I don’t believe I can conclude on my own whether society benefits from the existence of laws, nor can I say that any one law benefits society
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not benefit society.
(for a side note into an interesting debate—what would you be saying to me if my answer to your question was—yes; breaking of the law should be reported?)
I’d be pointing out that it’s the equivalent of saying “it’s wrong to lie, even if that means the Gestapo would find out about the Jews in your basement” or “you should always keep your promise, even if you promised to kill your firstborn”—it’s an extreme position that is great at signalling commitment to a position because you″ll probably never have to make good on it. If you alieved that breaking of the law should be reported, even if the law says that homosexuality is punishable by death, then you’re just a human Clippy and need to be treated accordingly.
I purposely removed the specific cases, to talk about the more general concept of “law”. Humans will have great difficulty having a reasonable debate over a specific law like in the examples you have chosen. (They are particularly emotive ones)
I don’t believe I can conclude on my own whether society benefits from the existence of laws, nor can I
say that any one law benefits society.
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not >benefit society.
These statements are not mutually exclusive. I’d like to try again to be clear that I meant “The existence of laws” not “the existence of this one specific law”.
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not
benefit society.
In the interest of demonstrating (my point) the inability to reason one law’s benefits to society (or to prove your point) - please reason out your entire conclusion from start to finish of why:
a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not benefit society.
I expect this reasoning to be some thousands of words long to reason out entirely your point. (because precisely my point is that its not that simple)
For your second comment; Can you make the argument without referring to a specific law?
(also please refrain from making judgements on others, feel free to judge an argument, tear it to shreds; but not the person who makes it)
Apologies for the edit: I seem to be having troubles getting formatting to work the way I want it to.
No, for the same reason Clippy can’t see my argument that it’s not beneficial to tile the universe with paper clips. All arguments like this depend on certain premises, and you either share those premises with me or you don’t. If you don’t, no argument can be given. And in this case, if you do, the argument is trivial.
If nearly all people 50 years ago thought homosexuality should be punishable by death, then there would have been quite a lot of executed homosexuals back then. There were in Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany is not “nearly all people” and when Germany did stop mass murdering homosexuals, it didn’t happen because someone made a successful argument.
If nearly all people today think homosexuality should be punishable by death, there would be a lot more executed than actually are. Of course, there are large groups which still think so, but I doubt they can be persuaded by argument, and in that sense they are equivalent to Clippy.
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not benefit society.
I’d be pointing out that it’s the equivalent of saying “it’s wrong to lie, even if that means the Gestapo would find out about the Jews in your basement” or “you should always keep your promise, even if you promised to kill your firstborn”—it’s an extreme position that is great at signalling commitment to a position because you″ll probably never have to make good on it. If you alieved that breaking of the law should be reported, even if the law says that homosexuality is punishable by death, then you’re just a human Clippy and need to be treated accordingly.
I purposely removed the specific cases, to talk about the more general concept of “law”. Humans will have great difficulty having a reasonable debate over a specific law like in the examples you have chosen. (They are particularly emotive ones)
These statements are not mutually exclusive. I’d like to try again to be clear that I meant “The existence of laws” not “the existence of this one specific law”.
In the interest of demonstrating (my point) the inability to reason one law’s benefits to society (or to prove your point) - please reason out your entire conclusion from start to finish of why:
I expect this reasoning to be some thousands of words long to reason out entirely your point. (because precisely my point is that its not that simple)
For your second comment; Can you make the argument without referring to a specific law?
(also please refrain from making judgements on others, feel free to judge an argument, tear it to shreds; but not the person who makes it)
Apologies for the edit: I seem to be having troubles getting formatting to work the way I want it to.
What does “nor can I say that any one law benefits society” mean, then, if not “for all X, where X is a law, I can’t say that X benefits society”?
If your statement applies to all laws, it also applies to worst case scenario laws.
(My bad—bad use of words the first time around)
“nor can I say that any one law benefits society” “for all X, where X is a law, I can’t say that X benefits society”
how does: “for one X alone, where X is a law, I can’t say that X benefits society” Sound?
Please explain (or expand) the reference to “worst case scenarios”?
Really, can I see your argument?
No, for the same reason Clippy can’t see my argument that it’s not beneficial to tile the universe with paper clips. All arguments like this depend on certain premises, and you either share those premises with me or you don’t. If you don’t, no argument can be given. And in this case, if you do, the argument is trivial.
So from your point of view nearly all people up to ~50 years ago as well as most people today are clippies?
If nearly all people 50 years ago thought homosexuality should be punishable by death, then there would have been quite a lot of executed homosexuals back then. There were in Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany is not “nearly all people” and when Germany did stop mass murdering homosexuals, it didn’t happen because someone made a successful argument.
If nearly all people today think homosexuality should be punishable by death, there would be a lot more executed than actually are. Of course, there are large groups which still think so, but I doubt they can be persuaded by argument, and in that sense they are equivalent to Clippy.