#15 - Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of

[reop6780]

First of all, what kind of question is this?

The question stem mentions "substitute" and "preserve". Does it mean Cynthia's argument was weak?

I was unsure what answer to look for, but at the same time this looked like a parallel question type.

I chose answer C because it is important to point out contradiction of morality defined by Zachary.

Answer C does feature conflict of two moralities of government to regulate and not to interfere.

I didn't have time to read E when I was taking the prep test but it does seem to depict a conflict between a health inspector and a housekeeper.

The only difference between C and E I find is answer E has two difference people in conflicting moralities while answer C states a conflicting morality by one government body suggested by a banker.
(Cynthia previously describes conflicting moralities between an artist and demonstrator)


Does this difference determine the correct answer?

[Adam Tyson]

You're right that this is a type of parallel reasoning question, although it is a rare one that asks you to parallel only a portion of the stimulus (just the example in Cynthia's argument). The goal here is to find an example that sets up the same conundrum that she used to counter Zachary's argument, leaving her argument essentially unchanged.

Her original example set up two individuals with conflicting moral duties, each of which would be morally bound to try to stop the other. This undermines the part of Zachary's argument that said that nobody has the right to stop a person who is undertaking a moral obligation, because the two people in the example each have a moral duty to stop the other.

Answer C doesn't set up the same problem - instead, it tells us that two different people have different ideas about the moral obligations of a third party, the government. There is no paradox here, no confrontation of conflicting moral obligations, each party being compelled to try to stop the other. Instead, we might imagine the two bankers having a spirited debate on the subject while neither banker has any moral obligation to do anything.

You said you didn't have time to read answer E, and my response is that unless the time literally ran out on you right then, you didn't have time NOT to read it! Failing to read all the answer choices guarantees that you will miss out on reading some correct answers, as in this case. E sets up the same paradox - the inspector who feels morally obligated to remove some of the cats, stopping the householder from sheltering them, against the householder feeling morally obligated to provide shelter and stopping the inspector from removing them. This scenario undermines Zachary's argument in exactly the same way, showing that there can be times when someone has a right and a duty to stop someone else from fulfilling their moral obligations.

[SwanQueen]

Can someone explain why answer choice (D) is incorrect?

My thought is because the architect does not have to accept this "potential client" and therefore the two opposing actions do not have to occur per se.

Thanks in advance!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi SwanQueen!

The problem with (D) is that we are not sure whether the two different moral obligations are at odds with one another. Also, a "corporation" is not an individual person and so Zachary's principle might not apply to it for that reason.

Cynthia's example is an artist who feels morally obligated to prevent works of art from being destroyed and an antipornography demonstrator who feels morally obligated to destroy works of art which they deem are pornographic. These two moral obligations are at odds with one another. So that to fulfill her own moral obligation, the artist would have to try to prevent the artwork from being destroyed, but in fulfilling her moral obligation she would be preventing the antipornography demonstrator from fulfilling their moral obligation.

In answer choice (D), we have an architect with a moral obligation to design only energy-efficient buildings and a corporation with a moral obligation to maximize shareholder profits. But designing only energy-efficient buildings and maximizing shareholder profits are not necessarily at odds with one another. It is quite conceivable that an energy-efficient building would also be cost-saving, and therefore profit-maximizing.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[demk26]

Hi PS,

Can you explain why Answer (B) is incorrect? Wouldn't the manufacturer and the consumer advocate both have conflicting moral obligations/duties against one another, much like Answer (E)? Can you please explain the differences between the two answers?

Thank you very much!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Demk,

The two positions in answer choice (B) are not opposite each other. They have different but not inconsistent moral obligations. One has a moral obligation to recall defective products and another has a moral obligation to expose or report the defects. Those are two consistent obligations. Think about when produce is recalled. The manufacturer issues a recall, but plenty of places report and expose that there was a defect. Answer choice (E) on the other hand has two conflicting obligations. One has an obligation to limit the number of cats and the other has an obligation to ignore that limit.

Hope that helps
Rachael

[demk26]

Thank you, Rachael - that makes a lot more sense. So, it seems that in Answer (B) the two parties (manufacturer and consumer advocate) are working together, in tandem, to get the defective products off the shelves, while in Answer (E) they clearly have have conflicting obligations and working against each other to serve their own obligations.

Thanks for clearing that up!