The passage below makes a moral IBE argument. Do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, evaluate premise 2 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument by suggesting an opposing alternative principle that explains the paradigm cases.
The passage:
People sometimes disagree about what counts as the wrongful sexual use of another person. Like that news story about Mr. Bigshot, the CEO of his own private movie company who offered an actress a role in a movie in exchange for sexual favors. Some people seem to think this was no big deal, while others are out for his blood.
But this disagreement is hard to square when we reflect on other cases. Suppose a successful businessman, Danny, is attracted to an intern, Eva, at one of his companies. Dan has made a point of explaining to Eva how powerful he is and how well-respected he is, and he's always touting his influence at the company. Knowing she'll be hesitant to resist, Danny gropes Eva in the copy room one day, even though she clearly looks uncomfortable when he comes close. Feeling scared about the interaction but hesitant to resist for fear of reprisal, Eva lets the groping happen but leaves at the first opportunity. Danny, I think we can all agree, has wrongfully used Eva.
What makes Danny's conduct wrongful use of another is that he uses his position of power to get what he wants from someone with less power. This also explains other cases.
Suppose Belinda, a teacher, seduces her high-school student into a sexual relationship, or that a police officer threatens to ignore criminal threats against someone unless they cough up money for a bribe. As in Danny's case, Belinda and the officer are wrongfully using others because they're using their power over others for their own benefit.
This provides clarity on cases like Mr. Bigshot's. If using your power over others to get what you want counts as wrongfully using them, then Mr. Bigshot is clearly wrongfully using the actress.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The passage below makes a moral IBE argument. Do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, evaluate premise 2 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument by suggesting an opposing alternative principle that explains the paradigm cases.
The passage:
People sometimes disagree about what counts as the wrongful sexual use of another person. Like that news story about Mr. Bigshot, the CEO of his own private movie company who offered an actress a role in a movie in exchange for sexual favors. Some people seem to think this was no big deal, while others are out for his blood.
But this disagreement is hard to square when we reflect on other cases. Suppose a successful businessman, Danny, is attracted to an intern, Eva, at one of his companies. Dan has made a point of explaining to Eva how powerful he is and how well-respected he is, and he's always touting his influence at the company. Knowing she'll be hesitant to resist, Danny gropes Eva in the copy room one day, even though she clearly looks uncomfortable when he comes close. Feeling scared about the interaction but hesitant to resist for fear of reprisal, Eva lets the groping happen but leaves at the first opportunity. Danny, I think we can all agree, has wrongfully used Eva.
What makes Danny's conduct wrongful use of another is that he uses his position of power to get what he wants from someone with less power. This also explains other cases.
Suppose Belinda, a teacher, seduces her high-school student into a sexual relationship, or that a police officer threatens to ignore criminal threats against someone unless they cough up money for a bribe. As in Danny's case, Belinda and the officer are wrongfully using others because they're using their power over others for their own benefit.
This provides clarity on cases like Mr. Bigshot's. If using your power over others to get what you want counts as wrongfully using them, then Mr. Bigshot is clearly wrongfully using the actress.

The Passage Below Makes a Moral IBE Argument