Ciao!

But what about the laws that appeal to emotions rather than sound legal policy? Laws such as those based on Biblical ideology can be just as bad for us. Many people used the Bible to sanction slavery and keeping down women for many years. Even today only two laws are based on commandments (don't steal and don't murder).

Or what about the laws that will incur harm mostly to yourself, but not a lot of harm to others directly? Now in terms of direct I am talking about bodily harm, not all of the emotional things that go along with it. Because that was the brilliant idea behind the prohibition movement. And because we do limit the sale of alcohol and street drugs because they are potentially harmful and cause a lot of harm to others, shouldn't we outlaw sex as well with the exception of procreation reasons? Like the other drugs I mentioned, sex can cause a lot of driect and indirect damage to you and others around you.

Either way I think laws should be put in place because they are trying to promote safety for everyone. In other words I think the main laws on the books should be those prohibiting stealing, murder, arson, rape (or any other deviant sexual acts), liable/slander, or any other major crime.

The point wasn't that all laws are bad. The point is that just because something IS legal, doesn't make it RIGHT. Murder isn't wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. You can build strong moral, utilitarian, pragmatic arguments for why murder is wrong, and should therefore be illegal.

Well said, Miguel. I never knew the title of that logical fallacy; only knew that it was a fallacy.

Actually the definition of appeal to authority is a bit different: Claiming that some crime is morally wrong because it is illegal.

In that regard the US action in Iraq is legally wrong because there is a law preventing such action. I find that law imperfect, but it is still there. And I find the US' attitude then arrogant if the US thinks it can just overstep legal boundaries and I find that extremely dangerous because it undermines international law.

The morality point of the US decision to go to war in Iraq is a different side to it, but can be questioned as well.
The moral justification behind going to war goes to the issue of imminent direct threat. A condition that was not given at all. Attacking a nation that had not engaged in military operations indicating an immediately forthcoming attack is an immoral act.

Also the argument of good intention is extremely questionable. The problems the US might face in the war in Iraq were predictable, so the good of getting Saddam out of power can easily be questioned by the harm that it has caused since (civil unrest, instability, civilian deaths, rapes, terrorism). I just recently saw a report about women in Bagdhad that are not leaving their homes anymore because of the anarchy and them being afraid to be raped. Secondly, if one wants to demonstrate the good values of rule by law and abandonment of torture one should not engage in such action. Look at Abu Greibh.
The war was morally wrong because it was not last resort. Not all alternative means had been sufficiently exhausted.

Sorry to say that under such conditions I think pragmatic actionism as done by the US is not preferable and I prefer the European way, even if that is slower.

In general I am saying I prefer going within the legal framework of law versus breaking it. That does not mean I do not see any imperfections with law in general. But then it might be better to change/ amend laws versus ignoring them.

No, Melli, the definition you & I give are the same: That something isn't imoral simply because it's illegal. Your argument that something is illegal because it violates some law is, both a trueism & a tautology.

Now, we can rehash the year-long debate on whether the Iraq war was moral. And we can both appeal to various pragmatic, utilitarian, or ethical arguments. But to state that it was immoral because it violates some international law (which, btw, I don't believe it did) fits the definition of an ipse dixit fallacy.

And you keep bringing up the argument that it's dangerous to undermine international law. Under what criteria? International law used to recognize slavery, or the right of conquest (if you won a war, you were allowed to pillage the loser). Just because something is stipulated by international law doesn't make it right. That's, again, an ipse dixit fallacy. And just because most countries disapprove of something doesn't make something wrong. That's an ad populum fallacy.

Whether the US was right to invade Iraq is a debat that must be held on the merit of the issue at question. And that merit alone. Good arguments CAN be made for both sides. But to appeal only to international law (on the assumption that anything that's legal is automatically moral) is absurd. We teach our 105 students better than that, don't we?

By your definition then everytime we sentence someone for a crime, we appeal to authority and commit a fallacy. Because appearantly we judge things/ actions as illegal based on the laws we have.
I personally think current international law has some good points, specifically the protection of state sovereignty and the US will be quick to point out if it feels its sovereignty is violated under current international law. Yet it disregarded it in the case of Iraq.

I AM convinced the US broke international law:
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which the United States helped draft and signed, authorizes the use of force by one nation against another only in self-defense (i.e. when one is being attacked or is about to be attacked) or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council. In addition, Article 42 allows only preemptive attacks; that is, attacks of one nation on another when that latter nation shows clear signs that it is about to attack. Furthermore, that a nation must gain approval from the U.N. Security Council before launching a strike against another nation is contained in Chapter VII, Articles 42 and 43 of the U.N. Charter. These Articles are international law, not suggestions.
I consider breaking this law bad or immoral if you will and if this is a fallacy then so be it, because I think international law is important in structuring interaction in the international sphere. That does not automatically make every law good and flawless, but I personally think the strict restriction on under what conditions war is justified is a good one. Breaking such law sends out wrong signals to other nations, because they might decide to launch war on other nations under the same stretched and phony interpretations of these laws (imagine Iran attacking Israel because it feels Israel might at some point of time attack it, this happening the other way around would be just as friggingly wrong). You might have World War III starting there then. So I say abiding to international law is a good thing and a good thing for all, including the US. And not just because it is law, because it is diminishing violent conflicts.

Both you and Melanie are wrong regarding appeal to authority fallacy. Miguel, you're taking logical fallacies too literally, they are part of making arguments, we just need to strive to commit them as less as possible and to be able to recognize them. But what I think, what I believe is that you have crossed the line here. You showed nothing but disrespect and superiority toward your friend and colleague (Melanie) by your pompous-ass lecture on fallacies. You are not John Stewart, my friend. I believe you owe her a public apology. N.

Melli:

I still disagree about the legality question you raise concerning the Iraq war. Yes, the UN Charter does exactly what you said it states. But. The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, w/ individual cease-fires signed between the US & Iraq (also a separate one between UK & Iraq). Cease fires don't end wars, they postpone them until a final settlement. That final settlement never came, but dragged on for 12 years. Iraq was actually supposed to disarm w/in 45 days. We all know that didn't happen. The reason the US/UK could patroll & enforce the Iraqi no fly zones -- on their own -- was because Iraq had never signed a permanent end to the war.

And, again, our disagreement is a fundamental one. You are appealing to the idea that upholding international law is -- by itself -- a good value. You're free to hold that position. I wholeheartedly disagree. To me, upholing international law is good as an instrumental value. Sometimes, you have to go against/beyond international law. Whether the Iraq situation was a proper use of that, well, that's completely debateable. But I don't believe that appealign to international law only because it is international law is a good value. And, yes, I do believe it's an appeal to authority.

As to the legal question of courts & trials. In a trial, the question is not whether the person is a bad person, or anything of the sort. The question becomes whether the accused committed some violation of the law. The question is simply that, not a moral argument. Of course, judges/juries may take extenuating circumstances into account. But the fundamental question in any court case is simply to answer whether the violation of law X was committed or not. Often, people in the US will deliberately break a law (such as in civil disobedience) to present an argument that the law is actually an unjust law. This has led to landmark decisions like Board v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade to overturn current law.

Nenad:

I think you have gone carried away. I disagreed w/ someone, but I never called anyone a pompous ass. And, yes, I do take logical fallacies seriously. I don't believe they're acceptable when using them for your position. They are always poor rational arguments. Sure, they may sway juries or voters or large crowds, but they are NOT logical arguments ... hence the term "logical fallacy".

Miguel, you misinterpreted me and you don't seem to be ready to listen to others. One thing is clear: rule of law is a prerequisite of democracy. I rest my case, N.

Let me get this perfectly strait: Because I don't agree w/ your position, I'm not ready to listen to others? Couldn't I say the same about you? You know the expression, sometimes you can agree to disagree.

And you point out that rule of law is a prerequisite to democracy (a point that is still under contention, and a point that requires a much lengthier explanation than a simple zinger). So you rest your case? Let's unpack this:

1) The argument that the rule of law is prerequisite to democracy assumes that the laws in question support a democracy. That is, a "democratic rule of law" as opposed to the rule of law in totalitarian dictatorship.

2) The first condition to a democracy is a state ("no state, no democracy"). Since the world isn't a "state" (and don't pretend the UN is anywhere close to that), there can be no talk of a "world democracy." Thus, the question of a rule of law in a non-democracy is rather mute, since we already know from the stateness question that the world is not, in fact, a democracy.

3) The rule of law in a democracy (assuming the world had a "democratic state") also assumes that all actors agree to the basic legal framework. Clearly, that's not the case in the world.

4) The argument about a rule of law in a democracy presuposes a state that can legitimately claim a monopoly over the ability to enforce the law. This condition is also clearly not met in the world, since there's no monopoly over the means of coercion. There's no "rule of law" in Colombia, because the Colombian state can't enforce a monopoly over the application of law in its territory.

