StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university OLET 2148 Notes Thinking Critically (University of Sydney) Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 OLET 2148 – THINKING CRITICALLY MODULE 1 – REASONING AND RHETORIC Video 1 – What is a Rational Argument Introduction Philosophers define an argument very specifically – an argument consists of premises that are supposed to give us a reason to believe a conclusion. This argument will contain evidence and justification for believing a conclusion. If a premise or a conclusion is not present, a rational argument is not taking place. Example: o Premise 1 – The only good reason to restrict freedom of speech is if the speech in question inflicts unjustified harm on others. o Premise 2 – Person A’s intended speech will not inflict unjustified harm on others. o Conclusion – We should not restrict their right to speak. Purpose of Rational Arguments Deciding what we should believe – informed decision making. Shaping the beliefs and actions of other people. Rational argument commonly takes place in social settings, with people disagreeing with each other and laying out evidence or justification in support of their conclusions. We as humans are rational creatures. This means: o We are capable of recognising and responding to justification and evidence. o We are able to steer ourselves in light of the rational conclusions that we draw. However, we must recognise that we are “imperfectly rational” and we make mistakes due to the various other things that influence our behaviour other than rationality. Practice Exercise 1 Ways to get people to do things without words or sentences: Facial expressions Hand gestures Body language Modelling behaviour Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Structuring the environment Physical objects Practice Exercise 2 / 3 Using language to get people to do or believe things without having convinced them: Boring people into agreeing to something by setting out incredibly detailed written conditions (e.g. Do you agree to our new terms and conditions listed here …) Threatening people Ordering people Semi-successful persuasion Flattering/impressing the audience In this case, people find themselves in a situation without really wanting to be there. Practise Exercise 4 There are many cases in which we use rational argument to get people to do or believe things. There are a number of fields and contexts in which you see people laying out evidence to try to convince an audience to believe something: Debating and persuasion Legal disputes Medical evidence Political persuasion Introduction to Critical Thinking What is Critical Thinking Fundamentally, critical thinking is about making sure you have good reasons for your beliefs. When you are considering the reasons for believing something and more specifically, you are distinguishing between good and bad reasons for an argument, you are exercising critical thinking. Important note: rational people want their beliefs to be true. The only way to be rational is if you form your beliefs after you have found good reason for them. What is an Argument A set of statements that together comprise a reason for a further statement. Premises that support conclusion (make the conclusion highly likely). Ampliative Arguments (inductive) Deductive Arguments The conclusion is not guaranteed. The truth of the premises makes the conclusion highly probable, but not guaranteed. However, ampliative arguments can often be good arguments. When the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Just thinking about the information in the premises, you will be able to deduce the conclusion. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Video 2 – Reasoning vs Mere Rhetoric Rhetoric Rhetoric is commonly used to refer to flowery speech. However, in a philosophical context, rhetoric can be defined as the art of persuasion. When engaged in rhetoric, you are trying to persuade an audience. Techniques which can assist in persuasion: o Confident body language o Warm tone of voice o Flattered the audience o Abusing the opponent o Staying on message Often, we can use rhetoric to persuade people without engaging in rational argument. For example, politicians rarely explain their own policies – they attack the other side’s views on their policy and stick to the message. Rational Argument vs Mere Rhetoric Rational argument is just 1 technique that fits in the broad category of rhetoric. Mere rhetoric consists of all of the non-rational techniques or methods that you might use in order to persuade an audience. For example, the list above is mere rhetoric as there is no justification of the conclusion being presented. However, it is still a method of persuasion and does prove effective. Therefore: o The aim of mere rhetoric is to convince the audience of the pre-ordained conclusion that you have been given. o The aim of rational argument is to get at the truth. It consists of setting up good reasons for believing particular conclusions. Rational Argument vs Explanation An explanation is an attempt make sense of something. A type of explanation is a causal explanation – which tells us why a particular event happened. An argument in contrast, gives us evidence for believing a particular conclusion. Example: o Dave fell down the stairs. An explanation – Dave drank himself to shit and couldn’t walk properly so he fell down the stairs. An argument – Dave said he fell down the stairs, Bob saw him fall down the stairs and Dave is covered in bruises. Thus, we are led to believe that Dave did fall down the stairs. Evaluating Arguments At the most general level, there are 2 different flaws that an argument may possess: o The argument possesses a false premise. o The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises of the argument. Arguments can either be valid or invalid, depending on whether they follow on from true premises. Statements (which make up premises) can either be true or false. