Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Helen Stone defends moral intuitions. "Our immediate moral responses provide data ethics must explain," Stone argues. "A theory contradicting strong intuitions—that torturing innocents is wrong—fails a crucial test."
Text 2: Cognitive psychologist Dr. David Park studies intuition origins. "Moral intuitions evolved for small-group living," Park notes. "Gut responses to trolley problems may reflect evolutionary history rather than ethical truth. Intuitions require critical examination, not deference."
Based on the texts, how does Park's evolutionary account affect Stone's methodological argument?
It supports Stone's claim that intuitions are reliable
It suggests intuitions might reflect evolutionary pressures rather than moral truth
It proves intuitions never exist
It argues ethics has no subject matter
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Stone treats intuitions as evidence of ethical truth. Park offers an alternative explanation—evolution—that doesn't require intuitions to track moral reality. Origin matters.
- Evidence: Park: intuitions may "reflect evolutionary history rather than ethical truth."
- Reasoning: If evolution explains intuitions, they needn't indicate what's right.
- Conclusion: Park provides a debunking explanation undermining Stone's evidential claim.
Choice A is incorrect because Park questions reliability. Choice C is incorrect because Park studies intuitions' existence. Choice D is incorrect because both engage ethics.