Deck 7: Reasoning With Analogies

Question 1

In DEFENSE OF DOPING, in Chapter 7, what is supposedly implied by the similarity between using performing-enhancing drugs in sports and hiring a better coach?

A) That hiring a better coach is morally wrong.
B) That using performance-enhancing drugs is permissible.
C) That using performance-enhancing drugs is no worse than hiring a better coach.
D) That hiring a better coach is permissible, but using performance-enhancing drugs is not.

Answer 1

B

Question 2

What is an argument by analogy?

A) An argument that because two cases are exactly alike, we should make the same moral judgment about them.
B) An argument that although two cases aren't really alike, we should still make the same moral judgment about them.
C) An argument that because an action resembles the action that a virtuous person would do, it is a virtuous action.
D) An argument that because two things are similar in some ways, they are also similar in some further way.

Answer 2

D

Question 3

How are arguments by analogy often used in ethics, according to Chapter 7?

A) To show that because an action resembles some other action that is clearly morally wrong, the first action is also morally wrong.
B) To show that because an action differs in important ways from some other action that is morally wrong, the first action is not morally wrong.
C) To show that you cannot compare two actions, morally speaking, because of specific significant differences between them.
D) To show that because an action resembles some other action that is illegal, the first action is morally wrong, even if it is not technically illegal.

Answer 3

A

Question 4

In the conclusion of GENERIC ARGUMENT FOR ANALOGY, which is given in Chapter 7 as "Y is also M," what do Y and M stand for?

A) Y stands for some action and M stands for "morally permissible."
B) Y stands for a pair of actions and M stands for a particular kind of moral equivalence between them.
C) Y stands for some action and M stands for a specific moral property, such as being morally permissible.
D) Y stands for some action and M stands for a specific thick ethical term, such as "brave."

Question 5

According to Chapter 7, why do the nonmoral similarities between two actions support the claim that we should make the same moral judgments about them?

A) Because we should treat like cases alike.
B) Because that is how common-law legal systems work.
C) Because it is rhetorically persuasive to draw analogies.
D) Because the nonmoral similarities provoke similar moral intuitions.

Question 6

What kind of moral arguments depend on the idea that we should treat like cases alike?

A) Arguments using obligations.
B) Arguments using counterexamples.
C) Arguments using virtues and vices.
D) Arguments using analogies.

Question 7

Which of the following best explains why drawing analogies between two actions can lead to a particular moral conclusion about one of them?

A) People must be able to depend on others' consistent judgment from one case to the next, and so it is important not to change your mind about your moral judgments.
B) Because, as the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
C) If two things are similar enough in nonmoral ways, then it would be inconsistent or even hypocritical to make different moral judgments about them.
D) By provoking moral intuitions related to one action, the argument can provoke similar moral intuitions about the second action.

Question 8

What is a legal precedent?

A) A legal case that resembles another case that has already been decided by another court.
B) A legal case that imposes limits on how a court of law may rule on similar cases in the future.
C) A legal principle requiring courts to issue similar judgments in relevantly similar cases.
D) A feature of a legal case that justifies a judge in ruling differently in one case than in another.

Question 9

Which of the following best explains what it means to say that two actions are relevantly similar, as explained in Chapter 7?

A) That you should make the same moral judgment about the two actions.
B) That the two actions are exactly the same except for who is involved in the actions.
C) That they are similar enough in all of the ways that are relevant for the moral property being applied to both.
D) That the two actions are similar when compared to other actions of the same type.

Question 10

Which of the following concepts is critical to evaluating arguments by analogy?

A) Relative similarity.
B) Sufficiency.
C) Supererogation.
D) Relevant similarity.

Question 11

Which of the following best captures the process of evaluating an argument by analogy?

A) Consider all of the relevant similarities to determine whether they are strong enough to establish the argument's conclusion.
B) Brainstorm every possible similarity between the two actions to determine whether there are enough to outweigh the differences.
C) Count the number of similarities and differences to see whether the actions are more similar or more different.
D) Consider all of the relevant similarities and differences between the two actions to determine whether the similarities outweigh the differences.

Question 12

What is an "evolving analogy," as explained in Chapter 7?

A) An argument by analogy that compares an action to some natural process, such as evolution.
B) A series of arguments by analogy that begin with a simple analogy and gradually make it more complicated to better reflect the real world.
C) A kind of argument by analogy that focuses on the way an action, process, or institution develops over time.
D) A set of arguments by analogy that all resemble each other, which can be used together to make an argument about another set of actions.

