Question

...

Weak Analogy?

We should beat children to not do that mistake again because when a thief gets beaten he doesn't steal things after beating, therefore we should beat children to not make these mistakes.

asked on Monday, Aug 09, 2021 03:40:33 AM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
5

It's an opinion (we should normalise corporal punishment) backed up by a questionable claim ("when a thief gets beaten, they stop stealing").

Firstly - this is not necessarily true. A thief may steal out of necessity (because they are hungry), for money (stealing goods to sell), or for pleasure. In any case, thieves do not intend to get caught, so it is possible that the threat of being beaten will not be enough to deter the act - especially if they are desperate enough to turn to stealing in the first place. 

However, let's assume beating someone is a deterrent. Does that follow we should beat them? In the context of an argument, you could say this is jumping to conclusions because there are other important considerations - such as the morality of inflicting physical pain upon someone for a wrongdoing (either in terms of proportionality, or the act itself), the need for the infliction of such pain (do we have to beat our children, or is there any other way of handling them?) and other ethical considerations.

You think it might be a weak analogy because children are not like thieves (presumed to be adults in this case), and the 'mistakes' that children make are not comparable to theft, for instance, which is another somewhat defensible take, though I think the above concepts are more relevant.

answered on Monday, Aug 09, 2021 06:04:04 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
richard smith
1

Week Analogy. Opinion. An assumption. I would ask the person to prove it.

answered on Monday, Aug 09, 2021 08:54:02 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments