#21 - Ethicist: It is morally right to reveal a secret only

[Jeremy Press]

Hi t_m6289,

With the terms "right" and "wrong," you should always negate by adding the term "not," rather than substituting the terms for one another. So, in a contrapositive, you're only justified in going from "right" to "not right," and from "wrong" to "not wrong." My rule of thumb (which does seem to be tested quite often in principle questions!) is that if the terms are different, don't assume they're logical opposites.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[goingtosomewhere]

Could someone explain why C was incorrect? Is it because the harm that Judy could cause is a part of the necessary condition for something to be morally wrong and isn't sufficient?

[Adam Tyson]

There are at least two problems with answer C, goingtosomewhere. First, there is no indication that Judy promised not to reveal the secret. Second, there is no indication that revealing the secret was likely to result in harm to someone. Thus, neither sufficient condition has been met, so we cannot conclude that the necessary condition (morally wrong) has been met. Our rules have no application to this situation.

And to clarify, "morally wrong to reveal a secret " is the necessary condition in that second principle, not the sufficient condition. The sufficient conditions of promise and harm are introduced by the sufficient condition indicator word "if".

[longlsat]

Can someone provide guidance on when we can combine the conditionals, for example in this case combining the first and second sentence can it permissible that:

morally right to reveal a secret = morally wrong to reveal a secret

From the first sentence: morally right to reveal a secret one has a legal obligation to do so + will not harm oneself by doing so

From the second sentence:
one has promised not to reveal + revealing is likely to result in any harm to others morally wrong to reveal a secret
The contrapositive of it becomes:
morally wrong to reveal a secret one has promised not to reveal OR revealing is likely to result in any harm to others

I feel like I've seen cases where these shifts are valid, but in other cases they are not logically valid?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi longlsat!

Jeremy's comment above seems pretty on point to your question:

With the terms "right" and "wrong," you should always negate by adding the term "not," rather than substituting the terms for one another. So, in a contrapositive, you're only justified in going from "right" to "not right," and from "wrong" to "not wrong." My rule of thumb (which does seem to be tested quite often in principle questions!) is that if the terms are different, don't assume they're logical opposites.

In other words, avoid making assumptions about moral wrongness just from a statement about moral rightness, and vice versa.

[lounalola]

I have a question about answer C, I understand that we don't know if Judy promised the doctor not to reveal the secret. However the doctor does say that such knowledge could inhibit a patient's recovery, if this is true wouldn't Judy revealing the secret cause harm to others (her father)?

[Adam Tyson]

The sufficient conditions both must occur in order to require the necessary condition in this rule, because they are connected by the word "and." Since we don't know whether Judy made a promise or not, that's enough to kill this answer.

But wait, there's more! The doctor only said that sometimes this knowledge inhibits recovery. The sufficient condition is that it is likely to harm someone. We don't know that it's likely, so neither element of the sufficient condition has been met!

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Ethicist: It is morally right to reveal a secret only if one has a legal obligation to do so and will not harm oneself by doing so. At the same time, it is morally wrong to reveal a secret if one has promised not to do so and if revealing the secret is likely to result in any harm to others.

morally right to reveal a secret -> legal obligation AND NOT harm oneself by doing so

(NOT legal obligation OR harm oneself by doing so -> NOT morally right to reveal a secret)


promised NOT to AND likely to result in any harm to others -> morally wrong to reveal a secret

(NOT morally wrong to reveal a secret -> NOT promised NOT to OR NOT likely to result in any harm to others)

(NOT morally wrong to reveal a secret -> can reveal to OR NOT likely to result in any harm to others)

promised not to tell = can not tell

not promised not to tell = can tell

(A) Kathryn revealed a secret entrusted to her by her brother. Kathryn did not promise not to reveal the secret and her revealing it was likely to benefit all parties concerned. However, because she was under no legal obligation to reveal the secret, her action was not morally right.

morally right to reveal a secret -> legal obligation AND NOT harm oneself by doing so

(NOT legal obligation OR harm oneself by doing so -> NOT morally right to reveal a secret)

Maybe, this checks out, NOT legal obligation -> NOT morally right

(A) is talking about both principles and they don't connect, but it satisfies the first principle, and none of the other answers satisfy even one principle.

