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

Question

Competition Mode Question

Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny 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 that no one else has any right to stop them from doing so.
Cynthia: But imagine an artist who feels morally obliged to do whatever she can to prevent works of art from being destroyed confronting a morally committed antipornography demonstrator engaged in destroying artworks he deems pornographic. According to your principle that artist has, simultaneously, both the right and the duty to stop the destruction and no right whatsoever to stop it.

Cynthia’s response to Zachary’s claim is structured to demonstrate that

(A) the concept of moral obligation is incoherent

(B) the ideas of right and duty should not be taken seriously since doing so leads to morally undesirable consequences

(C) Zachary’s principle is untenable on its own terms

(D) because the term “moral” obligation is understood differently by different people, it is impossible to find a principle concerning moral rights and duties that applies to everyone

(D) Zachary’s principle is based on an understanding of moral obligation that is too narrow to encompass the kind of moral obligation artists feel toward works of art

Jawad001 · Answer

(E) Zachary’s principle is based on an understanding of moral obligation that is too narrow to encompass the kind of moral obligation artists feel toward works of art.

Answer: E

eakabuah · Answer

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.

exc4libur · Answer

Ans (C)

minustark · Answer

Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny 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 that no one else has any right to stop them from doing so.
Cynthia: But imagine an artist who feels morally obliged to do whatever she can to prevent works of art from being destroyed confronting a morally committed antipornography demonstrator engaged in destroying artworks he deems pornographic. According to your principle that artist has, simultaneously, both the right and the duty to stop the destruction and no right whatsoever to stop it.

Cynthia’s response to Zachary’s claim is structured to demonstrate that

(A) the concept of moral obligation is incoherent

(B) the ideas of right and duty should not be taken seriously since doing so leads to morally undesirable consequences

(C) Zachary’s principle is untenable on its own terms

(D) because the term “moral” obligation is understood differently by different people, it is impossible to find a principle concerning moral rights and duties that applies to everyone

(D) Zachary’s principle is based on an understanding of moral obligation that is too narrow to encompass the kind of moral obligation artists feel toward works of art

Moral obligation or actions that are perceived as morally obligatory can have many different definitions as these are all abstract concepts. What is moral obligation to one person may or may not have the same appeal to other persons. Since Zachary didn't provide any hard and fast criteria to determine moral obligation, so it has no universal principle. This reasoning goes with option D, and IMO this is the CA.

freedom128 · Answer

A) is wrong because Cynthia doesn't say that the concept of moral obligation is incoherent

B) is wrong because Cynthia doesn't argue that the concepts of right and duty shouldn't be taken seriously.

C) is CORRECT ANSWER because it describes the oversight by Zachary with respect to his conditions on what moral obligation entails

D) is wrong because it says that moral obligation (not moral itself) is understood differently by different people which is absolutely not the case as this is not suggested by Cynthia's response.

E) is wrong because Cynthia doesn't argue that Zachary’s principle is based on an understanding of moral obligation that is too narrow to encompass the kind of moral obligation artists feel toward works of art

FINAL ANSWER IS (C)

arriusdaze · Answer

Answer C seems unlikely but it is the correct choice. Let us see why but before let us acknowledge that this question is really hard!

Answer C says that Cynthia’s response to Zachary demonstrates that Z’s statement is untenable on its own terms.

What does that mean? It means that if we were to apply Z’s logic on certain cases we would find that it does not hold! Thereby the terms and connections that Z uses to determine if somebody is morally blind will not be absolute or irrefutable.

This means that even if a person is not morally blind he may find himself doing things opposite to what Zachary would have wanted him/her to do.
And this is the case which Cynthia exposes by stating a condition where the said artist moral obligation causes his two possible actions to clash, which essentially demonstrates that Z’s principle does not hold I.e. is untenable using his own terminologies/logic.

Hope it is clear!

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards