Which statement about prima facie principle is true?

• A. It is always binding with no exceptions
• B. It governs only moral rules about harm
• C. It is the same as the absolute principle
• D. It applies in all cases unless an exception is warranted

Answer: (D)

Prima facie duties are obligations that seem binding at first glance, but they are defeasible because another duty can take precedence in a given situation. The concept being tested here is that these duties guide us in weighing what we owe in specific contexts rather than acting as unconditional rules. Because of this, the statement that they apply in all cases unless an exception is warranted is the best fit: we consider prima facie duties in every case, but an exception arises when a more overriding duty or stronger consideration demands it, thus overruling the prima facie obligation. For example, the duty to tell the truth is a prima facie obligation, but if telling the truth would cause serious harm, the duty to prevent harm can override. Likewise, the duty to keep a promise isn’t absolute if keeping it would produce greater harm. These duties cover a range of obligations—fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, non-maleficence—none of which are unconditional. It’s not the same as an absolute principle, which would bind in all circumstances regardless of other factors.