Reference no: EM133346386
Case Study: As one might predict, the plausibility of arguments-by-analogy crucially depends on the plausibility of the analogy and associated reasoning. That is, in order for an argument-by-analogy to be plausible/decent the scenarios being compared must actually be similar in all the relevant details and the reasoning offered in support of the assessment we are supposed to make based on the analogy must be plausible as well. Any relevant dissimilarities between the scenarios and/or implausibility in the associated reasoning will serve to weaken an argument-by-analogy. Thus, when considering such, one should always carefully consider the relevant similarities and (if present) the relevant dissimilarities between the two scenarios. If too many relevant dissimilarities can be found/revealed, then the argument-by-analogy is likely not plausible and/or if parts of the reasoning associated with the analogy fails, then it's likely that the overall argument is a fail.
Questions: With the above comments in mind, the tasks for this week are:
1) Select one of the arguments-by-analogy that appears within A Defense of Abortion. Tells us with one you select. For example, 'I will discuss Thomson's People Seeds analogy and its associated reasoning.'
2) Summarize the analogy and its associated reasoning in your own words. Make sure to identify the specific situation of abortion that the analogy and reasoning is supposed to be analogous to. And, make sure to indicate how the analogy and reasoning is supposed to relate to the the overarching claim that 'Abortions are often morally okay' and/or 'Abortions are not immoral in a majority of cases'. Completing this part requires that one locate the analogy within the article and carefully read and consider the reasoning associated with it. I briefly describe each analogy/argument in this week's videos, Death, Rights, & Abortion (SE) Parts 1-2. But, one will still need to read Thomson's article in order to locate and consider her actual words/reasoning.
3) Analyze the analogy and its associated reasoning. Were the supposedly analogous scenarios actually similar in all morally relevant details? If not, then in what ways do they seem relevantly dissimilar? Do you buy any, or all, of the reasoning associated with the analogy? Why/why not?
4) Might there be "better" arguments-by-analogy that one could offer in support of the morality or immorality of abortions in specific cases? If so, then please provide one.