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Practice Questions Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Socrates and the Sophists The Sophists Travelling salesman of Ancient Greece. They marketed ideas (not products). They centred on Athens because there was a new democracy in Athens. This allowed citizens to gain prestige, power and influence. The Sophists were today’s marketing consultants – they taught the secrets of how to manipulate audiences/the populace in order to gain prestige, power and influence. They provided skills in persuasion, debate and argumentation in exchange for money. However, they were more for advancement and pleasing – coming to agreement with a preconceived notion. E.g. if you want to be elected you go to the Sophists and they will aid you in getting there. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Socrates Socrates was born in the period where Sophists were visiting Athens and selling their knowledge. Thus, Socrates learnt from the Sophists. The techniques of argumentation that Socrates learned were honed in a Sophistic workshop. However, Socrates was more committed to truth than to advancement (as the Sophists were). This is what diverged his goals from the Sophists. Socrates expressed his commitment to truth as a cooperative inquiry into matters of common concern. Whenever Socrates engages in a discussion with someone, it is always for the sake of mutual understanding. i.e. Both parties want to get to the truth about a moral or ethical area. o Side note: he was very well known for his cross examination of evidence during arguments Arguments back then were like: o Is it good to collect taxes o When should you run away from battle (if you even should) Philosophers vs Sophists Why should we think like philosophers instead of Sophists Philosophers are more concerned with attaining the truth. The truth is something that nobody wants to get wrong. The Sophists were given an end point and asked to educate people to get there. This could be fake sometimes. Whereas philosophers could not fake the truth. Philosophy thus entails questioning, doubting and being uncertain as to where an idea may lead (the Sophists had a pre-determined end point). Sophists were selling fake knowledge because if it gets you to the end goal, what more is necessary Skills Used by the Sophists Sophists were very good at making clear distinctions between characteristics different people had and attributing them as such – e.g. the recently elected king is very confident. They were highly skilled at using appeals to emotion, shame, desires, etc. They sold this to people who weren’t duped by the rhetoric. But if they were duped by the rhetoric, this would be just as fine (this is the audience they would trick – the first one is the one they can actually educate). If the Sophists went into a city with a strong consensus on an issue, they would repeat those commonly held beliefs to generate support. They didn’t really care if the beliefs were true/false or useful/useless, they just wanted to use these beliefs. Making the Opponent Uncomfortable When Socrates was in discussion with someone, he would commonly make them uncomfortable. Culturally, we accept less of that today, especially in an educational context. Socrates believed that if the interlocutor felt uncomfortable during a discussion, it was because he didn’t have good reason to believe their ideas or they weren’t able to hold a strong stance. I.e. they were already uncomfortable and uncertain in their beliefs. The job of Socrates was to show them that they did not have grounds for being as certain as they were about their ideas. In doing so, Socrates led the interlocutor to re-examine their own beliefs. