6. Vaccines for Inmates and Analogical Reasoning
Abstract. This lesson uses controvery over
inmates and the COVID-19 vaccines to illustrate analogical reasoning. 1.
Primary Analogue. 2. Summary of Analogical Reasoning, a. Faulty or false
analogies, b. Moral. C. Legal. 3. 3. Should inmates be the first to get the
vaccine? Yes!. a. Awful Facilities. b. Poor health of inmates. c. The FACTS, that there is a COVID-19 infection
problem in prisons and people that work in prisons are essential workers who
are at risk. i. ESSENTIAL WORKERS. ii. The Primary Analogue/Forced to over pay
a speeding ticket. iii. Responsibility, should inmates be held responsible for
the government’s mistake?. iv. The Supreme Court has already recognized the
necessity of keeping in mates healthy.
1 Primary Analogue
Imagine being pulled over for speeding and
received a ticket for $150.00. When you go to pay the ticket the cost jumped to
$200.00. They tacked on $50.00 because the city didn’t properly plan for
natural disaster. You were ready to pay what you owed. Is it fair that you pay
the extra money? It is agreed that you broke the law and you are making
recompense why should you pay extra? If you agree that you shouldn’t pay extra
then you also agree that inmates should be first in line to get the vaccine.
You may not agree with the second sentence but using analogical reasoning you
might change your mind.
This statement above (the speeding/ticket
example) is simply the “primary analogue – the standard of comparison”,
the first part of my analogy why prisoners should receive the vaccine. These
second part, or the secondary analogue, is this – People
in prison, mostly likely committed some crime and they are being punished for
that crime, whether they agreed to it or not, if a pandemic occurs largely due
to poor planning by government official, or not, they should inmates be
punished by not getting the vaccine first even though prisons are long-term
care facilities?
2. Summary of Analogical Reasoning
If you still are not on
board with the analogy or my argument, don’t worry because there is more. But
first let’s explain what an analogy is. An analogy is the
claim of similarities (or dissimilarities) between two or more things. When we
analyze an analogical argument, we look for relevant similarities and relevant
dissimilarities between the objects or events under comparison. The
relevance of similarities and dissimilarities between objects or events is
determined by their relation to the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion of an analogical
argument is related to or determined by:
1.
the number of things
referred to in the first premise.
2.
the variety of things
referred to in the first premise.
3.
the number of characteristics referred
to in the first premise.
4.
the relevance of the characteristics of
things referred to in the first premise.
Analyzing the claim of similarities (or
dissimilarities) between two or more things often requires us to use something
well known to us in order to infer something about a lesser known object or
event. This kind of reasoning is also a type of inductive reasoning
because it depends on a comparison of instances. This method means finding
accepted similarities between different areas to support the conclusion that
some further similarity exists between them.
P1) Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
P2) Entity B has attributes a, b, c.
C) Therefore, entity B probably has attribute z
as well.
Or
P1) Person who received a ticket for speeding
has attributes: they did a crime, they are already being punched for a crime,
the government passed on a cost to them due it its poor planning, and you
shouldn’t have to pay for the government’s error.
P2) Person in prison has attributes: they did a
crime, they are already being punched for a crime, the government passed on a
cost to them due it its poor planning
C) Therefore, The person in prison probably
shouldn’t have to pay for the governments error.
You can see how this
reasoning could be given a deductive structure. And to illustrate this I’ll
argue why a prison is a long term healthcare facility, and thus a vaccine
priority.
P1) Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
P2) Entity B has attributes a, b, c.
P3) If two entities share attributes a, b, and
c, then they will also share attribute z.
C) Therefore, entity B has attribute z.
P1) Nursing homes have attributes aging
population, population with people who have serious health risks, and they are
Long term care facilities
P2) Prisons have attributes an aging population,
population with people who have serious health risks.
P3) Because both Prisons and Nursing homes share
attributes an aging population, population with people who have serious health
risks then they will also share attribute of being a Long term care facilities.
C) Therefore, Prisons are Long term care
facilities.
While this case is valid, there are cases where
an argument is particularly informative even though it may be valid and sound.
Like this argument –
1.
A particular chair
has four legs, a circular piece of wood and a back piece, and one can sit in
it.
2.
A
stool four legs, a circular piece of wood
3.
Both
the stool and the chair share legs and a circular piece of wood, it is possible
that they can both be used for sitting.
4.
A
stool can be used for sitting.
See what I mean? This is not
informative and it is boring. Anyway analogical arguments are related to
generalizations where someone begins with one or more instances and then draws
conclusions about all members of the class. In analogical arguments we try to
bypass this step and inductively try to learn about one case by appealing to
others directly. – an inductive process.
Primary analogues
should be diverse. The more diverse a primary analogue the stronger the
argument. If you can think of multiple primary anaolgues then you your point is
not some fluke of correlation and your conclusion is more difficult to falsify.
With the primary analogue used in this lesson it is obvious that I could have
used any event where an institution attempts to pass on a cost to someone not
responsible. It is not super specific thus the conclusion is not easy to
falsify!
