Anonymous #3 1w

not reflective of my opinion on this subject particularly but this take is a fallacy, saying that just because the law aligns with morality THIS time doesn’t mean that it ALWAYS aligns with morality, and saying that if this law doesn’t align with morality doesn’t mean that it’s ALWAYS is against mortality is just as wrong

0

Anonymous #2 1w

thank you

8

Anonymous #4 1w

Not really a fallacy, that’s my entire point. It literally just means that the law is an inconsistent measure of what’s actually moral and shouldn’t be assumed to always be 100% moral. Need a different metric if we want to be defensible

2

Anonymous #6 1w

the question doesn’t really provide much nuance, so people who largely agree with each other are liable to pick opposite answers because they read it slightly differently

8

Anonymous #3 1w

It literally does not imply that

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Well, it actually does. But go ahead and explain why it’s objectively morally wrong without leaning on “law = morality”

1

Anonymous #3 1w

It’s the same as breaking into a house. You don’t belong there, and the people there didn’t invite or allow you in.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Saying that it implies that would be like saying that if me and some other person both like pizza, we must also have the same favorite color. 2 things being in agreement on one point doesn’t imply that they will agree on other things.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

The house analogy assumes that nations are morally like private property, which is the thing in dispute. Not a premise to start with. If you think borders work like a homeowner’s door, make the argument. Even then, breaking into someone’s house to escape a fire isn't clearly immoral anyway. The pizza analogy refutes an argument I'm not even making. I'm saying that the law is insufficient by itself, not that law and morality always/never match

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Your original statement was that if entering a country without permission is both illegal and immoral then law=morality and the Holocaust was morally correct. Did you forget that you said that?

1

Anonymous #3 1w

A country is a group of people’s home in the same way that a house is a person/family’s home. The people in both cases have every right, both morally and legally, to remove people who have entered without permission and to attempt to stop people from entering to begin with. Also, it makes no sense to break into someone’s house to “escape a fire”.

0

Anonymous #8 1w

Nope. I stated that the law “shouldn’t be assumed to always be 100% moral” due to things like slavery/the holocaust. The point I’ve made (which you’ve misunderstood) is that you can’t correctly state that illegal immigration is immoral simply because it’s illegal. You’d need a different angle to state that it’s immoral because legality is morally inconsistent

1

Anonymous #8 1w

You just restated the analogy instead of defending it. “In the same way” is the claim, not proof of anything. And “every right, morally and legally” is circular. The legal right is the statute in dispute, the moral right is what you still haven't shown. Also, fleeing fire/flood/war across a border isn't nonsense. It’s called asylum. So the analogy still only gets you to “usually not okay” not “immoral”

4

Anonymous #3 1w

Then you need to learn how to communicate clearly, because that is not what you said.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

I actually completely clarified my comment. This is exactly what I said hence the quotation

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Seeking asylum is legal, and therefore irrelevant to this conversation. If anything, it makes your point even weaker by showing that even if you have some sort of emergency there is still a correct way to go about it rather than just breaking into the country.

-1

Anonymous #8 1w

In case you need a reminder of what I said verbatim: “It literally just means that the law is an inconsistent measure of what's actually moral and shouldn't be assumed to always be 100% moral. Need a different metric if we want to be defensible”

1

Anonymous #8 1w

You just used “it's legal” to dismiss the one case that breaks your analogy. That’s the exact circular move I called out lol. And asylum is often sought after crossing, or is unavailable at all, so “there's a correct way” doesn't hold whatsoever. More importantly, “there's a legal process” still doesn't prove the non-process route is immoral. You keep landing on “illegal” not “immoral”. So prove that it’s immoral

4

Anonymous #3 1w

How exactly do you expect someone to “prove” that something is immoral, if you are going to fundamentally disagree with their morals? I believe that forcing yourself into someone’s home without permission and then refusing to leave is wrong. That is why it is immoral to illegally enter a country. There being a legal way does also make the illegal way even more immoral.

-1

Anonymous #3 1w

If someone told you “hey, you can come over, just ring the doorbell and I’ll let you in”, it would be immoral of you to climb in through a window and hide in their closet. Also, if asylum is unavailable in the country you go to, you go to another country and ask them. That is how seeking asylum works.

-1

Anonymous #8 1w

You keep doing the same thing lol. You prove something is immoral by arguing from shared premises. But your premise is “country = house” and you've never defended it. At all. “Forcing into a home is wrong” doesn't transfer to “entering a country is wrong” on its own. That transfer is the argument you need to provide, and restating the window/house example doesn't provide it. Equate the two items.

4