Deck 9: Evaluating Arguments From Analogy

Question 1

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) It's permissible for a surgeon to perform breast augmentation on a competent adult who wants it.
2) Performing a clitoridectomy (that is, the surgical excision of the clitoris) on a competent adult who wants it is relevantly similar to performing breast augmentation on a competent adult who wants it.
Thus, it's permissible for a surgeon to perform a clitoridectomy on a competent adult who wants it.
Proposed disanalogy: unlike breast augmentation, clitoridectomy removes part of a person's body.

A) Suppose a person wants to just get their clitoris scarred instead of totally removed as in a typical clitoridectomy. Now the procedure doesn't remove part of the body, so is it still permissible? Yes, so the difference is not relevant.
B) It doesn't matter whether the breast augmentation removes part of the body or not that's not relevant.
C) Suppose a person doesn't want a breast augmentation (which adds things to the body to make the breasts bigger) but instead wants a breast reduction surgery (which removes part of the breasts to make them smaller). Would this surgery still be morally permissible, even though the procedure now removes part of the person's body? Yes, it would. So, the difference is not relevant.
D) Suppose someone's breast augmentation didn't remove part of their body. That would change the morality of the situation, so the difference is relevant.

Answer 1

Suppose a person doesn't want a breast augmentation (which adds things to the body to make the breasts bigger) but instead wants a breast reduction surgery (which removes part of the breasts to make them smaller). Would this surgery still be morally permissible, even though the procedure now removes part of the person's body? Yes, it would. So, the difference is not relevant.

Question 2

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) It's permissible for a surgeon to perform breast augmentation on a competent adult who wants it.
2) Performing a clitoridectomy (that is, the surgical excision of the clitoris) on a competent adult who wants it is relevantly similar to performing breast augmentation on a competent adult who wants it.
Thus, it's permissible for a surgeon to perform a clitoridectomy on a competent adult who wants it
Proposed disanalogy: unlike breast augmentation, clitoridectomy deprives a person of the ability to feel sexual pleasure.

A) Suppose a person is going to get a breast augmentation, and the surgeon does an initial exam. She tells the patient that, due to a strange physiological quirk, she will likely lose the ability to feel sexual pleasure if she has the breast augmentation. The patient understands and wants the procedure anyway. Is it still permissible for the surgeon to perform the procedure? Yes. So, the difference is morally relevant.
B) Suppose a competent adult wants to have a clitoridectomy, but she finds out a way to have it done so that she will not be deprived at all of the ability to feel sexual pleasure. She goes to a surgeon who can do the procedure in this new way that doesn't deprive pleasure, and the surgeon does the procedure. Was it still
Permissible for the surgeon to do the procedure now that it doesn't deprive the woman of sexual pleasure? Yes. So, the difference is notrelevant.
C) Suppose a person is going to get a breast augmentation, and the surgeon does an initial exam. She tells the patient that, due to a strange physiological quirk, she will likely lose the ability to feel sexual pleasure if she has the breast augmentation. The patient understands and wants the procedure anyway. Is it still permissible for the surgeon to perform the procedure? Yes. So, the difference is not relevant.
D) It doesn't matter whether the breast augmentation deprives a person of sexual pleasure or not. That difference is not relevant.

Answer 2

Suppose a person is going to get a breast augmentation, and the surgeon does an initial exam. She tells the patient that, due to a strange physiological quirk, she will likely lose the ability to feel sexual pleasure if she has the breast augmentation. The patient understands and wants the procedure anyway. Is it still permissible for the surgeon to perform the procedure? Yes. So, the difference is not relevant.

Question 3

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) It's wrong for a professional athlete to use illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
2) A college student handing in a paper they bought on the internet is relevantly similar to a professional athlete using illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
So, it's wrong for a college student to hand in a paper they bought on the internet.
Proposed disanalogy: while performance enhancing drugs could directly prevent others from placing as well in a race (there is only one first place medal), a student doing well on a paper assignment because they turn in a purchased paper doesn't prevent others from doing as well on the paper.

