ABSTRACT
A common error in conceptions of argumentation by analogy, precedent, paradigm, and metaphor consists in taking them too seriously, as if they had autonomous argumentative force. Argumentation by analogy is of heuristic value at best. The underlying argument from principle is decisive, reducing argumentation by analogy and like semblances of reasoning to (pia) fraus. Still the importance of analogy, precedent, paradigm, metaphor, and the like is not to be denied, related as they all are to ‘outward difference and underlying identity’. Issues of wrongful harm and even matters of rightful or wrongful life and death may be clarified by appeal to analogy and related notions.
