Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
The second step when applying the argument form reductio ad absurdum (RAA) to the ethical doctrine discussed in the second misconception about ethics is to assume the opposite of the original position, or to assume the negation of the ethical principle. Then, we look for a contradiction or an absurd conclusion that follows from this assumption, which shows that the original principle must be true.
As an example, let's take the ethical principle "It is always wrong to lie." If we apply RAA to this principle, we would assume its negation: "It is not always wrong to lie." Then, we would look for a scenario where this assumption leads to a contradiction or an absurd conclusion.
Suppose that we take the scenario of a society where everyone lies all the time, and it is accepted as the norm. In this society, lying is not seen as wrong, and there are no negative consequences for lying. However, if we take the assumption that "It is not always wrong to lie," we arrive at the absurd conclusion that in this society, telling the truth is always wrong. This is a contradiction because we know that telling the truth is a good thing and is necessary for trust and communication in any society.
Therefore, by assuming the negation of the ethical principle and finding an absurd conclusion, we have shown that the original principle must be true. In this case, we have shown that "It is always wrong to lie" is a valid ethical principle.