Analogical Arguments

1. Analogical Arguments 1

2. Analogy can be used as a kind of description. • E.g.: A good cook is hard to find. It is like trying to find a needle in a stack of hay. • But it can also be used as an argument: • E.g.: Logic is like algebra, both of them are the computation of symbols. Since you are good at algebra, you should be good at logic too.

3. Argument Form • Analogates A and B share properties x, y, and z. • A has property p. • Therefore, B also has property p. 3

4. The strength of an argument from analogy depends on several factors: • How property p is related to properties x, y, and z? • How many relevant similarities do the two analogates (A and B) share? • Are there any disanalogies between the two analogates which are related to p? 4

5. Sometimes, disanalogies between the analogates may strengthen rather than weaken the argument. • E.g.: If a dying animal is suffering immense pain, we will apply euthanasia to it for humanitarian reason. Therefore, if a dying patient has incurable pain and request for euthanasia, we should also grant his request.

6. There are 2 relevant disanalogies: • The patient will have greater psychological suffering than an animal. • The patient voluntarily choose euthanasia. • If euthanasia is justified for an animal because of its suffering, it will be more justified for the patient who has greater suffering and choose it voluntarily. • The disanalogies strengthen the argument.

7. Under what situations do we use analogical arguments? • We don’t know how to argue in a direct way. • E.g., Support abortion in the case of involuntary pregnancy but oppose abortion in the case of voluntary pregnancy. • The direct argument may be too difficult for our audience to understand. • The context demands a short and simple argument.

8. Was the Occupy Movement morally justified?

9. Argument (Con) • Both the Occupy Movement and Terrorism share the following characteristics: • Using illegal means in order to achieve a political ideal. • Causing harm to certain people. • Since terrorism is never morally justified, so was the Occupy Movement.

10. Argument (Pro) • A work strike is morally justified if it has the following conditions: • The workers have been exploited. • It is planned to be peaceful. • It is the last resort. • The harm to the public is small and short-term.

11. The Occupy Movement had the following characteristics: • HK people have been deprived of democracy. • It was planned to be peaceful. • It was the last resort. • The harm to the public was small and short-term . • Therefore, the Occupy Movement was morally justified.

12. Should we accept the non-genuine universal suffrage?

13. Argument (Pro) • Non-genuine universal suffrage is a non-ideal gift. • We gain something by accepting a gift, whether it is ideal or not. • We should accept non-genuine universal suffrage as long as it is available.

14. Argument (Con) • Non-genuine universal suffrage is like fake medicine. • Both are harmful. • No one will take fake medicine even if she is sick. • We should not accept non-genuine universal suffrage.

15. Do we have an obligation to save the starving children in the third world?

16. Every year, tens of thousands of African children die due to malnutrition. • Suppose you encounter a UNICEF volunteer who asks you to donate $1000, which can prevent a child in Africa from dying due to malnutrition. • Do you have an obligation to donate the sum?

17. Argument (Pro) • Suppose you see a drowning child in a shallow pond. • You are the only one at the scene. • You have an obligation to save the child. • You also have an obligation to save an African child.

18. Objection 1 • To save the drowning child, one only needs to get wet. • No financial sacrifice is needed.

19. Response • Suppose you are wearing a pair of jeans worth $1000 when you see the drowning child. • The pond is full of dirt that will ruin your jeans. • Can you ethically let the child die in order to save your jeans?

20. Objection 2 • In the drowning case, I am the ONLY one who can help. • In the malnutrition case, there are many people who can donate $1000.

21. Response • Go back to the drowning case. • Suppose that there is another person noticing the child. • But you know that he will not help the child because he is actually amused in seeing the child struggle. • Would you be less wrong?

22. We know that most others won’t donate or won’t donate enough. • We can be sure that our donation would save a life that would not otherwise be saved. • This is enough to show that we have a moral obligation.

23. Objection 3 • In the drowning case, there is a child who needs help. • In the malnutrition case, although I can save one African child, there are still many African children will die.

24. Response • Suppose you see 10 drowning kids in the pond. • You cannot save all of them. • Can this be a reason to let all of them die?

25. Objection 4 • African children are far away from me, but the drowning child is just in front of me.

26. Response • Suppose you travel in Africa and encounter a volunteer of UNICEF who asks you to give donations. • Are you more obliged to donate in this situation? • If no, the distance between us and others makes no difference to our obligation to others.

27. Objection 5 • We have less obligation regarding people of different nationalities.

28. Response • Suppose the drowning child is an African, you still have the same obligation to save her.