The following text discusses normative ethics.
Rule consequentialism evaluates actions by whether they conform to rules whose general acceptance would maximize good outcomes. This differs from act consequentialism, which evaluates each action individually. Rule consequentialists claim their view better accommodates intuitions about rights and justice while maintaining consequentialist foundations. Critics argue the position is either reduced to act consequentialism (if rule-breaking maximizes utility) or departing from genuine consequentialism (if rules trump outcomes).
Which choice best describes the function of the last sentence?
It provides examples of rule consequentialist decision-making.
It introduces a dilemma that challenges the coherence of the position.
It endorses rule consequentialism as the correct ethical theory.
It traces the historical origins of consequentialist thought.
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. The last sentence presents a dilemma: either collapse into act consequentialism or depart from consequentialism—challenging coherence.
- Evidence: The sentence states: "Critics argue the position is either reduced to act consequentialism... or departing from genuine consequentialism."
- Reasoning: It presents a logical fork: the view is either redundant or not truly what it claims to be.
- Conclusion: The function is to introduce a coherence dilemma.
💡 Strategy: Look for "either reduced to... or departing from."
Choice A is incorrect because examples aren't given. Choice C is incorrect because a challenge is introduced. Choice D is incorrect because history isn't traced.