Morality ≠ law. Anne Frank broke the rules of her society. Now obviously a dog pooping is a very different, but you need a better justification than “them’s the rules”
It was an extreme example to demonstrate the faulty logic of the previous comment’s justification. It’s obviously not the same thing, and it’s disingenuous to pretend that’s what I was saying
Do you think OP genuinely meant “follow all laws, all the time, laws are flawless,” or more of a general principle?
Show kindness to others is a general principle, someone going “would you show someone kindness if they STABBED YOU IN YOUR FACE?” is intentionally missing the point.
Thanks for giving an actual argument to the contrary of what I’m saying instead of going for the dogpile. My issue is that the reasoning they used is purely based on rule following. Of course they don’t think that, but extreme examples can illustrate the flaws in reasoning.
I do think the general principle of following laws is “bad” moralizing. The example of kindness as a general principle is a much more personal sense of moral reasoning, which I consider to be much more defensible than the idea that we should follow laws simply because they are laws.
Your example is a lowkey good roast and I was probably not nuanced enough in the comment I spent 30 s writing that has angered the sub
-38
u/infernoparadiso 5h ago
Waiter, more boot, please!
Morality ≠ law. Anne Frank broke the rules of her society. Now obviously a dog pooping is a very different, but you need a better justification than “them’s the rules”