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:
There are many cases where it would be wrong for the government to prohibit people from engaging in hobbies and activities that have personal or cultural significance for them. It would be wrong, for instance, for the government to prohibit people from playing role- playing board games, going to black metal concerts, or practicing sword-swallowing, even if most other people see no value in such things.
Still, there are cases where it is justifiable for the government to limit or regulate activities even if those activities have personal or cultural value. For instance, there is no problem with the government regulating the sale of dynamite, even though some people would enjoy detonating it for fun. There is no problem with the government prohibiting the marriage of young girls to older men. Regardless of the personal or cultural value some people might attach to these things, governments are justified in regulating or banning them.
Reflection on these cases reveals there are limits to people's rights to engage in practices with personal or cultural significance: governments are justified in regulating activities that risk significant harm to those who haven't consented to take part in them. This lesson has implications for gun-control laws. Governments are justified in regulating gun use and ownership, even for gun owners who attach significant personal or cultural value to their guns.

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:
There are many cases where it would be wrong for the government to prohibit people from engaging in hobbies and activities that have personal or cultural significance for them. It would be wrong, for instance, for the government to prohibit people from playing role- playing board games, going to black metal concerts, or practicing sword-swallowing, even if most other people see no value in such things.
Still, there are cases where it is justifiable for the government to limit or regulate activities even if those activities have personal or cultural value. For instance, there is no problem with the government regulating the sale of dynamite, even though some people would enjoy detonating it for fun. There is no problem with the government prohibiting the marriage of young girls to older men. Regardless of the personal or cultural value some people might attach to these things, governments are justified in regulating or banning them.
Reflection on these cases reveals there are limits to people's rights to engage in practices with personal or cultural significance: governments are justified in regulating activities that risk significant harm to those who haven't consented to take part in them. This lesson has implications for gun-control laws. Governments are justified in regulating gun use and ownership, even for gun owners who attach significant personal or cultural value to their guns.

The Passage Below Makes a Moral IBE Argument