vikram_k51 wrote:It has been claimed that an action is morally good only if it benefits another person and was performed with that intention; whereas an action that harms another person is morally bad either if such harm was intended or if reasonable forethought would have shown that the action was likely to cause harm.
Which one of the following judgments most closely confirms to the principle cited above?
(A) Pamela wrote a letter attempting to cause trouble between Edward and his friends; this action of Pamela's was morally bad, even though the letter, in fact, had an effect directly opposite from the one intended.
(B) In order to secure a promotion, Jeffery devoted his own time to resolving a backlog of medical benefits claims; Jeffrey's action was morally good since it alone enabled Sara's claim to be processed in time for her to receive much-needed treatment.
(C) Intending to help her elderly neighbor by clearing his walkway after a snowstorm, Teresa inadvertently left ice on his steps; because of this exposed ice, her neighbor had a bad fall, thus showing that morally good actions can have bad consequences.
(D) Marilees, asked by a homeless man for food, gave the man her own sandwich; however, because the man tried to talk while he was eating the sandwich, it caused him to choke, and thus Marilees unintentionally performed a morally bad action.
(E) Jonathan agreed to watch his three-year-old niece while she played but, becoming engrossed in conversion, did not see her run into the street where she was hit by a bicycle; even though he intended no harm, Jonathan's action was morally bad.
OA E

An action is morally good only when done with that intention.

It is bad whether done with intentionally or reasonable foresight has enabled it to be so.

(A) Pamela wrote a letter attempting to cause trouble between Edward and his friends; this action of Pamela's was morally bad, even though the letter, in fact, had an effect directly opposite from the one intended.
Question is about being morally right morally wrong nothing more nothing less. wrong option to go with
(B) In order to secure a promotion, Jeffery devoted his own time to resolving a backlog of medical benefits claims; Jeffrey's action was morally good since it alone enabled Sara's claim to be processed in time for her to receive much-needed treatment.
Jeffery intention is not to help Sara's but his own promotion so he is not morally good.
(C) Intending to help her elderly neighbor by clearing his walkway after a snowstorm, Teresa inadvertently left ice on his steps; because of this exposed ice, her neighbor had a bad fall, thus showing that morally good actions can have bad consequences.
Issue is not about consequences it is about whether morally good or morally bad.
(D) Marilees, asked by a homeless man for food, gave the man her own sandwich; however, because the man tried to talk while he was eating the sandwich, it caused him to choke, and thus Marilees unintentionally performed a morally bad action.
No she can not think for sure he will eat while talking, though possible but not near true.
(E) Jonathan agreed to watch his three-year-old niece while she played but, becoming engrossed in conversion, did not see her run into the street where she was hit by a bicycle; even though he intended no harm, Jonathan's action was morally bad.
Yes, Johnson should be aware that leaving a 3-yr old on its own may hurt, she was hurt so morally bad.

i GO WITH E

explanation is good!!

maihuna wrote:
An action is morally good only when done with that intention.

It is bad whether done with intentionally or reasonable foresight has enabled it to be so.

(A) Pamela wrote a letter attempting to cause trouble between Edward and his friends; this action of Pamela's was morally bad, even though the letter, in fact, had an effect directly opposite from the one intended.
Question is about being morally right morally wrong nothing more nothing less. wrong option to go with
(B) In order to secure a promotion, Jeffery devoted his own time to resolving a backlog of medical benefits claims; Jeffrey's action was morally good since it alone enabled Sara's claim to be processed in time for her to receive much-needed treatment.
Jeffery intention is not to help Sara's but his own promotion so he is not morally good.
(C) Intending to help her elderly neighbor by clearing his walkway after a snowstorm, Teresa inadvertently left ice on his steps; because of this exposed ice, her neighbor had a bad fall, thus showing that morally good actions can have bad consequences.
Issue is not about consequences it is about whether morally good or morally bad.
(D) Marilees, asked by a homeless man for food, gave the man her own sandwich; however, because the man tried to talk while he was eating the sandwich, it caused him to choke, and thus Marilees unintentionally performed a morally bad action.
No she can not think for sure he will eat while talking, though possible but not near true.
(E) Jonathan agreed to watch his three-year-old niece while she played but, becoming engrossed in conversion, did not see her run into the street where she was hit by a bicycle; even though he intended no harm, Jonathan's action was morally bad.
Yes, Johnson should be aware that leaving a 3-yr old on its own may hurt, she was hurt so morally bad.

why cant A be the answer?
She wrote letter with bad intentions. So it must be morally bad.

my bad..i understood my mistake.
only if the bad intention results in real harm,does it qualify as a bad moral act.
Since a didnt cause real harm,it cannot qualify.