Faulty
or false analogies
Often people will mistakenly use faulty
analogies to make points or they will apply analogical literalism when making
analogies or trying to refute them. While the presence of any difference
between cases doesn’t mean there’s a faulty analogy, in Faulty or false
analogies the analogues are not similar in such a way that we should assume
they share the additional property.
A false analogy might
be
Vote ID laws are just as racist as the pole taxes and
biased voting tests during Jim Crow because they primarily effect minorities.
Oh, wait, that is not
a false analogy. I apologize let me try again.
A false analogy might
be
Making people
register their own guns is like the Nazis making the Jews register with their
government.
This one is better,
this is a false analogy. It ignores the relevant differences between genocide
and national gun safety protocals.
Some might reject an
analogical argument by claiming interpreting the analogy and comparing the
analogues literally, thus committing the fallacy of analogical literalism.
Example: “Prisoners should get the vaccine last
because prisons are finaced through taxes and nursing homes are paid for out of
pocket.”
When
assessing a analogical arguments, it is important to consider disanalogies,
counteranalogy, and unintended consequences. A disanalogies are ways
in which things are not similar. A counteranalogy is a new competing
argument which likens the conclusion object or event to something else.
Finally, we have unintended consequences. These occur when one find
undesirable consequences of the analogy someone has advanced.
Moral
We tend to use analogies for moral and legal
arguemnts. In moral arguments[1].
We use both descriptive - statements that describe- and
value judgments - statements that reflect a belief in the value, worth,
importance, or desirability of an object or a human action. Value judgments
tend to assert that one should do or believe something. This is called prescriptive.m
When value judgments assert a standard for correct moral behavior or rules of
conduct they are normative. Analogical reasoning is often used in
moral arguments for the purposes of pointing out inconsistencies in moral views
or behaviors.
Legal
In
Legal Arguments[i],
or legal reasoning, analogies are used in legal reasoning in two ways:
precedent and rules of law. A precedent is a judicial decision
that can be applied to subsequent cases, thus making it inductive because
precedents proceed from the specific case’s legal opinion to a general rule.
While rules of law are deductive proceeding from the general
legal principles that have been applied to historical cases to a specific case.
Through analogical reasoning, a lawyer must show that the facts of their case
are similar to the precedent case to which are trying appeal. The lawyer must
find rules of law that are similar enough to the current case. This is why
legal reasoning is called rule-based reasoning.
Conditional
statements generally appear as “if… then… ,” statements in legal reasoning
along with phrases and words like as “every time,” “whenever,” “all cases
where,” “given that,” and “in the event of,”. The two types of condition
associated with conditional statements and sufficient and necessary.
Typically, the order is as follows: “If sufficient condition,
then necessary condition.” An example might be “if you speed past a
traffic officer, then you will get pulled over.” A sufficient condition means
that the truth of the antecedent guarantees the truth of the consequent, thus
speeding past a traffic officer is sufficient for you to get pulled over. There
may be other circumstances in which you are pulled over, but speeding past a
traffic officer is one sufficient reason why you will but pulled over, but a
necessary condition means that the falsity of the consequent ensures the
falsity of the antecedent therefore you will get pulled over if you speed past
a traffic officer.
Disjunct, conjunct and logical operators
When establishing a
establishing a sufficient condition one might use disjunctions. Thus
satisfying at least one of the disjuncts is sufficient for something else to be
obtained. For example: a bail posting or dropped charges is sufficient for a
prisoner to be released from custody. When establishing a necessary condition conjunctions are
used. Both conjuncts must be satisfied for something else to be obtained. You
must be both charged and convicted in order to serve a prison sentence. It is
important to consider the logical operators when analyzing a
complex rule, in order to reveal the logic behind the rule. One must
consider probative value or evidence that can be used during a
trial to advance the facts of the case and the prejudicial effect. This
is evidence that might cause some jurors to be negatively biased toward a
defendant.
Anyway
the use of a prior court decision as a precedent is a type analogical
reasoning, because one is arguing that a prior case should be applied to a
present case. This certainly requires pointing out the relevant similarities of
the two cases.
But
let’s get into the meat should inmates be the first to get the vaccine?
3.
Should inmates be the first to get the vaccine? Yes!
Inmates should be among those first in
line because incarceration facilities tend to be shits-holes full of people
with health conditions living in close quarters who must be cared for and/or
handled by essential workers who must also have close contact with them because
it’s a prison. You might FEEL as though inmates don’t deserve to be among those
who get the vaccine first, but I’m not sorry to tell you that FACTS DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS!
Awful
Facilities
Many prisons are overcrowded thus there is
not enough room to socially distance. In some circumstance there are forty
people to a room. If you work in a facility where there are forty people
sleeping, like in New York, do you really think that the employees can
effectively social distance, let alone the inmates? Many building are older
than our solar system so they have poor ventilation, poor sanitation and poor
food preparation.
Poor
health of inmates
Prison has the effect of fucking up
peoples bodies as they age “their bodies
deteriorate, they often have underlying illnesses like diabetes, asthma, seizures…”
Prisons include “people of all ages with underlying
health conditions, as well as those over age 65 who live in congregate
settings...”
