Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation _______.
Summary
The philosopher says that nations are not persons, and do not think, feel, or perform actions. They therefore have no moral rights or responsibilities. However, in order for a nation to survive, its citizens must attribute rights and responsibilities to the nation, because this is necessary to drive people to sacrifice for their nation. So, what can we conclude about nations?
In Lawgic:
P1: nation → /person & /think & /feel & /act → /rights & /responsibilities
P2: nation survives → citizens sacrifice → citizens attribute rights & responsibilities
C: ?
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The philosopher’s claims let us conclude that a nation can only survive if its citizens believe something that is false, i.e. that the nation has rights and responsibilities.
A
cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices
This is not supported. The philosopher doesn’t suggest another factor that could be needed to motivate citizens. In fact, the philosopher says this false belief is the only thing that can motivate citizens to make sacrifices, so suggesting another motivator doesn’t make sense.
B
cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false
This is strongly supported. The philosopher establishes that a nation cannot survive unless its citizens attribute rights and responsibilities to it. We know that nations can’t actually have rights and responsibilities, so survival requires citizens to hold a false belief.
C
can never be a target of moral praise or blame
This is not supported. The philosopher doesn’t discuss moral praise and blame, so we don’t know what relationship—if any—they have to concepts like moral rights and responsibilities. Because of that, we can’t say if nations could or could not be targeted.
D
is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf
This is not supported. The philosopher doesn’t bring up the idea of worthiness at all, and definitely doesn’t make a claim about whether or not nations are worthy of their citizens’ sacrifices.
E
should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms
This is anti-supported. The philosopher begins by discussing nations in literal terms (i.e. explaining that they are not literally persons), which strongly implies that it’s legitimate to at least sometimes discuss nations in literal terms.