Changing the aggregate well-being

@oliveds, Let's take a look. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "changing it," but I'm happy to help with this question. The philosopher's argument can be diagrammed as increase aggregate well-being - >morally right reduce aggregate well-being< - >morally wrong The conclusion is that aggregate well-being unchanged - >morally right This is a strengthen with a sufficient premise question. How can we conclude the conclusion? We know that if an action leaves aggregate well-being unchanged, this means that it neither decreases nor increases it. Not increasing well-being doesn't do anything or us, but not decreasing (reducing) well-being ties into the second premise we're given. If it does not reduce aggregate well-being, then this means that it isn't morally wrong. The missing link the conclusion is that if something isn't wrong, then it is right, or that moral neutrality does not exist. Looking at (C), it says, "Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right." This is great, as it helps fill in the gap that gets us to the conclusion. This is the correct answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!