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."

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

...
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