Editorialist: Support In all cultures, it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one's family from being harmed. Thus, Support few would deny that if a person is known by the person's parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. Hence, Conclusion it is also likely to be widely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct the police in their work.
The editorialist concludes that it’s likely to be widely accepted that it’s sometimes morally right to obstruct the police. She supports this by saying that in all cultures, people almost universally believe that it's a moral duty to protect family members from harm. She then claims that most people would agree that it’s morally right for parents to hide a child who is known to the parents to be falsely accused of a crime from the police.
The author assumes that, just because most people agree that it’s a moral duty to protect family members from harm, they would also agree that it’s morally right for parents to hide a wrongfully convicted child from the police. But perhaps many people believe that other moral duties, like helping the police or not breaking the law, sometimes override the moral duty to protect a family member from harm.
The reasoning in the editorialist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
utilizes a single type of example for the purpose of justifying a broad generalization
The editorialist uses an example to support a generalization, but it’s not an overly broad or flawed generalization. She gives one case where it may be considered morally right to obstruct police and then concludes that it’s sometimes considered morally right to obstruct police.
fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm
Perhaps most people would not agree that it’s sometimes morally right to obstruct police work because most people believe that some other moral principles, like the duty to follow the law, override the obligation to protect family members.
presumes, without providing justification, that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person assists rather than obstructs justice
The editorialist assumes that hiding a wrongfully convicted person obstructs rather than assists police work. She never actually makes any claims about obstructing justice, which may not be the same thing as obstructing police work.
takes for granted that there is no moral obligation to obey the law
The editorialist doesn’t assume that there is no obligation to obey the law. She just assumes that the moral duty to protect one’s family sometimes overrides any obligation to obey the law.
takes for granted that the parents mentioned in the example are not mistaken about their child's innocence
The editorialist argues that most people would agree that it’s morally right for parents to hide a child who is known to the parents to be falsely accused of a crime from the police. Whether the child is actually innocent is irrelevant.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic