Self-study
Sanderson intentionally did not tell his cousin about overhearing someone say that the factory would close, knowing that if he withheld this information, his cousin would assume it would remain open. ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████ █ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████
Summary
Sanderson overheard someone say that the factory would close, but withheld the fact that he overheard this from his cousin. Sanderson knew that by withholding this information, his cousin would assume the factory would remain open.
The author concludes that Sanderson’s intentional withholding of what he overheard was morally wrong.
Why?
Because there’s no moral difference between stating something and failing to state something if they’re done with the same intention.
And stating something with the intention to mislead is lying.
Lying is morally wrong.
Notable Assumptions
The author’s trying to establish that what Sanderson did was equivalent to lying. But notice that we’re told “stating something with the intention to mislead” is lying. Do we know that Sanderson withheld what he overheard from his cousin for the purpose of misleading him? No. The author’s assuming that Sanderson wanted to mislead his cousin by giving him the impression that the factory would remain open.
18.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
Sanderson believed that ███ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ███████ ████████
Not necessary, because whatever Sanderson believed his cousin “wanted” has no bearing on whether Sanderson intended to mislead his cousin. Sanderson could have intended to mislead his cousin into thinking the factory would remain open regardless of what Sanderson knew about what the cousin wanted.
b
No one ever ████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ████████
Not necessary, because whether other people told Sanderson’s cousin that the factory would close has no bearing on whether Sanderson intended to mislead his cousin. Sanderson could have intended to mislead his cousin even if the cousin wouldn’t have been misled because he learned about the factory’s closing from someone else.
c
Sanderson believed that ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████████
Necessary, because in order for Sanderson to have the intention of misleading his cousin, Sanderson would have to believe that he was giving his cousin a FALSE impression that the factory would remain open. But if Sanderson actually thought the factory would remain open (in other words, that it would not in fact be closing) — then Sanderson would not have been trying to mislead his cousin. Rather, Sanderson would have been trying to give his cousin what he believed to be the CORRECT impression of what would happen. And that would take what Sanderson did outside the realm of “lying.”
d
Sanderson would have ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████████
Not necessary, because what Sanderson would have done if the cousin had directly asked has no bearing on what Sanderson in fact did. The argument is that what Sanderson actually did was morally wrong. That doesn’t require an opinion about what Sanderson would have done under different circumstances.
e
Sanderson had something ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ █████
Not necessary, because what matters is whether Sanderson had the intention to mislead. Whether Sanderson had something to gain from his actions is a separate issue from whether he had the intention to mislead. Someone can intend to mislead another person even if there’s nothing to be gained from it.