Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny that people who believe a course of ac...

SamA on September 28, 2019

Hello @Ryan-Mahabir,

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).