In considering these propositions, replace the word(s) law/law(s) with
rule/rule(s). Does this change the arguments? Definitions?
A "law" is (approaches) an absolute [G, for example], always true. A "rule" is
tentative. Governments generate social rules, designed to accommodate what's
"fair" (for most people). Can inept rulers ever determine Justice? Can chaos
be balanced? Reduce the debate infinitely, and One must eventually say that
for humans, "might makes right," the cosmic code. Can we ever be comfortable
with "government," others' (our neighbors) adamant decisions?
My difficulty is determining what may be true with every decision "in law," and
how I should so relate.
It is my understanding the libertarian (Libertarian) ethos evolves from "Live,
and let live"--which impinges on all rules by "authority."
Your answer(s) ... ?
G. T. "Bud" Martin, Ph.D.
COMMAND COMPANY
Denver CO Metro
Major USAFR/ANG (Ret.)
aka "Tom Curtis"
Author/Editor/Educator
"On target, on time, on budget!"
________________________________
From: Sasan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 1:54:17 PM
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Is Law Based on Logical Fallacy?
Jon, It never occurred to me before that Law is an "Appeal to Authority".
After reading your post in which you attempt to show that it is not, I am now
convinced that Law is, in fact, a blatant logical fallacy.
You wrote:
> So when in law someone argues from authority one is really saying, "we
> don't know if what he is saying is valid, but we have to make a
> decision, and he seems more credible than the alternatives, so we will
> act as though what he is saying is valid." No ad verecundiam fallacy in
> that.
> The fallacy comes when one transitions from "we will act as though what
> he is saying is valid" to "what he is saying is valid".
If we treat rationales as computer algorithms it might look something like this:
Input (Situation) ---> Rationale ---> Output (Action)
You gave us two possible rationales:
1) we will act as though what he said is valid
2) what he said is valid
While there may be a technical difference in the wording of both rationales,
both produce exactly the same output for a given input when plugged into the
algorithm above. In other words, there is no significant difference between
using a blatant Appeal to Authority and using the convoluted version of Appeal
to Authority that you came up with. Also, why does law automatically seem
"more credible than the alternatives" ? Could it be that laws are produced by
the Authorities and the alternatives are not? Considering the track record of
previous laws, why would any reasonable person show bias toward them rather
than an alternative?
---Sasan
_
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