The
FACTS, that there is a COVID-19 infection problem in prisions and people that
work in prisons are essential workers who are at risk.
You can believe that inmates
don’t deserve to get the vaccine because it should go to people have haven’t
committed crimes, but that view is purely based on feelings. And as Old Ben
Shapiro has ever so eloquently stated “FACTS DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS!” The
FACT is that a contagious disease can rampage through a prison like a
white supremacist mob seizing the Capitol Building. According to the Marshall
Project, San Quentin saw over 28 of the 2,200 inmates who had contracted COVID-19
died. Nearly 1,700 of the nearly 250,000 prisoners who tested positive for
COVID-19 died. They had to set up tents
in the prison yard to deal with the crisis. A judge
ordered the prison to release 1,500 inmates. When these people get sick in
those numbers they are sent to local hospitals further stretching resources.
ESSENTIAL
WORKERS
If those FACTS haven’t
convinced you consider this; the people that work at the prison are ESSENTIAL
WORKERS and 108 of the 62,000 prison employees who have tested positive for the
SARS COVID 2 have died according to the Marshal Project. Simply
giving the vaccine to the employees isn’t effective either because the “3,600 federal prisoners who are sick vastly outnumber the
1,200 employees who are ill.” There isn’t enough solitary to put all of
the inmates in, and ESSENTIAL WORKERS will still have to have close contact
with them, and there is no way, as far as I know to effectively keep them ALL
out of close contact with each other.
The belief that inmates don’t DESERVE to
get the vaccine before the general population is based on the traditional
incompatibilist desert theory view of responsibility. According to this theory
agents have autonomy and can be held responsible for their action unless they
have been coerced.
-
The
inmate committed a crime so they deserve to be punished.
And they are being punished, in prison,
serving a sentence.
The Primary
Analogue/Forced to over pay a speeding ticket
The “don’t give inmates vaccines along
with other long-term care faculties” argument takes this to the next level.
This view tacks on punishments that I’d argue are morally excessive. Imagine
being pulled over for speeding and receiving a ticket for $150.00. When you go
to pay the ticket the cost jumped to $200.00. They tacked on $50.00 because the
city didn’t properly plan for natural disaster. You were ready to pay what you
owed. Is it fair that you pay the extra money? It is agreed that you broke the
law and you are making recompense why should you pay extra?
When the “don’t give inmates vaccines
along with other long-term care faculties” people arguing their point it can be
akin to them arguing that you should pay the extra $50.00. They might respond
by saying that the analogy is flawed because no one is in prison for speeding
(That’s not the point, but I’ll humor it). Yes, no maybe so, however it’s clear
that due to the universal nature of your argument ‘Frankly, you don’t give a
damn!’ Your view doesn’t allow for nuance.
Does the particular situation of each
inmate matter?
What about those wrongly convicted?
Or those serving time for minor offenses?
Non-violent
offenders
You don’t care what they did or didn’t do.
You are probably assuming that all inmates are murders, rapists, drug dealers,
etc.
There are people in prison for
non-violence crimes and it’s pretty clear that getting sick in one of those
shitty facilities in almost a death sentence. Consider this - does someone
convicted of a minor crime deserve to die? And if your answer is ‘no’, then you
should be for letting inmates be among those who are first to get the vaccine.
If your answer is ‘yes’ then you would probably be ok with a state that murders
it citizens for minor offences (i.e. George Floyd) or that state killing people
for no reason (i.e. Breonna Taylor).
Responsibility,
should inmates be held responsible for the governments mistake?
There is another issue with
responsibility. The inmate is already being punished for a crime that our
justice system have found them guilty of. Why should they also suffer for
something the government screwed up? The response to the pandemic by the United
States government has been beyond abysmal. The White House under Trump has all
of the blood on their hands. Arguing against inmates getting the vaccine with
other long-term care facilities is essentially punishing people for something that
they are not responsible for.
And if you still want to argue
“They are still criminals who committed
crimes they don’t deserve it.”
The
Supreme Court has already recognized the necessity of keeping in mates healthy
Then I’ll repeat that they are already
being punished for those crimes and health is not a reward that you earn. In
FACT the Supreme Court “has long recognized that "when the State takes a
person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution
imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his
safety and general well-being."”
References
https://www.komu.com/news/parson-push-to-send-missouri-juveniles-to-adult-prison-as-young-as-12?fbclid=IwAR1hf3u8a3bwnLV-qSFaHZSTZp7qcC2N_hNvpIbd3dSnvflVCTxRZC2VwfI
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/423201/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/11/20/16677180/age-consent-teenage-psychology-law-roy-moore
https://carvercantin.com/age-of-consent-in-missouri/#:~:text=The%20State%20of%20Missouri%20does,or%20if%20they%20are%20married.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/2020/12/11/heres-why-inmates-should-get-covid-19-vaccine-before-rest-us-column/3871449001/
https://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/309/
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/debate-heats-up-over-whether-prisoners-should-be-among-first-to-get-covid-19-vaccines#What-doctors,-scientists-are-saying
8-25-2020 – Update from NPR, the bill
died on the Missouri (House or Senate) floor.
Comments
Post a Comment