I think my main objection is one of disanalogy, but doesn’t quite fit into those dimensions.
There’s a bait-and-switch from “our intuition is that it’s nearly required to sacrifice a suit to save a child” to “it’s some sort of counterintuitive mandate to radically change our way of life”. Intuition isn’t transitive and analogies are extremely lossy—if it justifies A, and A is in some ways similar to B, it doesn’t necessary justify B.
In truth, there is no legal duty and in modern societies probably no socially-enforced duty to save the child if you don’t want to. I personally probably would, but I’d not shun someone who thought it too risky and costly.
I think my main objection is one of disanalogy, but doesn’t quite fit into those dimensions.
There’s a bait-and-switch from “our intuition is that it’s nearly required to sacrifice a suit to save a child” to “it’s some sort of counterintuitive mandate to radically change our way of life”. Intuition isn’t transitive and analogies are extremely lossy—if it justifies A, and A is in some ways similar to B, it doesn’t necessary justify B.
In truth, there is no legal duty and in modern societies probably no socially-enforced duty to save the child if you don’t want to. I personally probably would, but I’d not shun someone who thought it too risky and costly.