The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent. For if such an action is justified, then one would be behaving rationally, not irrationally. Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above? ["One cannot live the good life and be unhappy. If one's own neighbors see that one is unhappy, then they will see that one is not living the good life.", 'A representative of the law, such as a judge or a police officer, ought not to commit crimes. For if representatives of the law commit crimes, they will be ineffective in preventing crime.', "One ought not to have both a cat and a goldfish. The goldfish is the natural prey of the cat, so it is unethical to place it at the cat's disposal.", 'One cannot intend to spill a glass of water accidentally. Spilling it accidentally means that the act will not have been done intentionally.']