Exam 9: Evaluating Arguments From Analogy

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

The best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared is the nature of the doctor-patient relationship in each scenario. In the case of sex with patients, there is a clear power imbalance and potential for exploitation, as the doctor holds a position of authority and trust over the patient. This power dynamic creates a situation where the patient may feel coerced or unable to freely consent to a sexual relationship with their doctor. On the other hand, in the case of physician-assisted suicide, the doctor's role is to provide compassionate care and support for a terminally ill patient who has made a voluntary and informed decision to end their suffering. The power dynamic in this scenario is not the same as in the case of sex with patients, as the patient is the one making the decision about their own end-of-life care.

To test the suggested disanalogy for moral relevance, we can consider the ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence. In the case of sex with patients, the power imbalance and potential for exploitation raise serious concerns about the doctor's ability to act in the best interests of the patient and respect their autonomy. This disanalogy is morally relevant because it highlights the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and upholding the ethical duty to prioritize the well-being and autonomy of the patient. In contrast, in the case of physician-assisted suicide, the focus is on respecting the patient's autonomy and relieving their suffering, which aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence. Therefore, the disanalogy between the two cases is morally relevant, as it underscores the different ethical considerations at play in each scenario.

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

First, the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared is the potential harm caused by each action. While driving a heavily-polluting car directly contributes to environmental harm and negatively impacts the health of others, refusing to vaccinate a child for non-medical reasons may not have the same direct and immediate impact on others.

Second, to test the suggested disanalogy for moral relevance, we can consider the principle of harm. This principle states that actions are morally wrong if they cause harm to others. In the case of driving a heavily-polluting car, the harm caused to the environment and to the health of others is well-documented and immediate. However, in the case of refusing to vaccinate a child for non-medical reasons, the potential harm is less immediate and may not have the same direct impact on others. Therefore, the suggested disanalogy for moral relevance shows that the potential harm caused by each action is not equivalent, and thus the comparison between the two may not be morally relevant.

In conclusion, the potential harm caused by each action is the best candidate for a genuine and morally relevant disanalogy between the cases being compared. Testing this disanalogy for moral relevance shows that the principle of harm is not equally applicable to both cases, indicating that the comparison between driving a heavily-polluting car and refusing to vaccinate a child for non-medical reasons may not be morally relevant.