The difference between manners and

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct57% picked this

   One could be immoral without ever having caused any other person

   Why this is right

   This goes one implication further than where we had predicted. We were thinking that they would test the idea that, some moral rules do not depend on their being a 2nd party (they are not social in nature) If there are some moral rules that apply even when we're alone, then it's possible for us to be immoral all by ourselves, which means "one can be immoral without ever having caused any other person any harm". There could be a moral rule, for example, that "one should not needlessly damage their body with excessive drug abuse", and thus even if you moved away to a remote cabin and didn't see anyone but yourself and your drugs, you could be immoral without causing harm to anyone but yourself.

   Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   57%
2. B

   Too Strong: never overlap13% picked this

   No immoral act could be a violation of the rules

   The opening sentence is saying that there is some divergence between manners and morals, whereas this sentence is saying there isn't any overlap. It's possible that walking up to your best friend, at their wedding, and kissing their partner on the lips while confessing your secret crush on them is both immoral and a breach of etiquette.

   13%
3. C

   Too Strong: only when4% picked this

   The rules of morality apply only when one

   We would have been happy to pick something that said, the rules of morality can apply also when one is alone. That we know. This is saying that as soon as you are near someone else, there are no moral rules governing your behavior?!

   4%
4. D

   Out of Scope: more important2% picked this

   It is more important to be moral than to have

   There isn't any language that would support a comparative judgment about which of these two things is more important. We're only comparing them on the level of necessarily social vs. not necessarily social.

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong: could not be24% picked this

   What is social in nature could not be a matter

   This answer means the same thing as (C), so it knocks both of them out of the running. We would have been happy to pick something that said, what is not social in nature could still be a matter of morality. That we know. This is saying that as soon as you are near someone else, there are no moral rules governing your behavior?!

   24%