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Sophists in Today’s Society Marketing consultants Politicians Advertising companies Car salesmen Wherever money compromises the role (where a business exists) sophistic thinking will become present. If the idea is to market the item so it becomes a provider in services, it is sophistry. What Conditions Create the Space for Philosophical Thinking We must start showing people that knowledge is a good thing for its own sake and is a good thing to share. Socrates said that if he could teach someone something, he would not want to receive money from them as the goodness of them having come to learn something is better than any money. Moral education – if you can convince a person of the truth of being just and how it is a good thing, they will go and be more just. We must show everyone that REAL knowledge benefits everyone. When people show others sincerity and willingness to learn from one another this will begin to happen. Socrates, Twitter and AI Socrates’ commitments to questioning and to intellectual humility are particularly relevant in the information age. We assume that we know something when we have heard it, read it, googled it, wiki-ed it or YouTubed it. Example: Re-tweeting or “liking” something, is a form of affirmation. (Paradoxically, it is an affirmation without any real commitment.) Socrates would regard re-tweeting and liking as intellectually lazy. He would urge us to be far more sceptical before forwarding the latest conspiracy theory, and far more circumspect about our likes and dislikes. How Socrates Approaches New Information Socrates was highly open to new information. For him, the status quo was not a settled matter – radical consciousness was possible and new paradigms were available to be considered. Old wisdom could be rediscovered, appropriated and grounded through fresh reasoning. Arguing with Socrates Every argument must past the Socratic acid test. If the argument does not withstand it, it is a poor argument and will get nowhere. Does the argument include: Vague, inconsistent or self-contradictory views Appeals to prejudice, fear, greed or superstition Though Socrates challenges people’s thinking, his aim is always cooperative – better understanding of a topic of common concern in everyone’s interests. “Cooperative inquiry into matters of common concern”. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Socrates and the Internet Dogmatic AI entities (they are certain they are right) are unlikely to be very good for our (or even their) future. If artificial intelligence would engage in cooperative inquiry into matters of common concern, we might all fare better. On other matters of digital technology, I think Socrates would have mixed views. He would, I am sure, oppose the use of the internet as an excuse not to understand things. It is a repository of information, but it is not a substitute for our own memory or experience. Unexamined information is not worth believing. Quotes “it is never right to do wrong to anyone, even in return for a wrong” (Crito49c) “it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong” (Gorgias 469b) “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology 38a) “I am of little or no account in wisdom”, Apology 23b) “no one willingly does wrong” (Gorgias 509d) Dialogic Virtues and Kinds of Arguments The dialogic virtues are the good character traits that someone who is skilled at dialogue would exhibit when engaged in rational dialogue – what makes someone admirable when they are taking part in discussion 1) Careful listening Avoid giving biased interpretations of what the other person is saying. Avoid projecting your thoughts into their heads 2) Asking questions Clarification Definition Objections / challenges These help understand the strengths/weaknesses of the position held 3) Responding to questions All of the above Modifying or abandoning your views in light of newer information and evidence 4) Identifying agreement and disagreement Common ground Location of the exact point where disagreement occurs 5) Recognising questionable assumptions False premises Unjustified evidence Correlation vs causation for example 6) Recognising contradictions/inconsistencies Other person needs to step back and re-examine evidence 7) Recognising expertise Sometimes during discussion, you will realise the person you are discussing with knows a lot about the subject at hand. You can learn from that person’s expertise Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 8) Introduce new evidence Expands the scope of the debate Brings new reasons into play 9) Include all participants Diversity in arguments 10) Managing your emotions Emotions should not distort our view Emotions should not create hostility 11) Avoiding manipulative rhetoric and abuse Steer away from mere rhetoric Stay in the domain of rational argument By embodying these dialogic virtues, one may be able to reap the benefits of rational argument. Benefits of Rational Argument Deeper understanding of the various viewpoints on the subject at hand More likely to figure out what you are supposed to believe – more likely to get at the truth More able to treat others with respect You are led outwards into the complexity of the world We must understand that during rational argument, interlocutors are not opponents. How to Improve Rational Argument 1) Recognise which kind of argument is required 2) Evaluate arguments of different kinds 3) Recognise and avoid irrational fallacies Step 1 – Different Types of Arguments Deductive arguments o When the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. o Just thinking about the information in the premises, you will be able to deduce the conclusion. Inductive arguments o Features premises that have information about observed cases, but the conclusion features information about unobserved cases o Conclusions can include claims about the future and generalisations. o E.g. I observed that 20 Australian students don’t want to change the flag. Therefore, Australians want to keep the flag the same. Causal arguments o Feature conclusions about what causes something to happen o E.g. On average, those with university degrees make more money than those who don’t have uni degrees. Therefore, doing a uni course will cause you to make more money in the future. Arguments by analogy o Proposes a relevant similarity between 2 sets of objects. o It is then concluded that what is true for one set of objects is true for the other. o E.g. some say that traffic is like the blood that flows through our veins. When there is a blockage in our veins, we could have a heart attack and perhaps die. So too, when there is a blockage in traffic, the health of the city suffers. Moral arguments Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 o Have conclusions about what is morally right or wrong. These arguments are highly subjective and tend to bring emotion into the conclusion. o Premises include certain type of behaviour. Conclusion includes the moral judgement of that behaviour. There is also an added part about what should happen to the people involved in the argument. Practice Quiz 2 MODULE 2: CAUSAL ARGUMENTS Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Outcomes In Module 2 you will focus on causal arguments. You will watch videos and read articles which explain the difference between correlation and causation, and which show you which kinds of evidence support the conclusion that A causes B. After completing Module 2 you will be able to: 1) Explain why correlation does not imply causation 2) Recognise the alternative hypotheses as to what might explain an observed correlation between A and B 3) Seek evidence that would allow you to rule out these alternative hypotheses 4) Come up with alternative causal hypotheses of your own 5) Assess the strength of causal arguments 6) Explain how scientists and medical researchers use causal arguments to identify effective treatments Video 4 – From Correlation to Cause Some of the most important questions we ask are causal questions – what makes something happen In all cases, we are trying to figure out what causes what. This is important as we often want to predict events. We also want to be able to control and prevent events. Currently, we live in a world where people often make causal claims. For example: o Pharmaceutical salespeople promote certain medicines for certain ailments o Universities tell you certain degrees make you more likely to get certain jobs. How to Build a Causal Argument The starting point of causation is typically a correlation between 2 things – A and B A is correlated with B – A tends to go with B or when you see an A you can expect to see a B. Observed correlations often give rise to causal hypotheses. People notice that A tends to go with B. They then form the belief that A is causing B. Observed correlation –> belief that A causes B Correlation Does Not Imply Causation What does this mean The fact that B tends to appear when A appears, does not show that A is causing B. There are many cases where unrelated trends match up with each other even though there is no causal connection between those trends (e.g. spurious correlations). If we are thinking critically, we must move beyond correlation and try to find evidence of causation. Moving from Correlation to Causation A good causal argument: o Premise 1: observed correlation between A and B o Premise 2: the best explanation of this correlation is that A causes B o Conclusion: A causes B There is a 3rd premise available for stronger arguments: when A wiggles, it is followed by a wiggle in B. We need to systematically work through the other possible explanations for a correlation between A and B. 1st Premise Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 In some cases, it is very easy to observe a correlation between A and B – for example, in most cases, earthquakes precede tsunamis. However, in some cases it is harder to observe correlations – London cholera outbreak 1854. At the time, people assumed cholera outbreaks were caused by inhaling contaminated air. Some dude realised though, there were some areas with foul smelling air where no one died. He concluded the cause was a contaminated drinking well. 2nd Premise We must work through other possible explanations for how A could be causing B. Explanation 1: o Coincidence o We rule this out by making repeated observations and noting when A and B occur. o Repeated observations will uncover a coincidental correlation (it is unlikely to occur again). Explanation 2: o B causes A o Example: you could observe that people who drink coffee more often are more inclined to stay up working late. However, it could be that people who stay up later to do work are more likely to drink coffee the next morning. o We must figure out the temporal relationship between A and B (which happens first). o We assume causes precede the effect. Thus, if someone claims that A causes B, but we can prove that B always occurs first, we can dismantle their argument. Explanation 3: o There is a 3rd cause, C, that independently causes A, then B without any relation between A or B. o I.e. C –>A then C –>B o A will be correlated with B in this case, but there is no direct causal connection between them. o Example: when ice cream consumption increase, deaths by drowning also increase. In this case, the 3rd variable is warmer weather. 