Moral motivation internalism holds that genuinely making a moral judgment necessarily motivates (to some degree) acting on it. If you truly judge helping is right, you're thereby motivated to help. Externalism denies this necessary connection: you might sincerely judge something right while being completely unmotivated due to depression, weakness of will, or amorality. The debate connects to whether amoralism (knowing right from wrong but not caring) is conceptually coherent.
The passage suggests that
how we understand the connection between moral judgment and motivation may have implications for understanding the possibility of certain character types
all moral judgments automatically produce action
depression and weakness of will never affect moral behavior
internalists deny any connection between judgment and motivation
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. The debate about motivation connects to whether amoralism is possible.
- Context clues: The debate "connects to whether amoralism...is conceptually coherent."
- Meaning: One's position on motivation determines whether certain character types make sense.
- Verify: If internalism is true, amoralism is incoherent; if externalism is true, it's coherent.
💡 Strategy: When a debate's outcome determines whether something is possible, infer implications for possibility.
Choice B is incorrect because internalism claims motivation, not automatic action. Choice C is incorrect because externalists cite these as reasons motivation can fail. Choice D is incorrect because internalism claims a necessary connection.