Bad arguments

[Boozy]

I could have dropped this into any number of ongoing threads, but I think I'll just summarize my feelings here.

Just because a certain law is difficult to enforce doesn't mean that we shouldn't have that law.

The following argument is pretty common around here: "Nothing we do will stop people from taking drugs/going to prostitutes/owning guns/gambling/whatever. Ergo we should just make this stuff completely legal."

Murder has been illegal in my country since the day of its inception, and yet we've had murders every single year since that day. No one is running around saying, "Well, we can't enforce this one. Let's just legalize murder and hope for the best."

And no, before everyone freaks the hell out, I am not comparing taking drugs to murder. I am just saying that laws are made because we as a society have to make certain determinations about the kind of society we want to live in. We have to decide if certain things are harmful to the common good.

Some determinations are easy. Everyone knows that murder is the act of someone hurting another, so we all accept that it should remain against the law. Taking drugs hurts people too, but an argument can be made that if legalized, drugs use would only hurt the user and not others, and therefore shouldn't be against the law. That is a valid argument.

Laws should reflect a society's values and morals. If we can all agree that something is morally wrong, why should we legalize something for the convenience of a bunch of assholes who plan on doing it anyway?

[BlaqueKatt]

Taking drugs hurts people too, but an argument can be made that if legalized, drugs use would only hurt the user and not others, and therefore shouldn't be against the law. That is a valid argument.

not entirely-if the user gets violent under the influence, has children who suffer, or is pregnant-others get hurt.

I know someone who's husband spends over $100 a week on pot and the only reason their child has clothes is the grandmother buys them-once the grandmother dies the child will be hurt by the parents drug use.

[Boozy]

not entirely-if the user gets violent under the influence, has children who suffer, or is pregnant-others get hurt....

My point was differentiating between substantive arguments and non-substantive. I'm not arguing either way on the topic of legalizing drug use.

If you're interested, though, we do have a thread about it here:

http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=285

[Slytovhand]

Oh Boozy... how I so agree with you on this one!!! (not to say that I don't on other topics, of course )

I have a list of Logical Fallacies linked to my desktop..(geek!)

I loathe the whole "X is worse and is legal, so Y should be legal too" (usually drugs..compared to alcohol or cigarettes). No - it means that X should be illegal too! Now.. come up with a better argument to press home your point....

But then... I did get some neo-nazis to walk away from me in disgust because of that sort of logic

[BlackIronCrown]

Laws should reflect a society's values and morals.

I agree with everything you say except this last sentence. I submit that the laws should NOT reflect values and morals, as these are ephemeral and different from person to person. Instead, laws should be based on how well they keep order in society whilst recognizing the freedoms and privileges that have also been granted by law.

[Slytovhand]

I agree with everything you say except this last sentence. I submit that the laws should NOT reflect values and morals, as these are ephemeral and different from person to person. Instead, laws should be based on how well they keep order in society whilst recognizing the freedoms and privileges that have also been granted by law.

oooh... I see a political debate in the wings (what kind of society should we live in?).....

[Norton]

I loathe the whole "X is worse and is legal, so Y should be legal too" (usually drugs..compared to alcohol or cigarettes). No - it means that X should be illegal too! Now.. come up with a better argument to press home your point....

How about you come up with a better argument than "X should be be illegal too!"?

If "X" is alcohol, then the U.S. already tried making it illegal. It was a miserable failure on their part. People did not stop drinking. Alcohol-related violence increased. Consumers were getting sick and dying from unregulated moonshiners putting poisons in the liquor. Funnily enough, government regulation of a potentially harmful drug (alcohol) has proven to be safer for the community than a full-on ban.

[Slytovhand]

How about you come up with a better argument than "X should be be illegal too!"?

If "X" is alcohol, then the U.S. already tried making it illegal. It was a miserable failure on their part. People did not stop drinking. Alcohol-related violence increased. Consumers were getting sick and dying from unregulated moonshiners putting poisons in the liquor. Funnily enough, government regulation of a potentially harmful drug (alcohol) has proven to be safer for the community than a full-on ban.

Hey Norton.

I'm not sure how exactly you meant your first statement, but I was just pointing out that their argument of "X is worse than Y and it is legal, so Y should be legal too" leads to a defense of "X should therefore be made illegal too". I wasn't putting forth an opposing argument - only pointing out that theirs doesn't necessarily follow as well as they think.

What the argument is about... I'll leave to other threads

Slyt

[Norton]

My apologies. I did misconstrue your post.

However, I still think the example you put forth should not be dismissed as a valid argument. It makes sense in some cases, such as my little outburst above.

I can see how the argument fails logically if it isn't followed up by support, but with further details and discussion, it can make sense. I guess you have experience in formal debate. I don't, and just do the best I can to make a point without worrying about rules of debate, and hopefully without making myself look like a jackass.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Norton.. NWF

No - not formal debating, but I did my degree in philosophy.

Your follow up argument was good... personally, I'm more for the restriction of alcohol and it's availability, and certainly down here we've got laws about not serving to intoxicated people... but enforcing it is a bigger issue. Same also with the other drug laws.

The option is, as you've indicated... complete legality... but that obviously has its issues as well...but this isn't the debate for it... only about bad arguments.

[Slytovhand]

Speaking of 'Bad Arguments'...Here's a nice list of them. For ease of reference...