Multiple Choice
What's the result if it turns out that we are left with no defensible principle to support the claim that I have a moral obligation not to drive a gas guzzler just for fun?
A) We should stop stigmatizing people who drive SUVs
B) It would show that this claim is false
C) It only shows that we do not know whether it is morally wrong
D) Environmentalists are wrong in their beliefs
E) It would be impossible for someone to come up with a defensible principle
Correct Answer:
Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q3: Sinnott-Armstrong points out that greenhouse gases are
Q4: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong doesn't discuss every imaginable principle.
Q5: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong says that "side-stepping" through virtue
Q6: Which of the following is NOT an
Q7: According to Sinnott-Armstrong, one way to confirm
Q8: Sinnott-Armstrong claims that there is no way
Q9: According to Sinnott-Armstrong, going on a drive
Q10: According to Sinnott-Armstrong, who's morally obligated to
Q11: Some environmentalists withdraw into a simple life
Q12: It isn't easy to get people to