Rachels juxtaposes two cases, one in which Smith drowns his cousin in order to receive an inheritance and one in which
A) Jones drowns his cousin for no reason.
B) Jones allows his cousin to drown in order to receive an inheritance.
C) Jones saves his cousin from drowning in order to receive a reward.
D) None of the above

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The juxtaposition of Smith's act of drowning his cousin for monetary gain with the hypothetical scenario of Jones drowning his cousin for no reason highlights the moral difference between the two actions. By contrasting the motivations behind the two scenarios, Rachels argues that it is the intention behind an action that determines its moral worth, rather than its outcome. Therefore, the correct choice is B, where Jones drowns his cousin for the same financial gain as Smith, allowing for a fair comparison between the two cases. Choices A and C are not comparable to Smith's scenario, while D is not a valid answer.

Rachels Juxtaposes Two Cases, One in Which Smith Drowns His