’m a perfect egoist, then I’ll help you as long as I think that it’s to my advantage. If helping you went against my perceived interest, I would be an altruist and not an egoist. (3) cannot be inferred from S because, among other things, doing your interest may be in my interest as well, as in mutualism. (4) cannot be inferred because if I’m a perfect egoist I may feel compassion and still act ruthlessly against you; S presents egoism in terms of action, not feelings. (5) cannot be inferred because my perceived self-interest may not be my real self-interest.

Consider the following statement S:

“People may be treated unequally only if there is a difference among them that morally allows the difference in treatment.”

Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from S?

1. Morality says that people may not be treated differently

2. Morality demands that different people be treated differently

3. If two people are morally different, then morality allows us to treat them differently

4. If between two people there is no difference that is morally relevant to differential treatment, then morality demands that they not be treated differently

5. There are no morally relevant differences among people

6. People are immoral

S says that if you treat people unequally, they must differ in ways that are morally relevant to the unequal treatment; in other words, morally relevant differences are a necessary condition for the morality of unequal treatment.

The correct answer is (4). Here’s why. (1) cannot be inferred because you might be morally justified in treating people unequally as long as they are different in morally relevant ways. (2) is the wrong answer because mere difference is not enough: the differences need to be morally relevant to the different treatment. (3) is the wrong answer because the differences must be not only moral but also morally relevant to the different treatment. (4) is the right answer because it’s logically equivalent to S (it says the same thing as S): no morally relevant differences, no unequal treatment. (5) is not implied by S because S says nothing on whether there are moral differences among people; it just says that if we treat them differently there must be morally relevant differences among them; indeed, from the fact that we treat people differently without any moral breach, it follows that (5) is false. (6) is the wrong answer because S says nothing about the morality or immorality of people.