(B) Jae admitted in confidence to his defense attorney that he was guilty of the crime with which he had been charged. His attorney, knowing that the law did not require her to reveal such a confession of guilt, recounted Jae’s confession to the judge anyway. The attorney’s action was morally right.

morally right to reveal a secret -> legal obligation AND NOT harm oneself by doing so

(NOT legal obligation OR harm oneself by doing so -> NOT morally right to reveal a secret)

No, NO legal obligation

(C) A doctor informed Judy that she should not tell her father that he was in critical condition, since such knowledge sometimes makes patients despondent and inhibits recovery. Nevertheless, Judy revealed the doctor’s diagnosis to her father. Judy’s action was morally wrong.

promised NOT to AND likely to result in any harm to others -> morally wrong to reveal a secret

(NOT morally wrong to reveal a secret -> NOT promised NOT to OR NOT likely to result in any harm to others)

(NOT morally wrong to reveal a secret -> can reveal to OR NOT likely to result in any harm to others)

No, she did NOT promise not to

(D) Phil was arrested for bank robbery and under interrogation was asked to fulfill a legal obligation to reveal the identity of his accomplice. Despite the possibility that he was endangering himself by testifying, Phil revealed his accomplice’s identity, and his accomplice was arrested without incident. Phil’s action was morally right.

morally right to reveal a secret -> legal obligation AND NOT harm oneself by doing so

(NOT legal obligation OR harm oneself by doing so -> NOT morally right to reveal a secret)

No, harm oneself by doing so

(E) After writing a story about a possible political scandal, a journalist invoked her legal rights and refused to reveal the names of her sources who had spoken on condition of anonymity. The journalist’s refusal to divulge her secret was morally right.

morally right to reveal a secret -> legal obligation AND NOT harm oneself by doing so

(NOT legal obligation OR harm oneself by doing so -> NOT morally right to reveal a secret)

No, NO legal obligation

Does this look okay?

Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi kristina,

Those explanations look pretty good, but I think that you may be missing a bigger picture of understanding how these questions work that should make them a bit easier and less time consuming.

The answers each provide a specific situation and the conclusion to each answer will be that the action (in this case, revealing a secret) was morally right, was not morally right, was morally wrong, or was not morally wrong.

Based on the two principles given, the only conclusions that are possible to make are:

1. that an action is not morally right (based on the contrapositive of principle 1)

or

2. that an action is morally wrong (based on principle 2).

You might be tempted to think that morally wrong is identical in meaning to not morally right, but those terms are not identical and you should keep them separate.

Any answer choice that concludes that an action was morally right (such as Answers B, D, and E) is automatically wrong because we can never prove that an action was morally right based on principle 1, only that an action was not morally right. This is because "morally right" only appears as a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.

For example, in your explanation for Answer B, you mention that "legal obligation" is missing. This is true, but even if the "legal obligation" term were in the answer, it would still be wrong because having a legal obligation and not harming oneself are necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. Satisfying these conditions would tell us nothing about whether the action was morally right. Such an argument would involve a Mistaken Reversal.

For the same reason, any answer choice that concluded that an action was not morally wrong would also be automatically wrong because we can never prove that an action was not morally wrong based on principle 2, only that an action was morally wrong. However, none of the answers here concluded that an action was not morally wrong.

As you read each answer, if the conclusion is that an action was not morally right, you must apply the contrapositive of principle 1 in order to test that answer. Since Answer A concludes that the action was not morally right, you test it against the contrapositive of principle 1. Since it satisfies this contrapositive by having one of the two possible sufficient conditions, "no legal obligation," this is the correct answer. The fact that the answer also includes a term from principle 2 is completely irrelevant. The test makers often mix up the terms that appear in the two principles to confuse test takers.

On the other hand, if the conclusion is that an action was morally wrong (like Answer C), you must apply the principle 2 in order to test that answer. This answer fails to satisfy the sufficient conditions of principle 2, which is why it is incorrect.