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

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:
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.

Below Is an Argument from Analogy Along with a Proposed