Question 1

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.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  True

Question 2

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

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  False

Question 3

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

Accepted Answer

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. 
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. A

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

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. 
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 5

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

Accepted Answer

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. 
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 6

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.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 7

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?

Accepted Answer

The DONOR RISK argument from Chapter 7 r

Question 8

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.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 9

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?

Accepted Answer

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." 
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 10

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

Accepted Answer

The similarities between two actions giv

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

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. 
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 12

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?

Accepted Answer

Judith Jarvis Thomson's refutation by lo

Question 13

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

Accepted Answer

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. 
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 14

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

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

An evolving analogy is a metaphor or com

Question 17

A refutation by logical analogy is:

Accepted Answer

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. 
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 18

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 19

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?

Accepted Answer

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. 
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 20

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?

Accepted Answer

Chapter 7 of what specific text or work

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

A refutation by logical analogy is:

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

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?

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?

An Introduction to Arguments

Moral Arguments

Reasoning With Obligations

Reasoning About Consequences

Reasoning With Virtues and Vices

Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples

Answering Moral Questions

Skepticism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Religion and Moral Reasoning

Normative Theories, Part 1

Normative Theories, Part 2

Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Filters

Exam 7: Reasoning With Analogies

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

A refutation by logical analogy is:

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

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?

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?

An Introduction to Arguments

Moral Arguments

Reasoning With Obligations

Reasoning About Consequences

Reasoning With Virtues and Vices

Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples

Answering Moral Questions

Skepticism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Religion and Moral Reasoning

Normative Theories, Part 1

Normative Theories, Part 2

Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Filters