3rd Premise Necessary for testing explanation 3 – whether A is causing B or C is causing A and B. Wiggle test is used. A is literally wiggled – turning up/down the magnitude or turning on/off A. If A is wiggled (independent of C) and B is wiggled by the same amount, then we can conclude A causes B. Example: when the well in London was determined as the cause of the cholera outbreak, a wiggle test was performed. The handle was removed from the well, and they observed no more deaths from cholera. This is a successful wiggle test. Sometimes however, we cannot control the occurrence of A, so we cannot control the wiggle test. In this case, we observe natural wiggles in A. Problems with Causal Arguments Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Causation is usually multi-factorial and probabilistic. o Many people mistakenly assume that the claim “A causes B” implies that whenever A happens, B is guaranteed to happen as well. o If they can then find 1 example where A if not followed by B, they have apparently proven that the causal claim is false. o In probabilistic causal links, we have to look for evidence that shows that the occurrence of A makes the occurrence of B more likely. I.e. smoking and lung cancer. Temptation to move from observation to causation o E.g. firstly, you have a personal observation that A was followed by B. This led you to the inference that A caused B. o This happens frequently when reasoning about your own health. o This is anecdotal evidence How to Stop People from Misinterpreting Probabilistic Claims as Exceptionless Claims Reword your statement o Instead of saying there is a causal link between A and B say: o A is a causal contribute to B o A makes B more likely to happen Practice Questions Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 MODULE 3: ANALOGIES Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Outcomes: In Module 3 you will focus on analogies. You will see how close and distant analogies can be used in explanations, and you will discover how arguments by analogy work. You will discover both the benefits and the risks of using arguments by analogy in the contexts of science, morality, and the law. 1. After completing Module 3 you will be able to: 2. Recognise analogies that are used in explanations and in arguments 3. Explain the difference between close analogies and distant analogies 4. Come up with explanatory analogies of you own 5. Evaluate the explanatory analogies used by others 6. Assess arguments by analogy in the contexts of science, morality, and the law 7. Construct your own arguments by analogy Module 3 Video 6 An analogy is a comparison between 2 things, which it is suggested that those 2 things are similar. Another definition is a comparison that suggests parallels between two different things, explicitly or implicitly. In both cases, you are comparing A to B The link between analogies, similes and metaphors: o The sun is like a god This is an analogy expressed as a simile Linguistic form: A is like B o The sun is a killer This is an analogy expressed as a metaphor Linguistic form: A is B We will only focus on the analogies – not the figure of speech used to portray it. Analogies Used as Explanations When using an analogy as an explanation, you would typically compare a new and unfamiliar thing with something that is familiar and well known to your audience. o E.g. the structure of an atom is like the solar system. Explanatory analogies are quite common as people with knowledge in a field try to explain new and complex systems/ideas to a non-expert audience. When you are using an analogy to explain things, you are faced with a choice: o Close analogy Case in where you compare A to a very similar B E.g. The Global Financial Crisis in 2008 is similar to the Great Depression of 1929. There is a flaw/risk in this analogy though – what if your audience is not familiar with any of the ideas. This is where your close analogy fails as an explanation. o Distant analogy Comparing A to a less similar B E.g. a whale’s tail is similar to a propeller of a ship. There are some larger, more general similarities but quite a lot of differences. Very distant analogies: changing a political leader just before an election is like changing horses midstream. These analogies are best suited for non-expert audiences as you can choose something that will definitely be familiar to your audience. Distant analogies are also selected because they will usually have an emotional resonance with the audience. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Risks with distant analogies: since A and B are so different, you may have given your audience a wrong impression Be sure to choose analogies that will not alienate your audience. Note: analogies are used to better understand something, B, by thinking about A since A and B are similar. Analogies do not equate the 2. Be sure to acknowledge the differences and be explicit in saying that you are not equating the 2. Analogies in Arguments Premise 1: A has property X Premise 2: A is relevantly similar to B Conclusion: therefore, B has property X Analogies in arguments are not trying to explain something, they are trying to give evidence that the conclusion is true. Example: o Imagine you are out walking in the countryside. o You stumble across a pocket watch. o It is highly complex inside – lots of mechanical and intricate parts that are put together very precisely. o You thus conclude that this watch could not have been put together by random natural forces and was most likely made by an intelligent designer. o A watch is very similar to an organism – highly intricate with lots of internal components that allow it to carry out complex functions. o Therefore, organisms must have been produced by an intelligent designer (i.e. God) How to evaluate arguments by analogy: o Are A and B relevantly similar o Do A and B differ in ways that would undermine the conclusion of the argument o Example: a watch and organism differ in the fact that organisms reproduce. This alters the origin of organisms and thus gives reason to believe that watches and organisms are not a plausible comparison Module 3 Video 7 – Analogies in Science Arguments by analogy play a significant role in science. Scientists use physical analogies such as scale models, mathematical models and computer models. Physical and Scale Models Model bridges are similar to actual bridges in their design and structure. However, they differ greatly in size. Suppose you wanted to know the load the bridge will carry. We can use the model with relatively scaled down loads to test this. Argument by analogy: o The model bridge is relevantly similar to the full-scale bridge o The model bridge can support load L o Therefore, the full-scale bridge will be able to support a proportional load n x L. The analogical argument here is useful because we can test the scale model before building the real thing. This serves a practical financial purpose. It is worth noting that for some purposes, the fact that the model bridge is much smaller than the actual does actually matter. E.g. frequencies alter with length – mathematical models are necessary for this. o The full model bridge is similar to the full-scale bridge o The model bridge has natural oscillation frequency f. Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 o Therefore, the full-scale bridge will have oscillation frequency f. This is a bad argument by analogy as we know that the model bridge is not relevantly similar to the bridge itself. The MONIAC machine is a hydraulic machine used to model the macroeconomy of a nation When Analogies Lead Us Astray Light was previously thought of as similar to a water or sound wave. It is continuous in its transference of energy and requires a medium to do so. However, after the persistent Michelson-Morley experiment returning a null hypothesis, this argument by analogy was demolished. o Light is similar to water and sound waves. o Water and sound waves require media for transmission. o Therefore, light requires a medium. o However, light is not relevantly similar to water and sound waves, although this was not known until much later (early 20th century) Model Organisms Scientists often use proxy organisms to carry out research. The proxy is called a model organism and the organism of interest is called the target organism. The model organism must be similar to the target organism in relevant respects. We can conclude that these features carry over to the target organism. Reasons for using model organisms: o Ethical limitations if target organism is human o Chosen organism reproduces more quickly than target organism and is more easily contained. E.g. population growth experiments Analogies via Mathematical Models Analogies between systems that are typically very different but share a common mathematical structure. E.g. logistic growth of a population and growth in sales of a new innovation. In population growth, the exponential curve levels off as it reaches a saturation point due to a limitation in resources due to competition because of the increasing number of animals. In economics, the growth of a new innovation increases as more people become aware of the product but eventually levels out as everyone has one. This model is also present in enzyme/catalytic reactions. As always, there are limits to these arguments by analogy. We are not equating one phenomenon or system with another. We rely on known similarities and infer that there will be other very specific similarities. Practice Quiz 6 Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 Module 3 Video 8 – Moral Analogies Moral Analogies Downloaded by ASHTON LI (silverash2000@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|3299384 The relevant property, X, will be a moral property. o Morally permissible, impermissible, right or wrong, good or bad, etc. o E.g. A is morally wrong. A is relevantly similar to B. Therefore, B is morally wrong. Moral arguments by analogy must be consistent. If you think A and B are relevantly similar, then if you have different moral attitudes to them, you are doing something inconsistent or wrong, or attributing different moral properties to the 2. A good example of a moral argument by analogy is the film piracy warning before movies. It compares the act of ste
