The Language of Argument

3 9 2

C H A P T E R 1 9 ■ M o r a l R e a s o n i n g

arguments in Chapter 13, we know that we should not expect any sharp

lines here. Indeed, people will tend to be spread out in their opinions along

a continuum ranging from a belief in complete prohibition to no prohibition.

Analogical Reasoning in Ethics

Using the method for reconstructing arguments, we now have a fairly clear

idea of the main options on the abortion issue. But understanding the struc-

ture of the debate—though essential for dealing with it intelligently—does

not settle it. If the reasons on all sides are fully spelled out and disagreement

remains, what is to be done?

At this stage, those who do not simply turn to abuse often appeal to ana-

logical arguments. The point of an analogical argument is to reach a conclu-

sion in a controversial case by comparing it to a similar situation in which

it is clearer what is right or wrong. In fact, a great deal of ethical reasoning

uses such analogies. We have already seen one simple analogy between an

abortion to save the life of the mother and self-defense against an insane

person. To get a better idea of how analogical reasoning works in ethics,

we will concentrate on a more complex analogy, which raises the issue of

whether abortion is morally permissible in cases of pregnancy due to rape.

A classic analogical argument is given by Judith Jarvis Thomson in

“A  Defense of Abortion.” Thomson grants for the sake of argument that a

fetus is a person. Then she tells the following story:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an

unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to

have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all

the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood

type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s

circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to

extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital

now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—

we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the

violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never

mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment,

and can safely be unplugged from you.”^3

Thomson claims that it is not wrong for you to unplug yourself from the

violinist in this situation, and most people seem to agree with this judgment.

By analogy, abortion after rape is not wrong either, or so she says.

The basic assumption of this analogical argument is that we should not

make different moral judgments in cases that do not differ. More positively:

(1) If two actions are similar in all morally relevant respects, and if

one of the acts is not morally wrong, then the other act is also not

morally wrong.

97364_ch19_ptg01_383-422.indd 392 11/15/13 5:45 PM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.