Below Is an Argument from Analogy in Standard Form

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is 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.

Below Is an Argument from Analogy in Standard Form

Essay

Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI

Below Is an Argument from Analogy in Standard Form

Essay

Correct Answer:Answered by ExamLex AIShow Answer

Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI