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

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of 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.

Below Is an Argument from Analogy Along with a Proposed