Question

philosophers note that many people have an intuitive sense that while we ought not to lie, there may be circumstances in which lying is permissible. if this intuition is correct and we lack an inviolable duty to speak truthfully, what grounds opposition to lying in the first place? japa pallikkathayil has advanced one answer by appealing to a duty to respect others agential interests: the possession of false beliefs constrains agency; and thus we ought not to impede the formation of true beliefs unless doing so prevents a greater constraint on someones agency or an otherwise impermissible end. which choice best states the main idea of the text? a pallikkathayils argument suggests that if we have a duty to respect other peoples agential interests and possession of false beliefs constrains agency, then we have an inviolable duty to speak truthfully. b pallikkathayils argument shows that if our intuition that circumstances may make lying permissible is correct, then it is unclear whether there are any grounds for an opposition to lying in the first place. c one potential means of justifying opposition to lying is pallikkathayils argument that we have an obligation to respect other peoples agency that entails a commitment to truthfulness except in certain circumstances. d many people have an intuitive sense that lying is permissible in some circumstances but lack a principled way to identify those circumstances, and pallikkathayils argument may provide a means of resolving that problem.

Explanation:

The text starts by presenting a philosophical question about the grounds for opposing lying when there's an intuition that lying can be permissible in some cases. Then it introduces Japa Pallikkathayil's argument. Pallikkathayil's argument is centered around a duty to respect others' agential interests. False beliefs constrain agency, so we should not impede the formation of true beliefs unless it prevents a greater constraint on someone's agency or an otherwise impermissible end. This means there's an obligation to be truthful except in certain circumstances (when a greater harm to agency can be prevented).

• Option A is incorrect because Pallikkathayil's argument does not suggest an "inviolable" duty. The text clearly states there are circumstances where lying might be allowed (to prevent a greater constraint on agency).
• Option B is wrong. The text shows that Pallikkathayil does provide a ground (duty to respect agential interests) for opposing lying, so it's not unclear if there are grounds.
• Option D is off - base. The text is not about people lacking a way to identify circumstances where lying is okay. It's about Pallikkathayil's argument for the general opposition to lying with exceptions.
• Option C correctly captures that Pallikkathayil's argument is a way (potential means) to justify opposition to lying (commitment to truthfulness) with exceptions (except in certain circumstances).

Answer:

C. One potential means of justifying opposition to lying is Pallikkathayil’s argument that we have an obligation to respect other people’s agency that entails a commitment to truthfulness except in certain circumstances.