4 ms·

Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" - applies equally well to all sorts of laws. Of course it doesn't. I don't doubt you are well aware a law y

Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" - applies equally well to all sorts of laws. Of course it doesn't. I don't doubt you are well aware a law you consider unjust because it causes human beings to be grossly mistreated is entirely different from a law you consider unjust because it makes it hard for companies to enter a specific national market and are just making a disingenuous, trollish, argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. And if you really are not aware of such differences, then you're an asshole and for the sake of society and those around I hope you learn about the difference.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If you want to argue that taxi protectionist laws are just, make that argument. "It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. They are directly comparable in the sense that they satisfy the preconditions of Markoff's argument. My point is that if Markoff's argument were valid, then this crazy conclusion would also be true. On the flip side, if that crazy conclusion is false then Markoff's argument must also be invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
- someguydave 10y ago
  Why can't it be the case that a law is immoral and breaking it is also immoral?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    It could be. In that case, was Rosa Parks also immoral? If not, why not?
    - someguydave 10y ago
      Yes, she was immoral for acting against the legitimate authorities, but those authorities were also immoral for mistreating local blacks.
- Confusion 10y ago
  "It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument. I agree this argument comes down to arguing an is implies an ought, which is usually invalid and is certainly invalid when the ought is the thing under discussion. But your gross exaggeration intended to refute it does not work as a useful counterargument. You assert it is directly comparable, I explained why I believe it isn't. You could have guessed people would not consider them directly comparable and the net result is that your counterargument is not convincing. Maybe after further discussion you could convince others they are comparable, but that's an unnecessary distraction.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

If you want to argue that taxi protectionist laws are just, make that argument. "It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both. They are directly comparable in the sense that they satisfy the preconditions of Markoff's argument. My point is that if Markoff's argument were valid, then this crazy conclusion would also be true. On the flip side, if that crazy conclusion is false then Markoff's argument must also be invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

someguydave 10y ago
Why can't it be the case that a law is immoral and breaking it is also immoral?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  It could be. In that case, was Rosa Parks also immoral? If not, why not?
  - someguydave 10y ago
    Yes, she was immoral for acting against the legitimate authorities, but those authorities were also immoral for mistreating local blacks.
Confusion 10y ago
"It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument. I agree this argument comes down to arguing an is implies an ought, which is usually invalid and is certainly invalid when the ought is the thing under discussion. But your gross exaggeration intended to refute it does not work as a useful counterargument. You assert it is directly comparable, I explained why I believe it isn't. You could have guessed people would not consider them directly comparable and the net result is that your counterargument is not convincing. Maybe after further discussion you could convince others they are comparable, but that's an unnecessary distraction.