Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Mark Stone defends consequentialism. "Actions should be judged by outcomes," Stone argues. "Good intentions don't excuse harmful results. Ethics should focus on producing the best possible consequences."
Text 2: Moral philosopher Dr. Sarah Wright emphasizes intentions. "Judging only outcomes ignores agents' moral worth," Wright contends. "A doctor who tried to save a patient but failed isn't equivalent to one who caused the same death through negligence. Intent matters morally."
Based on the texts, Stone and Wright fundamentally disagree about which ethical question?
Whether moral evaluation should prioritize outcomes or intentions
Whether doctors should treat patients
Whether ethics is a legitimate field of study
Whether good outcomes are ever possible
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the correct answer. Stone prioritizes outcomes ("judged by outcomes"). Wright prioritizes intentions ("intent matters morally"). This is the classic consequentialism vs. deontology divide.
- Evidence: Stone: outcomes; Wright: intentions.
- Reasoning: They disagree on what makes actions right or wrong.
- Conclusion: The fundamental disagreement is outcomes vs. intentions.
Choice B is incorrect because the example illustrates but isn't the core issue. Choice C is incorrect because both engage in ethics. Choice D is incorrect because both assume ethics matters.