Q24 - Someone’s benefiting from having

[b91302310]

For the correct answer choice (C), when the sentence says "since Wesley failed to warn Max about the serious side effects of the drug and the drug proved to have no other effects", does it imply that Max was harmed ? So, since Max was harmed without consent, Wesley was morally unjustified. Is it the logic of the right answer?

Could anyone explain it?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Yes. "Serious side effects," with no other effects, is a negative thing. Given that the other answers can all concretely be eliminated, it's reasonable to infer that "serious side effects" were harmful.

[agersh144]

I still don't see the connection between the stimulus and the correct answer can someone please elaborate.

Principles: MJ (Morally Justifable) > HK (Harmed Knew) & (Consent)

What are we looking for in the answer choices negation of one of the necessary conditions?

/HK or /C > /MJ

[sumukh09]

I still don't see the connection between the stimulus and the correct answer can someone please elaborate.

Principles: MJ (Morally Justifable) > HK (Harmed Knew) & (Consent)

What are we looking for in the answer choices negation of one of the necessary conditions?

/HK or /C > /MJ

(someone benefiting) Morally Justifiable ---> HK + Consent

We're looking for an answer choice where someone benefited from having harm done to another person and that harm being morally justifiable only if that other person knew they could be harmed and also consented to it.

The negation of this would be if that person being harmed did not know they would be harmed OR if they did not consent to the harm; in either of these instances the harm would not be morally justifiable.

In answer choice C), someone (presumably the drug company) would have benefited from the experiment performed by Wesley. But that experiment's results was morally unjustified because Max did not know that he could be harmed. Thus, because Wesley had no idea he would be harmed, the sufficient condition, ~consent is triggered and the action is morally unjustified.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation sumukh09!

BH + MJ --> KCH + C

(Notation Key: BH = benefits from harming someone, MJ = morally justifiable, KCH = knew action could cause harm, C = consented)

We're looking to conform to the principle... be on the lookout for negations, reversals, and out of scope situations where someone didn't benefit from harming another person.

Answer choice (C) provides an example that utilizes the contrapositive of the principle. Wesley benefited from an action that harmed Max. While Max consented to taking the test medication, he did not know the medication could cause harm. By contrapositive, we can infer that Wesley's action was morally unjustifiable.

Incorrect Answers
(A) and (B) reach possibly valid conclusions, but fail to utilize evidence that would trigger the application of the principle.
(D) fails to discuss whether Roger's mother was aware that donating a kidney could cause harm.
(E) reaches a conclusion about the moral justifiability of denying James the profits of his book sales. One might see this as James was morally justified in writing the book, but even then, this reverses the logic of the principle.