The passage below makes a moral IBE argument. Do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, evaluate premise 2 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument by suggesting an opposing alternative principle that explains the paradigm cases.
The passage:
In 1999, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a group of animal rights activists, carried out a massive direct action campaign against the University of Minnesota. Activists broke into twelve labs, destroying and vandalizing equipment and freeing more than one hundred animals (including pigeons, mice, rats, and salamanders). The raids caused $1 million in damage and, according to officials at the University, have seriously impeded important medical research on conditions such as cancer and Parkinson's disease. After taking credit for the raid, the ALF announced that the animals had already been placed in homes.
Despite their admirable concern for the welfare of animals, however, this raid violates basic standards of moral decency. Suppose someone who opposed the negative environmental impacts of cars went around destroying people's personal vehicles. Clearly that would be wrong. The same would be true of well-meaning activists who destroyed soda machines (in ways that scared children) to help prevent childhood obesity, or an opponent of a local tax referendum who used personal threats to silence opponents. These cases suggest it is morally wrong to use methods intended to spread fear as a means to achieving a controversial social or political objective. It is therefore obvious that the ALF's Minneapolis raid was morally reprehensible.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The passage below makes a moral IBE argument. Do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, evaluate premise 2 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument by suggesting an opposing alternative principle that explains the paradigm cases.
The passage:
In 1999, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a group of animal rights activists, carried out a massive direct action campaign against the University of Minnesota. Activists broke into twelve labs, destroying and vandalizing equipment and freeing more than one hundred animals (including pigeons, mice, rats, and salamanders). The raids caused $1 million in damage and, according to officials at the University, have seriously impeded important medical research on conditions such as cancer and Parkinson's disease. After taking credit for the raid, the ALF announced that the animals had already been placed in homes.
Despite their admirable concern for the welfare of animals, however, this raid violates basic standards of moral decency. Suppose someone who opposed the negative environmental impacts of cars went around destroying people's personal vehicles. Clearly that would be wrong. The same would be true of well-meaning activists who destroyed soda machines (in ways that scared children) to help prevent childhood obesity, or an opponent of a local tax referendum who used personal threats to silence opponents. These cases suggest it is morally wrong to use methods intended to spread fear as a means to achieving a controversial social or political objective. It is therefore obvious that the ALF's Minneapolis raid was morally reprehensible.

The Passage Below Makes a Moral IBE Argument