#23 - Ethicist: It is widely believed that it is always

[eober]

I understand why answer choice D reflects the principle endorsed by the ethicist since there is a considerable psychological harm. But what is the reason why we are not accepting answer choice B? Isn't that also a psychological harm to others (as well as himself). Should it exclusively be a harm to others?

Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi,

I fail to see how answer choice (B) describes any psychological harm at all. The principle clearly states that it is OK to tell a lie when telling the truth carries the expectation of producing considerable physical or psychological harm to others:

Truth may cause considerable physical or psychological harm to others Lying is OK

In answer choice (B), the father lied about which candidate he prefers in order to avoid discussion, not to prevent any considerable physical or psychological harm to his daughter. It is unclear how expressing his preference for Chang could have harmed his daughter, to justify the lie.

In answer choice (C), the husband's lying about his health does not prevent physical or psychological harm to others. On the contrary: it may well cause such harm. Thus, answer choice (C) is incorrect.

Answer choice (D) is the only answer choice where the lie was justified, since a mother's expressing greater love for one child over another can clearly cause considerable psychological harm to the child she does not love as much.

In answer choice (E), Jamal lied to save himself the embarrassment, not to prevent harm to others. This does not reflect the application of the principle as stated in the stimulus.

Does this make sense? Let me know.

[eober]

I thought that an argument might as well cause psychological harm but I guess not.

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore,

I hope all is well.

Is E wrong here because it doesn't really have anything to do with lying or being right?

Thanks!

[Charlie]

Hello Power Score,

I was hesitant between C and D and eventually picked C cause of 2 reasons:

First, I think in C, the trip has been planned for a year so there's no lie he could be telling beside telling the truth that he has the physical issue, which would devastate his wife.

Second, in D, we have no clue what the truth might look like. It could be she loved the young boy more so telling the truth would not hurt him emotionally and saying so isn't lying.

Thanks,

[James Finch]

Hi Deck and Charlie,

Deck--(E) does in fact involve lying (about the reason Jamal won't go to the party) but the principle doesn't apply because the harm would be only to Jamal/the liar, and not to others, as we have in the stimulus.

Charlie--Both (C) and (D) require at least one inference to comport with the principle in the stimulus: (C) requires us to infer that the husband doesn't actually feel ready, due to the recent chest pains (as someone who has suffered several athletic injuries, I don't see this as a supportable inference at all) as well as that "inconvenience" is a type of harm (this one is more supportable, but still debatable).

(D) requires us to infer that a mother saying she loved one of her children more than the other would cause psychological damage to one or more of those children. While I can't say this is 100% certain to happen, it seems like a more supportable inference than either of the two that (C) is asking us to make, especially the one about the husband's supposed lie about his readiness. So (D) ends up conforming most closely (if not perfectly) with the principle in the stimulus.

Hope this helps!

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi Powerscore,

This answer choice is problematic on so many levels. How am I supposed to assume the truth about the mom loving one over the other will cause psychological harm? If I asked my mom and I found out she lied in her answer, I would not care.

A doesn't hint on no type of harm

B doesn't either. The lie was told on the basis of avoiding discussion.

C doesn't seem to contain a lie. I can have chest pains and still be ready for a trip.
It would be wrong for me to assume that having chest pains means I'm not ready for a trip. Same way I see it as very problematic that lying to your child will avoid some psychological harm. Both depend of assumptions to hold.

E, I chose only because it was the closest choice that didn't require a huge logical leap. The lie was told to avoid psychological harm but the answer falls short because the stimulus requires the harm be done to others.

What cues D? As someone who has been at this (LSAT prep) for a while, what I'll reasonably expect isn't something someone would. Reasonably expected by who? The public? The author? Who's to say I live by a principle of being psychologically harmed if the truth about being loved less compared to my sibling is revealed to me?

[Robert Carroll]

President,

I don't see that there's anything more to say than you've said, but I'll try anyway. The reason I say that is that you've completely decisively eliminated every answer except answer choice (D). All those other answers have serious, fatal problems. Answer choice (D) has a minor, quibbling problem. Answer choice (D) is the credited answer. So the answer with a tiny problem is right, and the answers with serious problems are wrong. What more could one ask for?

The stimulus talks about a reasonable expectation, not a certainty. So for answer choice (D) to be correct, we don't need to know that the mother's telling the truth would cause considerable psychological harm. There simply has to be a reasonable expectation of that, and, although people can differ in their preferences, it's reasonable to think that a child being told they're loved less than a similarly situation person by their own mother could cause considerable psychological harm. That's not to say that the opposite opinion is unreasonable. It's reasonable for me to have two waffles for breakfast, and reasonable for me to have three waffles. The range of what is reasonable can be wider than one specific thing. So I think that by common sense, we can see that the expectation that a child would be pretty upset not being loved as much as their sibling would be reasonable. That's all that's required for answer choice (D).

Robert Carroll