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.
Conclusion
Cynthia argues that Zachary's principle on moral obligation is untenable because it can lead to contradictory obligations. Zachary’s principle suggests that both an artist who feels morally obligated to protect art and a person who feels morally obligated to destroy certain art could both be justified in their opposing actions.
Evidence
Cynthia presents a scenario with an artist feeling obligated to protect art and another individual feeling obligated to destroy so-called pornographic art.
She highlights that Zachary's principle would allow both parties the right and duty to pursue conflicting obligations, leading to a moral contradiction.
Evaluate
This argument follows a common pattern in reasoning questions involving a rebuttal. Cynthia uses an analogy involving an artist to illustrate the faulty implications of Zachary's logic. She pivots her argument away from Zachary’s by pointing out a practical contradiction within his view on moral obligations. The conclusion is embedded within her critical analysis of Zachary's principle.
Goal
Find the best available meaning match for