Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation

I think the answer is C.


Zach says that you are blind to the reality of moral obligation if you deny:
1. that people who believe a course of action to be morally obligatory for them have both the right and the duty to pursue that action and
2. that no one else has any right to stop such people from doing so.



We can see from the example provided by Cynthia that the argument made by Zach is flawed. Because it creates a potential for the clash of moral obligations since per the reasoning of Zach and because the definition of moral obligation is based on the point of the view of the individual defining it, the argument by Zach cannot hold or in other words, is flawed and may not be applicable in reality.

Looking through the answer choices, answer choice C says that Cynthia's response demonstrates that Zach's principle is untenable. This is correct. Choice C says that Cynthia demonstrates that Zach's argument is flawed.


This is completely untrue. Zach's argument is not about the concept of moral obligation. Instead, it is about Zach's flawed position on the concept of morality. A is incorrect.


Not true. Cynthia only provides an example of a potential situation in which the moral obligations of an individual clash leading a situation whereby that individual is unable to take any action without violating Zach's position.


This answer is a bit extreme. An example could be found in which the position of Zach could be relevant, as long such moral obligation situations do not result in the kind of contradiction stated in the example of Cynthia.


This is not the point that Cynthia was trying to put across. The use of the artist and the antipornography demonstrator is just for a mere illustration that Zach's argument is flawed. A different example could be cited by Cynthia to prove that Zach's argument is flawed. E can, therefore, not be the right answer.