Question

...

Weak Analogy?

1. A person killed a child because he was screaming.

2. The person has anger issues and you can't control anything when you are angry.

3. Therefore, killing that child is not immoral

 

asked on Thursday, Aug 19, 2021 11:50:20 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."

Listen to the Dr. Bo Show!

Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!

Visit Podcast Page

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
8

A good argument connects the dots between premises. This does not. Let's connect those dots...

1. Person X killed a child because the child was screaming.
2. Person X has anger issues and they can't control anything when they are angry.
3. Killing someone when it is out of one's control is not immoral.
4. Therefore, person X killing that child is not immoral.

I see no fallacy with the way I have written this. Of course, each premise is debatable and any premise that is rejected would result the in the conclusion to be rejected. As for the weak analogy, I don't even see an analogy here.

answered on Thursday, Aug 19, 2021 12:06:02 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Agreed. It's a logically valid argument, but those premises (and conclusion) are  very  questionable, so the argument is still rationally unpersuasive.

P2, for instance - is it really true that when someone is angry, they totally lose control of themselves and their behaviour? That they regress into a primitive, wild, beast-like state?

P3 would be hotly debated by both deontologists and consequentialists - the former might argue that, as per the duties of human beings to one another, murder is immoral  regardless  of the cause or reason. The fact someone has anger issues does not negate that fact. The latter might argue that murdering a child, presumed to be innocent (see P1 - all they did was scream, which isn't abnormal for a child) decreases overall utility such that it cannot be argued to be a moral act. In both cases, arguably a person with 'anger issues' is responsible for seeking their own treatment and preventative therapy, so their condition is no excuse to externalise its consequences onto another person.

posted on Friday, Aug 20, 2021 07:30:58 AM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Agree 100%. It is a terrible argument, just not a fallacious one :)

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Aug 20, 2021 07:33:36 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Agreed.

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Aug 21, 2021 03:17:39 AM