#20 - Daniel: There are certain actions that moral duty

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (D)

Daniel believes that moral duty requires people to perform some actions, no matter the
consequences, but adds that meeting a basic moral obligation is not necessarily good. Moral
goodness, Daniel asserts, requires the right motivation.

Carrie disagrees, arguing that since people’s motivations are beyond their control, meeting a basic
moral obligation is indeed enough to define an action as good.

The point at issue reflected in this stimulus will be either the disagreement over whether meeting
a moral obligation is sufficient for something to be defined as “good,” or deal with the question of
whether the right motivation is necessary. As with all Point at Issue questions, the correct answer
choice will provide a statement with which one of the speakers would agree, and with which the
other speaker would disagree.

Answer choice (A): This choice provides that an impossible act can never be morally required.
Neither speaker mentions this issue, but they would most likely agree that people can’t be obligated
to do the impossible.

Answer choice (B): While Daniel does say that the right motivation is necessary for an action to be
good, he does not assert that it is sufficient, so there is no way to know whether properly motivated
acts can be “not morally good.” Carrie also does not take a clear stand on this issue, so this cannot be
the point at issue in this example.

Answer choice (C): This choice provides that when an act fulfills a moral obligation, it was
performed specifically to meet that obligation. Neither speaker mentions the issue of whether every
morally obligated act is done with that specific obligation in mind. Since this point is not mentioned
in the dialogue, it is not a point of contention between the speakers, and this cannot be the correct
answer choice.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, providing that an act with the wrong
motivation cannot be morally good—this is an issue on which both speakers in the dialogue take a
clear stand. Daniel clearly states that an act cannot be good unless it is properly motivated. Carrie
would disagree with this assessment, based on the notion that motivations are beyond our conscious
control: that as long as an act meets a moral obligation, that act can be defined as good.

Answer choice (E): Daniel asserts that the right motivations are required to define something as
morally good, but does not mention whether those motivations are always enough to call something good.
Since Daniel does not take a clear stand on whether duty-based motivation is sufficient to define an act as good,
it cannot be the point at issue in this dialogue.

[amydg]

The answer choices in this one just seemed to completely throw me off. I only eliminated A & D but D turned out to be the answer, so I'm concerned about the thought process behind choosing the correct answer choice? My answer was B, which I thought was supported by the dialogue?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Amy,

Thanks for your question. In this dialogue, Daniel and Carrie disagree over the conditions under which actions can quality as "morally good." According to Daniel, the duty to fulfill a moral obligation has little to do with whether or not an action is "morally good." For him, it's all about the motivations behind the action: if an action is morally good, then it's performed with the right motivations:

• Daniel: Morally good Right motivations

Carrie does not share this view. For her, the only requirement for an action to be morally good is that it fulfills a moral obligation:

• Carrie: Morally good Fulfill a moral obligation

The stem asks us to consider what Daniel and Carrie would disagree over. In other words, the correct answer choice must pass the Agree/Disagree test: one of the speakers must agree with the statement we choose, while the other speaker must disagree with it.

Answer choice (A) cannot be proven or disproven by reference to either argument.

Answer choice (B) is a statement with which both speakers may agree. Daniel never claimed that all properly motivated actions will be morally good. The right motivation is a necessary condition for an action to be good, not a sufficient condition. Consequently, he may agree that some actions performed with the right motivations may nevertheless be morally bad. Carrie does not even consider motivations to be relevant in determining the ethical nature of one's actions. So, she may agree with this statement as well.

Answer choice (C) attempts to connect the necessary conditions under debate in an independent conditional relationship. Clearly, neither speaker would have much to say about this.

Answer choice (D) is the correct answer choice, because Daniel would agree with it while Carrie would disagree. For Daniel, having the right motivations is the only condition necessary for an action to count as morally good. By the contrapositive, he would clearly view an action performed with the wrong motivations as not morally good. Carrie, however, does not view motivations as a precondition for assessing the ethical nature of actions. For her, the ethical nature of an action is determined solely by whether or not the action fulfills a moral obligation. Consequently, she can easily view some actions performed with the wrong motivations as morally bad. Answer choice (D) passes the Agree/Disagree test and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (E) contains a claim with which both speakers may agree. The debate is over what conditions are necessary for an action to be considered morally good, not what conditions would be sufficient for that action to be morally good.

Hope this clears it up!

[Oneshot06]

Hi,

I'm still unsure of Carrie's reasoning to justify D.) as the correct answer. I understand that Daniel's reasoning is: morally good action-->right motivation, contrapositive: wrong motivation-->not morally good action.
Carrie's reasoning is: morally good action-->fulfill moral obligation, she discounts the motivation behind it. Contrapositive: not fulfill moral obligation-->not morally good action.

Given the above, when I look at answer choice D.) it addresses something Daniel would agree with, but it doesn't prove Carrie would disagree with it. Could you please help me understand Carrie's disagreement?

Thank you

[Daniel Stern]

Hi Oneshot:

You were asking why Carrie would disagree with the statement in answer choice D.

D says that an action performed with the wrong motivations cannot be morally good. We understand that this statement is essentially the contrapositive of Daniel's original position and thus Daniel would agree.

Carrie would disagree with D because, as you have correctly stated, she sees the motivation of an action as irrelevant to assessing that action's moral goodness. Thus, there could be an action performed for bad motivations that nonetheless fulfills a moral obligation, and thus meets Carrie's necessary criterion for an action to be morally good. So she would disagree that an action performed with the wrong motivations cannot be morally good: she would see a subset of actions performed with wrong motivations that still fulfill moral obligations, and thus could be morally good.

Good luck in your studies!

Dan

[Oneshot06]

Awesome, thanks Daniel!

[queenbee]

Hi
would you please share why E is incorrect? Daniel says that certain actions taken as a result of moral duty regardless of the consequences. But that action is not considered morally good just because of a moral obligation

Carrie says that our motivations are not under out control, so fulfilling a duty out of moral obligation is morally good.

So in my view, it seems that they disagree on whether an action purely based on moral duty is morally good or bad. Carrie would say it is good because we are not in control of our motivations. Daniel would not agree. It's our motivations to execute that duty, rather than completing the duty, that would determine if it's good or bad.

D talks out motivation behind any action. Carrie would not have an opinion (agree or disagree) if it was based on our motivation because we are not in control of them, where as Daniel would.

Why is this logic incorrect?

Thank you

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi queenbee

Answer choice (E) has the conditional flipped around. It's a mistaken reversal of the relationship in the stimulus. Answer choice (E) describes what is sufficient (enough) to know if an action is morally good. Our stimulus talks about what we can determine once we know an action is morally good. Answer choice (E) says motivation sense of duty morally good. Daniel says morally good right motivations, while Carrie states that morally good fulfills obligation. Answer choice (E) is not something either Daniel or Carrie is bound to agree with. We don't have enough knowledge to call it a point of disagreement.

However, let's look at answer choice (D). The answer choice says that an action with the wrong motivations cannot be morally good. Daniel would agree with that statement. If something is morally good it has to have the right motivations. For Carrie, she'd disagree. She doesn't think that motivation is required for moral goodness. She would disagree that wrong motivation requires that something is not morally good.

Hope that helps!