Q21 - Columnist: although there is and

[celene0007]

Hello, can someone please explain to me why answer C is correct and not answer B. Thank you!

[noah]

We're looking to find an answer that utilizes the stated principle, which can be boiled down to this:

1. You have the right to say what you want.
2. But there are things that are related to that right that are wrong.

(C) matches that: yes, you have the right to publish books (say what you want), but it's still wrong to print certain books (there are things that are related to that right that are not acceptable).

(A) doesn't address the second part.

(B) starts out promisingly - we're told about a right. However, we're not told that some things that are related to that right are not OK. We're missing part 2. Saying that movie makers can refrain from making depraved movies is a far cry from saying that some depraved movies are wrong.

(D) is also tempting. We see the second part of the above (there are things that are not acceptable to do) in the last part of (D) - the government can limit production...- but where is there something about freedom of thought and expression? The first part of (D) is about people buying whatever they want, not expressing whatever they want. Furthermore, doesn't the government limiting the production of certain recordings represent a violation of the freedom of thought and expression?

(E) does not match either parts of the principle - it's focusing on what an advocate of freedom of speech should not criticize. Where is the discussion of rights and some things being inappropriate?

[peg_city]

I still don't get why B is wrong and C is right in this situation.

Stimulus - 'Although there is complete freedom'
B) People have the freedom to do something and also not do something

C) 'There should be no laws restricting what books are published, but books that pander to people with depraved tastes is not morally acceptable.' No where does it mention morals and we are assuming that 'does not mean that there is nothing wrong' translates to morally acceptable.

[noah]

Stimulus - 'Although there is complete freedom'

The stimulus involves a bit more than that. I edited my original explanation to make it a bit clearer.

B) People have the freedom to do something and also not do something

But the stimulus involves two parts - where is the match with the part about some things being wrong, even though we have the right to do it?

C) No where does it mention morals and we are assuming that 'does not mean that there is nothing wrong' translates to morally acceptable.

I think you have the stimulus a bit twisted. I'm reading "does not mean that there is nothing wrong" to mean that there IS something wrong! And, "not morally acceptable" falls under something being wrong.

It's good that your on the lookout for a detail creep, but here the switch is acceptable.

[zainrizvi]

Wouldn't (D) also be wrong because it doesn't really match the second part of the argument either. "There is something wrong with exploiting" doesn't really match up with government limiting production of recordings... I think the something wrong was definitely implying more of a moral judgement and (D) takes too far of a leap with that.

[noah]

Wouldn't (D) also be wrong because it doesn't really match the second part of the argument either. "There is something wrong with exploiting" doesn't really match up with government limiting production of recordings... I think the something wrong was definitely implying more of a moral judgement and (D) takes too far of a leap with that.

I agree. I edited my original explanation a bit in light of your comment. Thanks!

[Dkrajewski30]

I chose D, but now see why that choice is wrong, mainly on the grounds that the principle doesn't address purchasing freedom, but freedom of thought and expression, and purchasing freedom isn't encompassed by that.

However, D does seem to imply to me that the gov could think there's something wrong with selling depraved things for financial gain (in this case, recordings). That said, the second part of D is too weak. All it's saying, basically, is that the gov has the option to limit production of depraved things if it so chooses - D takes no firm stand on whether such an act of limitation is morally appropriate. So not only does the first half of D address an out of scope freedom, but the second half is too weak to capture the stand taken by the principle.

Here's what deterred me from C. The principle suggests that exploiting depraved tastes for financial gain is wrong. C states that publishers pandering to depraved tastes is wrong. However, the exploitation for financial part need not necessarily come into play here. Looking back at this question, I should've seen that it's reasonable to suspect that the publishers, in pandering to depraved tastes, are seeking financial gain. And so C captures the principle nearly perfectly.