Question

natasha uses the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) for all her moral decisions. one day, she loans $100 to her friend alexei and has him swear that he will pay her back in one weeks time. in a week, natasha comes knocking on alexeis door, expecting him to pay her back. alexei asks her the following question: if you had borrowed money from someone and promised to pay it back a week later, wouldnt you be thrilled if they came to you after that week and said that there was no need to pay the loan back? natasha agreed that if she were in that situation, that outcome would greatly please her. alexei then replies, good. that means i dont have to pay the money back to you. what is the most likely explanation for the conclusion that alexei has drawn? a. when she made the loan, natasha was not explicit that she expected alexei to pay him back, so he is not bound to do so b. natashas embrace of the golden rule has the implication of moral nihilism—there are no moral obligations at all, so alexei has no obligation to pay his debts. c. natashas embrace of the golden rule obliges her to excuse alexeis debt—after all, she must do unto alexei what she would have done unto herself. d. alexei has implicitly agreed that in the future, if natasha were to borrow money from him he would excuse her debt, which requires her to excuse his debt now.

Explanation:

Alexei interprets Natasha's embrace of the Golden Rule to mean she should excuse his debt since she'd want her debt excused if in his place. Option c correctly reflects this interpretation. Option a is wrong as Natasha did have Alexei swear to pay back. Option b misinterprets the Golden Rule as moral nihilism. Option d has no basis as there's no such implicit agreement mentioned.

Answer:

C. Natasha's embrace of the Golden Rule obliges her to excuse Alexei's debt—after all, she must do unto Alexei what she would have done unto herself