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 _______.
The philosopher starts with a straightforward observation: nations aren't literally people. They don't think, feel, or perform actions. Therefore, nations have no moral rights or responsibilities.
But then comes a complication. No nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute moral rights and responsibilities to it. And why is this attribution necessary? Because nothing else can motivate people to make the sacrifices that citizenship requires. If you want people to put their lives on the line for a country, those people need to believe the country has rights worth defending. Remove that belief, and nobody's volunteering for anything.
Here's the tension:
The belief that a nation has moral rights is, by the philosopher's own account, literally false. But that false belief is also a prerequisite for the nation's survival. The blank needs to capture this contradiction.
The blank follows "obviously, then," which tells us the answer should follow clearly from the premises. We know it'll involve the conflict between nations not having moral rights and citizens needing to believe they do. But predicting the exact wording is tough, so we'll rely on process of elimination.
Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher's argument?
cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices
This contradicts the stimulus. The philosopher just told us that nothing besides the attribution of moral rights can motivate the sacrifices citizenship requires. But (A) says the nation needs "something other than the false belief" to motivate its citizens. Why would the philosopher conclude that another motivator is needed right after stating that no other motivator exists?
You might be drawn to (A) because it mentions a "false belief that the nation has moral rights." But (A) isn't saying the false belief is necessary. It's saying something besides the false belief is necessary. That's the opposite of what the stimulus establishes.
cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false
This follows from combining the philosopher's premises. First, nations don't actually have moral rights or responsibilities. That means the belief that a nation does have moral rights is literally false. Second, no nation can survive unless many citizens attribute moral rights and responsibilities to it. In other words, many citizens must hold this literally false belief. Put those together, and a nation can't survive unless many citizens hold at least one belief that is literally false.
You might wonder whether "attributing" rights to a nation is the same as genuinely believing it has rights. Could citizens just act as if nations have rights while knowing it's not literally true? The philosopher's reasoning forecloses this. The whole point of the attribution is that it must be strong enough to
can never be a target of moral praise or blame
The philosopher says nations have no moral rights or responsibilities. But that doesn't mean people can't direct moral praise or blame at nations. People praise and blame all kinds of things. The philosopher's argument is about what's true of nations and what citizens must believe for survival, not about what people are or aren't allowed to say. The citizens who attribute rights to nations could still criticize those nations.
is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf
The philosopher makes no value judgment about whether nations deserve the sacrifices their citizens make. He's describing the conditions required for national survival, not evaluating whether those conditions are fair or justified. Nothing in the stimulus gives us a basis for assessing a nation's "worth" relative to its citizens' sacrifices.
should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms
The philosopher is describing facts, not making recommendations about how people should think. Every statement in the stimulus is an observation about what's true or what's required for survival. None of this leads to a prescription about metaphorical thinking. And the fact that nations aren't literally persons doesn't imply anything about whether they should be thought of as metaphorical persons.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic