Argument Analysis #2

The following diagram and inference analysis are complete in coverage of the topics of diagram construction and single inference analysis only. Premise problems are not considered here, nor is a final analysis required or provided.

Argument

Civil rights groups have argued that using criminals as research subjects constitutes a violation of their civil rights. They argue that the inmates are sometimes not anesthetized when experiments are conducted, that they are subjected to experimental drugs whose side effects are unknown until experimentation is complete, and that there is a possibility that many of them will suffer death due to this research. In addition, they argue that state governments should not permit the inmates to volunteer for any such research since in doing so, they are to be held just as accountable for any harm that comes to those who volunteer as subjects as the labs themselves.

Diagram

With Numbered Propositions

1. Using criminals as research subjects is a violation of their civil rights.

2. They (the inmates) are sometimes not anesthetized during the experimentation.

3. The inmates are subjected to drugs whose side effects are unknown.

4. There is a possibility of death resulting from the research.

5. State governments should not permit inmates to volunteer as research subjects.

6. State governments are to be held accountable for harm that comes to the volunteers.

(The following explanation of the diagram is simply an informative device for the benefit of the reader. When anyone diagrams and analyzes an argument, it is not necessary to explain why the diagram was done in the way in which it is presented. The analysis that will accompany the argument diagram will explain, in itself, why one constructed the diagram as presented.)

After reading through the argument, one may believe that the civil rights group mentioned appears to be arguing for one point only, but in fact, it is entirely possible that they are not arguing primarily that the rights of the inmates are being violated, but that someone must be held accountable for any harm that comes to them as a result of these alleged violations. If this is the case (other viewpoints could be argued on the basis of the proper diagram) then the diagram presented provides three equally important reasons why (2) is an intermediate conclusion. First, however, one must take into account that by "rights", the civil rights groups are referring to the right to life and the preservation of health, not to other rights that might be covered under the general heading of "civil rights." If this is true, then one may infer that the rights of the inmates are being violated because their lives and health are in jeopardy. And if this is true, then since state governments control the lives of the prisoners in state facilities, they have the power to enforce the prohibition on the inmates subjecting themselves to the research. Furthermore, if one assumes that to have control over someone's activity, and permitting someone under one's control intentionally or unintentionally to subject themselves to harm or death, implies accountability for the actions of those people, then proposition (6) is the main conclusion of the argument.

If one has followed closely the explanation above, then it is clear that there are also implicit assumptions involved in the argument. Those implicit assumptions include the contentions that (1) state governments control the lives of the inmates in state facilities, (2) state governments have the power to prohibit volunteering for research, and (3) one who has control over another person's actions is responsible for the results of those actions. Thus, either the diagram must be altered to accommodate those assumptions, or when providing an analysis, those assumptions should be discussed in order to argue for your decision indicating the strength or weakness of the argument. If one decides to add the implicit assumptions in the diagram, the analysis will bear these points out. The principle of charity may require the addition of an implicit conclusion. Fortunately, it is never necessary to add any implicit statement to a diagram unless it is a conclusion.

(2) + (3) + (4)

(5)

(1)

(6)

Analysis

Inference One, 2 + 3 + 4 ---> 5. The inference from the three given basic premises, i.e., from the statements that no anesthesia is given, death may result, and the side effects may be undesirable, to the intermediate conclusion that state governments should not permit inmates to volunteer as research subjects, is subject to interpretation. (It will be the case that when one is providing a diagram and analysis for an argument, it will be necessary to provide only one point of view.) If one believes that a prison inmate is little more than a child who cannot make his own decisions, then one also believes that someone else is responsible for the decisions of that person. If this is the case, then there is a good possibility that the inmates should not be permitted to volunteer themselves for research. But there apears to be something missing. "For what reason should they not be permitted to volunteer?" The argument leaves the answer to this question to the reader. To provide strength to the argument (as required by the principle of charity), one could make the statement that "anyone who is not considered responsible enough to behave in such a way to keep himself out of jail should not be permitted to subject himself to the possibility of life and health threatening research." This statement provides the reason that the inmates should not be permitted to volunteer, and may make the argument stronger than it would have been otherwise.

Inference Two, 5 ---> 1. If we accept that a person's rights are violated when some action or affliction is imposed upon him either against his will or when he is incapable of making his own decision either through his circumstances or his own choice, then it may be the case that an inmate subjecting himself to such treatment constitutes a violation of his rights. One could claim that this is roughly analogous to permitting a child to experiment with a dangerous drug (with parental knowledge) on the basis of the child's own decision. It would be generally accepted that a child is incapable of making a rational choice in such matters, and that to permit the child to subject himself to such a substance is wrong on the part of the parent. And if a state correctional facility has a role roughly analogous to the role of a parent to a child, then the state is violating the rights of the criminals.

Inference Three, 1 ---> 6. The third and final inference of the argument may be strong since a person or group responsible for the well-being of others can be held accountable for harm that comes to those under their control. Again, if we use the analogy that inmates are little more than children who are incapable of making their own decisions, and if parents are responsible for any harm that comes to children from activities in which they were permitted to engage, then state governments are to be held accountable for harm to the volunteers.