According to Woollard, how does Unger argue that our intuitions do not treat proximity as morally relevant when it comes to Pond and Envelope cases?
A) Unger argues that in both Pond and Envelope cases, our intuitions say that you are always required to help a child in need regardless of whether the child is close by.
B) Unger shows that there are Pond cases where our intuitions say you are required to help although the victim is far away, and there are Envelope cases where our intuition say you are not required to help although the victim is close by.
C) Unger argues that in both Pond and Envelope cases, our intuitions say that you are not obligated to aid a child in need if he or she is far away but you are obligated to aid the child if he or she is close by.
D) Unger argues that although our intuitions differ as to whether proximity is morally relevant, more than seventy percent of people report thinking that the proximity of a victim is irrelevant to our obligation to aid that victim.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Unger's argument, as interpreted by Woollard, suggests that our moral intuitions about the obligation to help others do not consistently treat physical proximity as a morally relevant factor. This is demonstrated through the comparison of Pond and Envelope cases, where our intuitions about the necessity of aid do not align with the physical closeness of the person in need.

According to Woollard, How Does Unger Argue That Our Intuitions