A) Suppose there was a special term paper you could buy on the internet to hand in for your college class, but by buying it you would magically decrease your classmates' ability to write a good term paper. Would it still be wrong to buy this term paper and hand it in as your own? Yes! So, the difference is not relevant.
B) ^{Suppose there's a race that people participate in to try to get onto a professional} race team. Anyone who gets under a certain time will be considered for the team. One racer uses performance-enhancing drugs and gets under the time, thus earning consideration for the team, though they may not have if they hadn't used the drugs. This does not directly impact others' race times. But it is still clearly unfair to the other participants who followed the rules (and didn't use the drugs). So, using the drugs is still wrong. Thus, the difference ismorally relevant.
C) It makes absolutely no difference whether cheating impacts others' performance or not. Either way, it's still wrong.
D) Suppose there's a race that people participate in to try to get onto a professional race team. Anyone who gets under a certain time will be considered for the team. One racer uses performance-enhancing drugs and gets under the time, thus earning consideration for the team, though they may not have if they hadn't used the drugs. This does not directly impact others' race times. But it is still clearly unfair to the other participants who followed the rules (and didn't use the drugs). So, using the drugs is still wrong. Thus, the difference is notmorally relevant.

Answer 3

Suppose there's a race that people participate in to try to get onto a professional race team. Anyone who gets under a certain time will be considered for the team. One racer uses performance-enhancing drugs and gets under the time, thus earning consideration for the team, though they may not have if they hadn't used the drugs. This does not directly impact others' race times. But it is still clearly unfair to the other participants who followed the rules (and didn't use the drugs). So, using the drugs is still wrong. Thus, the difference is notmorally relevant.

Question 4

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) A state should provide all citizens with access to basic education.
2) A state providing access to basic healthcare is relevantly similar to a state providing access to basic education.
Therefore, a state should provide all citizens with access to basic healthcare.
Proposed disanalogy: while everyone needs the same amount and type of basic education, people don't all need the same type and amount of basic healthcare.

A) It doesn't matter whether everyone has the same needs or not, because the state should still provide each person with what they need. So, the difference
Is not morally relevant.
B) Suppose you live in a society where people have very different educational needs. Some people are born able to do algebra, read complex texts, or design scientific experiments, while others need to learn that through instruction. (Everyone still needs to learn something -- no one is born knowing everything they need to know.) In this case, should the state still provide everyone with access to basic education? Yes. So, the difference is morally relevant.
C) Suppose you live in a society where people have very different educational needs. Some people are born able to do algebra, read complex texts, or design scientific experiments, while others need to learn that through instruction. (Everyone still needs to learn something -- no one is born knowing everything they need to know.) In this case, should the state still provide everyone with access to basic education? Yes. So, the difference is not morally relevant.
D) Suppose that everyone in society was born with the exact same medical needs.
They got sick at the same time, with the same conditions, needed the same diagnostics and preventatives. In this case, should the state still provide all citizens with access to basic healthcare? Yes. So, the difference is not morally relevant.

Question 5

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) Entering your dog into a dog fight for money is morally wrong.
2) Eating factory-farmed meat is relevantly similar to entering your dog into a dog fight for money.
Therefore, eating factory-farmed meat is morally wrong.
Proposed disanalogy: a person who enters a dog in a fight is trying to make money from their dog's suffering and death; people who eat factory-farmed meat are not trying to make money from the suffering and death of the animals they eat.

A) Imagine someone who enters their dog in a dog fight not to make money but just to see the thrill of the fight. They don't make any money, but they don't care -- they love to see the powerful dogs rip each other up. Is it still wrong for them to enter their dogs in the fight, even though they're not making money? Yes. So, the difference is not morally relevant.
B) Suppose that a person who buys factory-farmed meat to consume actually found a way to earn money by doing so -- for every slice of veal, pig, or cow they bought they'd make more money in profits. Would it still be wrong to buy and consume the factory-farmed meat? Yes. So, the difference is not morally relevant.
C) Why should we think it matters whether someone is making money or not, especially if they're contributing to suffering when they do so? It does not matter. This difference is notmorally relevant.
D) Suppose someone who enters their dog in a dog fight not to make money but just to see the thrill of the fight. They don't make any money, but they don't care -- they love to see the powerful dogs rip each other up. Is it still wrong for them to enter their dogs in the fight, even though they're not making money? Yes. So, the difference is morally relevant.

Question 6

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
Case: Some adults have developmental disabilities that leave them unable to care for themselves. In the recent past, developmentally disabled adults who did not have family members able or willing to care for them were often confined in institutions. These institutions were often stifling: overcrowded, devoid of opportunities for stimulation or genuine interpersonal connection. We now recognize that these stifling institutions were cruel and abusive to the people confined in them.
1) It's wrong to confine developmentally disabled people in stifling institutions.
2) Confining orangutans in small, urban zoos is relevantly similar to confining developmentally disabled people in stifling institutions.
Therefore, it's wrong to confine orangutans in small, urban zoos.
Proposed disanalogy: unlike the stifling institutions, zoos provide educational opportunities for visitors.

