Text 1: Political theorist Dr. Lisa Moore defends cosmopolitan obligations. "National borders are morally arbitrary," Moore argues. "We owe the same consideration to people regardless of their birthplace. Justice demands global concern."
Text 2: Communitarian Dr. James Wong emphasizes particular bonds. "We have stronger obligations to family, community, and compatriots," Wong contends. "Partiality isn't bias—it reflects relationships that give meaning to life. Impartiality erases morally significant ties."
What is the fundamental tension between Moore's and Wong's ethical frameworks?
Whether ethics can address political questions
Whether moral obligations arise from impartial principles or particular relationships
Whether nations exist at all
Whether families have any ethical significance
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Moore starts from impartial principles—equal concern. Wong starts from particular relationships—graduated obligations. Universal impartiality vs. relational partiality.
- Evidence: Moore: arbitrary borders, equal consideration; Wong: particular bonds, stronger obligations.
- Reasoning: Different foundations yield different duty distributions.
- Conclusion: Impartial vs. relational is the fundamental tension.
Choice A is incorrect because both address political ethics. Choice C is incorrect because both discuss nations. Choice D is incorrect because Wong explicitly values families.