Question 13

Critics often respond to the DROWNING CHILD argument from Chapter 7 by pointing out differences between the case of the child drowning in a pond and the case of children dying from poverty in distant countries. How does Peter Singer respond when people point out those differences?

A) He "bites the bullet" and admits that the conclusion holds despite those morally relevant differences.
B) He insists that his moral intuition is that those differences are not morally relevant.
C) He changes the scenario in the analogy to eliminate those differences (e.g., by adding other people near the pond who could help).
D) He points out that such differences do not undermine the point about having obligations to save people in your own community.

Question 14

According to Chapter 7, what is the main problem with drawing exaggerated analogies to especially horrific things, such as slavery or the Holocaust?

A) Many such arguments are politically incorrect.
B) The relevant differences between, for example, slavery and the thing you're comparing it to will probably outweigh the differences between them.
C) Using exaggerated rhetoric to force others to accept their viewpoint is exactly what the Nazis did.
D) Exaggerated analogies can activate strong emotions in people who agree with you.

Question 15

According to Chapter 7, comparing an action to something especially horrific, such as slavery or the Nazis, is:

A) Not likely to lead to a cogent argument because the relevant differences will outweigh the relevant similarities.
B) Likely to lead to a cogent argument because it will lead people who were inclined to agree with your conclusion to feel more strongly about that conclusion.
C) Likely to lead to a cogent argument because the horrific thing is so clearly morally wrong.
D) Not likely to lead to a cogent argument because the argument will make people feel like they're being manipulated.

Question 16

A refutation by logical analogy is:

A) An objection that refutes an argument by analogy.
B) An objection that draws an analogy between an action being presented as morally permissible and an action that is clearly morally wrong.
C) An objection that draws an analogy between the argument being criticized and a similar argument that is clearly not cogent.
D) An objection that takes the form of an argument by analogy.

Question 17

Which of the following best explains the idea of a refutation by logical analogy?

A) An analogy between two arguments, one of which is obviously flawed, intended to show that the other argument is also flawed.
B) An analogy between two arguments by analogy, intended to show that because the first one is cogent, so is the second.
C) An analogy between an objection to one argument and an objection to another, intended to show that the second objection succeeds.
D) An analogy between two actions, one of which is clearly morally wrong, intended to show that the other action is morally wrong.

Question 18

What is a refutation by logical analogy supposed to show?

A) That an action is morally wrong because it closely resembles a different action that is clearly wrong.
B) That you should not accept an argument by analogy because you did not accept an identical argument about two different actions.
C) That an argument is flawed because it closely resembles a different argument that is clearly flawed.
D) That you should accept an argument by analogy because you accepted a similar argument about two different actions.

Question 19

Which of the following best captures Stewart Cameron and Raymond Hoffenberg's objection to DONOR RISK, which argued that it is morally wrong to sell one's kidney?

A) DONOR RISKS focuses only on the financial gain from selling one's kidney, but ignores the similarities between selling one's kidney and donating one's time or services to help others.
B) DONOR RISK is relevantly similar to the clearly faulty argument that it's wrong to donate one's kidney because doing so leaves you at greater risk for illness or death.
C) DONOR RISK is relevantly similar to the clearly faulty argument that it's wrong to take a dangerous job, such as working in construction, because doing so involves risking death for financial reasons.
D) DONOR RISK is clearly faulty because it is morally permissible to donate your kidney to someone, and it's permissible to sell anything that it is permissible to give away for free.

Question 20

To what does Judith Jarvis Thomson compare unprotected sex in her refutation of the claim that it is always wrong for a woman to get an abortion if she became pregnant as a result of unprotected sex?

A) Leaving the window to your apartment open.
B) Buying a lottery ticket.
C) Going for a joyride in a fast car.
D) Russian roulette.

Question 21

Which of the following best captures Judith Jarvis Thomson's response to the UNPROTECTED SEX argument against abortion?

A) UNPROTECTED SEX is a cogent argument but it only applies to women who recognized that their actions involved a risk of pregnancy and failed to take steps to prevent pregnancy.
B) UNPROTECTED SEX is not cogent because it fails to account for women who were misled into thinking that their sexual partner was infertile or was going to use a condom.
C) UNPROTECTED SEX is not cogent because it is relevantly similar to the argument that if a burglar enters your apartment because you left the window open, you may not evict him because you are partially responsible for his presence there.
D) UNPROTECTED SEX is a cogent argument but it does not apply to women who were willing to get pregnant at the time they had unprotected sex but later changed their mind because of changes in their life circumstances.