I think everyone has it wrong. I have it on direct authority that whenever a girlfriend of mine has told me something was wrong, it was automatically wrong. Governments, laws and morality mean nothing. If someone I'm dating at the time says no, it's really not negotiable.

If Miguel were to argue in this fashion on the streets of Bolivia, the locals would probably tell him to put on a pollera (an indian skirt), because supposedly only chola women argue so catty-like.

A lot of what Miguel posts is very self-righteous, and having brown-noser comments (look at Tom Lee's) must make Miguel's ego a bit bigger. You have to concede some points or at least acknowledge that you understand Melli's point of view, rather than deride it and stomp it. IE, you don't have the world figured out, coffee boy. LOL.

Meowmix:

If I were only interested in ego, I wouldn't have approved your comment. But allow me to respond. Am I being self-righteous? Perhaps a bit. I think everyone in this debate (including yourself) believe they are right, so a little self-righteousness is, perhaps, normal. I'll try to keep mine in check.

Now, I want to be clear on something: I stand by the position that arguing some position is wrong only because it is illegal (and the key word here is ONLY) is an ipse dixit fallacy. It is, after all, the definition of an ipse dixit fallacy.

As to the American-European debate. I'm not pointing out something new, several American & Europeans have pointed out that Americans & continental Europeans -- in general, there are always exceptions, of course -- tend to have such & such ways of viewing the world. Like most of these, I'm NOT arguing that one way is superior over another, only that they are different. For the sake of this argument, Europeans tend to have stronger faith in law as institution than Americans, who are more willing to break the law if they feel it's necessary. Some have described this the Locke v. Rousseau debate.

Now, I do find it interesting that, rather than challenging my actual argument, you decided to engage in an ad hominem attack by telling me to put on a pollera. I don't take it personally, you can say whatever disparate you want. But if my position is so obviously wrong, then why not attack the argument? So far the attacks on my argument (w/ the exception of Melli, who is doing a very good challenge on the basis of the argument itself) are simply to attack me as inflexible (w/o first putting for an argument why I should be flexible).

I think I've a good grasp of Melli's point. But. I'm simply pointing out that her view contradicts the "American" view I've been defining (clearly, not all Americans hold this position, while many Europeans do). Also, it's a position I disagree w/. Please remember that not every debate has to end w/ people agreeing to one side or the other; a healthy debate can end w/ both people in the same position as before. That's not being inflexible.

Also, Memoix, I find it interesting that you'd post anonymously since, well, I've a really good idea who you are (it's called IP tracking). I've no problem w/ you reading/commenting here. But if you want to jump in the middle of an argument between friends (and as heated as this was, it was an argument between friends who still hang out together), please don't be anonymous about it. It's generally seen as a sign of cowardice.

Wouldn't it only be a fallacy if the appeal to law did not include the moral justification for the law? I think most people arguing on the Iraq war typically support that the law that was broken was a morally justified law, hence its not simply an appeal to authority, but an appeal to a moral principle put into practice by said law.

I agree wholeheartedly that appeals simply to laws without suggestion of their moral reasoning is a fallacy in an argument, however I don't feel that is what happens most of the time when you push a person on that possibly faulty premise that does so.

To some degree breaking a law may simply be wrong as well if the law is somehow say amoral. Why so? In living in a society we accept certain obligations and limitations, in essence we make a promise or a treaty with society that we agree to abide by said laws. In the case of many international laws these are agreements we've explicitly made. Hence, it becomes a matter of promise keeping, or honesty, two moral principles that can be argued to be betrayed via breaking said laws. Now still, I believe there can be justification for going against either, but that argument could be made.

I fear I may not be as articulate as I wish to be on this subject, but I also am more interested in getting breakfast at this point rather than beating the dead horse :)

-Josh

How the hell did I get pulled into this? Acknowledging that I didn't know something causes people to label me a brown-noser?

Meowmix, please get on your knees and suck my dick. Sucky, sucky, you twat.

Miguel, since Meowmix has inculpated me, would you mind letting me know who it is? Email would be best.

Brown-noser? Sheesh ... that's not nice.

Josh:

Well put. And, in hindsight, I think Mellie (at least) was making a moral justification for the law, though I think her emphasis is rather on the moral justification for upholding laws in general, not any one particular law. I still hold an instrumentalist view of law, and so only an argument against any particular action -- sans any appeal to legal authority -- would convince me in the realm of international politics. I am, after all, a firm believer in realkpolik.

But, excellent point, Josh. And I hope you enjoyed your breakfast.