LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
February 1995 LSAT
Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny that people who believe a course of ac...
on September 28 at 01:44PM
Why is E correct? Why is B incorrect?
on September 28 at 06:26PM
Zachary's argument seems complicated at first, but I'm going to simplify it to aid my understanding.
Zachary: If someone believes they are morally obliged to do something, they have the right and duty to do it. No one has the right to stop them.
To counter his argument, Cynthia presents a scenario in which his principles conflict. Two people have a moral beliefs, both of which require one person to stop the other, which is a violation of Zachary's second premise.
We need to find a scenario that defeats Zachary's argument in the same way. In other words, we need two people whose moral beliefs are at odds.
You asked why B is incorrect. In this scenario, the interests of the parties involved do not necessarily conflict. If a product has a dangerous defect, the consumer advocate could expose it, and the manufacturer could recall it. We need a situation in which there is no way to reconcile the opposing actions.
This is given to us by E. Something has to give here. Either the inspector will prevent the homeowner from her moral duty (cat collection), or the homeowner will prevent the inspector from her moral duty (restriction enforcement).
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.