A) It is clearly the case that this difference is not morally relevant. The presence or absence of educational opportunities for visitors in no way impacts the rightness or wrongness of confinement.
B) Suppose there's a small urban zoo that decides to make a change: they're going to get rid of the educational opportunities for visitors to the orangutan exhibit.
Visitors can no longer just come in to learn more about the animals; instead, they are kept mostly out of public view. Is it still wrong to confine orangutans in this zoo? Yes.
C) Imagine a stifling institution that has decided to make some improvements.
They're not improving the conditions for the residents. Instead, they're adding educational programming: visitors to the facility can learn all about the conditions the residents have and watch them go about their daily lives. Is it still wrong to keep people in this stifling institution even though it provides educational opportunities for visitors? Yes! So, the difference is morally relevant.
D) Imagine a stifling institution that has decided to make some improvements.
They're not improving the conditions for the residents. Instead, they're adding educational programming: visitors to the facility can learn all about the conditions the residents have and watch them go about their daily lives. Is it still wrong to
Keep people in this stifling institution even though it provides educational opportunities for visitors? Yes! So, the difference is not morally relevant.

Question 7

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1) It's wrong to end the life of a person in a temporary coma.
2) Having an abortion is relevantly similar to ending the life of a person in temporary coma. So, having an abortion is wrong.

Question 8

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1) Having a surgery that removes a benign tumor is morally permissible.
2) Having a first trimester abortion is relevantly similar to having a surgery that removes a benign tumor. So, having a first trimester abortion is morally permissible.

Question 9

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1) Driving a heavily-polluting car is wrong.
2) Refusing for non-medical reasons to vaccinate your child is relevantly similar to driving a heavily-polluting car. So, refusing for non-medical reasons to vaccinate your child is wrong.

Question 10

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1. People should be allowed to skydive
2. Refusing to vaccinate your child for non-medical reasons is relevantly similar to skydiving. So, people should be allowed to refuse to vaccinate their child for non-medical reasons

Question 11

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false
because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1) It is unjust for a society to systematically deny women education.
2) Systematically denying women access to birth control is relevantly similar to systematically denying them education.
So, it's unjust for a society to systematically deny women access to birth control.

Question 12

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
[note: commercial surrogacy is when a person carries a baby to term for someone else who can't do it themselves. Usually, a sperm and egg are joined in a lab and then implanted in the surrogate by in vitro fertilization -- so, no sex happens to make the baby.]
1) Prostitution shouldn't be legalized
2) Commercial surrogacy is relevantly similar to prostitution. So, commercial surrogacy shouldn't be legalized.

Question 13

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false
because…"
-Third [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
[note: physician-assisted suicide is when a doctor writes a prescription for a patient of an overdose of pain medications they can use to take their life if they have a terminal illness, have been verified to be psychologically competent, and have only a certain amount of time to live. Typically, they have a condition that is unbearably painful or will result in loss of their basic abilities to function.]
1) Doctors should consider sex with patients absolutely off limits.
2) Physician-assisted suicide is relevantly similar to sex with patients. So, doctors should consider assisted suicide absolutely off limits.

Question 14

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
[note: Plan B birth control is a pill you can take up to 72 hours after sex (for instance if protection was not used or the protection, such as a condom, failed) to prevent pregnancy. It works by preventing the newly fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Some people are opposed to the use of Plan B because they view it as wrong for the same reasons they think abortion is wrong.]
1) A vegetarian pharmacist has an obligation to fill medications that (because they were tested on animals) conflict with her personal values.
2)Anti-abortion pharmacists refusing to fill Plan B prescriptions because of personal objections is relevantly similar to vegetarian pharmacists refusing to fill medications tested on animals because of personal objections.
So, an anti-abortion pharmacist has a moral obligation to fill a Plan B prescription even if that conflicts with her personal values.

Question 15

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1) When faced with saving her own child or saving another, a mother is morally obligated to save her own child.
2) Doing painful or fatal experiments on animals to benefit humans is relevantly similar to a mother saving her own child instead of another.
So, we're morally obligated to do painful or fatal experiments on animals to benefit humans.

Question 16

Below is an Argument from Analogy in standard form. In 2 to 4 short paragraphs, do the following:
-First [1 point], suggest what you think is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. "Premise 2 is false because…"
-Second [1 point], test your suggested disanalogy for moral relevance. Be sure to describe your relevance test and explain what it shows.
The argument:
1) When faced with saving her own child or saving another, a mother is morally obligated to save her own child.
2) Doing painful or fatal experiments on animals to benefit humans is relevantly similar to a mother saving her own child instead of another.
So, we're morally obligated to do painful or fatal experiments on animals to benefit humans.