(B) states that Glen and Sara disagree on whether virtuousness is more important than the protection of individual rights. This is incorrect because Sara never comments on which should be more important. Instead, her response deals with how the definition of what is virtuous could be controlled by the government. This does not mean she thinks achieving virtuousness on the part of citizens is of lesser importance, only that there are issues with regulating it.
Does that make sense? Hope it helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions!
avifJune 26, 2020
Thanks for the response. Isn't the fact that her worry about individuals rights trump pushing people towards virtue show that it is more important to her?
VictoriaJuly 4, 2020
Hi @avif,
That's not necessarily true. All we know is that Sara believes that the government deciding what is virtuous would be more dangerous than the government being overprotective of individuals' rights.
This does not necessarily mean that one or the other is more important in her eyes. She just believes that allowing the government to do X would be more dangerous than allowing the government to do Y. One thing can be more dangerous than the other and yet the two can still be of equal value in one's eyes.
Additionally, Sara does not comment on whether citizens should be virtuous or not. Her point is focused on the dangers of allowing the government to decide what is virtuous.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
