3 ms·
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
by yummyfajitas 9y 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 9y agoWhy can't it be the case that a law is immoral and breaking it is also immoral?
- yummyfajitas 9y agoIt could be. In that case, was Rosa Parks also immoral? If not, why not?
- someguydave 9y agoYes, she was immoral for acting against the legitimate authorities, but those authorities were also immoral for mistreating local blacks.
- Confusion 9y 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.