Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
I have to negate the view by showing that something legally permissible is immoral.
eliminate a "all circumstance." must be a specific law to test the view. eliminate b whether the act is excusable is not argued eliminate c no statement regarding morality pass d a consensus does not necessarily indicate unanimity eliminate e economic welfare is not argued
Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.
Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that
Winner is A. We have to find out the case that can make the above stand point inconsistent. A says - law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another That means in some of the circumstances, the stand point will hold and in some won't.
A says - law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another That means in some of the circumstances, the stand point will hold and in some won't.
I don't understand this; can you explain?
I would have chosen nothing had there been an option for it. After reading over the comments of this thread, and finding out that OA was A, I reverse-engineered the solution: I think I was paying too much attention to the 2nd half of the statement, while the answer A applied to the first half. I'm not quite certain on this though.
For example, it says that some people take their moral cues from the government. The way you can look at it is that their 'moral' = whatever is law. So, A contradicts that, because it says 'moral' = law + something else.