Question 22

The DEFENSE OF DOPING argument in Chapter 7 argues that using performing-enhancing drugs is permissible as long as it goes undetected because all sports involve some level of cheating.

Question 23

The DEFENSE OF DOPING argument in Chapter 7 argues that because it is morally permissible for an athlete to hire a better coach and because hiring a better coach is relevantly similar to using performance-enhancing drugs, it is also morally permissible for an athlete to use performance-enhancing drugs.

Question 24

A moral argument by analogy argues that two actions are morally similar because they are relevantly similar in nonmoral ways.

Question 25

A moral argument by analogy argues that because one action is relevantly similar to another action and the other action has a particular moral property (e.g., moral permissibility or moral wrongness), the first action also has that same moral property.

Question 26

Arguing that action X is wrong because it is relevantly similar to action Y and action Y is morally wrong would be offering an argument by analogy.

Question 27

Arguments by analogy only work when comparing identical actions performed by different people.

Question 28

Arguments by analogy rely on the idea that we should treat like cases alike.

Question 29

Because they rely on the ideas of consistency and hypocrisy, arguments by analogy are a form of reasoning using virtues and vices.

Question 30

A legal precedent is a legal case that has already been decided that affects how judges may rule on relevantly similar cases in the future.

Question 31

In evaluating an argument by analogy, the only premise that needs to be evaluated for acceptability is the premise that claims the two actions are relevantly similar.

Question 32

In determining whether two actions are relevantly similar, you need only consider similarities between the two actions.

Question 33

To determine whether two actions are relevantly similar, you count the number of relevant similarities and relevant differences to see whether there are more similarities than differences.

Question 34

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is a clear algorithm for determining whether the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

Question 35

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is no definitive way to show that the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

Question 36

Determining whether two actions are relevantly similar ultimately depends on a judgment call about the relative weight of the similarities and differences between the actions.

Question 37

An "evolving analogy," as explained in Chapter 7, is a series of arguments by analogy that become gradually more complicated to reflect the complexity of the real world.

Question 38

An "evolving analogy," as explained in Chapter 7, is a fallacious kind of argument by analogy in which the arguer continually revises the analogy to avoid objections and counterexamples.

Question 39

The DROWNING CHILD argument, based on Peter Singer's work, is supposed to show that most Americans are obligated to donate money to fight global poverty.

Question 40

Peter Singer responds to objections to the DROWNING CHILD argument using an evolving analogy.

Question 41

A refutation by logical analogy is a form of objection that compares an argument to a relevantly similar argument that is clearly faulty.

Question 42

Drawing an analogy between an argument and a different, clearly flawed argument is called refutation by logical analogy.

Question 43

A refutation by logical analogy only works against arguments by analogy.

Question 44

Any successful objection to an argument by analogy is called a refutation by logical analogy.

Question 45

A successful refutation by logical analogy must always explain exactly what's wrong with the arguments being compared.

Question 46

Judith Jarvis Thomson uses an argument about a burglar who climbs through an open window as part of a refutation by logical analogy.

Question 47

In your own words, explain the DEFENSE OF DOPING argument from the beginning of Chapter 7. Do you think the argument is successful? Why or why not?

Question 48

What is a moral argument by analogy? Give an example, other than one that was given in the textbook.

Question 49

Why do the similarities between two actions give us reason to believe that we should make similar moral judgments about them?

Question 50

In your own words, explain the idea of a legal precedent. How are legal precedents related to moral arguments by analogy?

Question 51

In your own words, explain the process of evaluating an argument by analogy.

Question 52

What makes a similarity or difference between two actions relevant for the purposes of a moral argument by analogy?

Question 53

What is an evolving analogy? When might it be useful to use one?

Question 54

What's wrong, according to Chapter 7, with using comparisons to really horrific things, such as slavery or the Holocaust, to make an argument by analogy?

Question 55

In your own words, explain the DROWNING CHILD argument from Chapter 7. What is one seemingly relevant difference that you see between the two actions being compared in that argument? How might you change the analogy to eliminate that difference?

Question 56

What is a refutation by logical analogy?

Question 57

Give your own example of a refutation by logical analogy, other than one that was given in the textbook.

Question 58

In your own words, explain the DONOR RISK argument from Chapter 7, along with Stewart Cameron and Raymond Hoffenberg's refutation of it. Do you think Cameron and Hoffenberg's refutation works? Why or why not?

Question 59

In your own words, explain Judith Jarvis Thomson's refutation by logical analogy from Chapter 7. Do you think her refutation works? Why or why not?