Hacker News Reader

Comment by baby_souffle | Hacker News Reader

> The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign.

No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization.

If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...

View on HN

The moral issue is defined by the nature of the rule, not the stakes for someone who has transgressed. Enforcing the rule doesn’t become less legitimate just because someone has invested more in breaking it.

Why is that how the moral issue is defined? Seems to me the moral issue is the stakes, and I have no idea why I would cede that judgement to you. What's your basis for claiming moral authority? If you don't, please show your homework: what strange anticonsequentialism underlies your claims, and why should I agree with it?

Consequentialism in general is a third-world mindset. But in this particular context it leads to the absurd result that someone who breaks the rules more egregiously is rewarded for doing so.

Those sure are words. Can you relate them to the question in some way?

In first world countries, we focus on rules over consequences. If you build a dwelling on my property, the rule doesn't reward you for making a house rather than a tent. The moral analysis is based on the nature of the rule, not the consequences to those who break the rule.

Hogwash. You're trying to slide from claiming moral high ground to pointing at rules, as though the American lexicon didn't have whole classes of words denoting the "virtuous rulebreaker" (maverick, renegade, etc). And, do you think all the rules you live under have moral weight? What if those rules changed, as they did here-- would you still think that?

Not to mention that it's still incorrect even if you're just pointing at the rules themselves-- the entire concept of standing to sue requires that you were harmed (ie, suffered consequences) to engage the courts in the first place. On the other side, results are the difference between attempted homicide and homicide.

> Consequentialism in general is a third-world mindset.

Ah, this must be why so many utilitarian philosophers are European and American.

> Enforcing the rule doesn’t become less legitimate just because someone has invested more in breaking it.

Nobody broke any rules here. These are the people folowwing the rules for the legal immigration system.

You just want to break the law as it stands today and not have an immigration system at all. That's a view you can hold and just as valid as any other. Just stop talking about people breaking rules, that's not what this is about, this has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

Which rules are being broken? It seems to me it is the State department that has suddenly and capriciously begun violating immigration law, rather than processing Visa applications according to the laws of this country. Is it because this administration knows it could never hope to pass a law this terrible?

The principle is the same; the magnitude is different. I don't see why adjusting the magnitude should affect the principle.

Then you don't see why stealing $10 is a misdemeanor and stealing $1000 is a felony (depending on jurisdiction, but whatever you get the point). Not saying you should see why, just that many clearly do for it to be public policy.

But it makes me wonder: do you think the $10 theft should be punished more heavily (minimum 1 year in prison), or the $1000 theft punished more lightly (maximum 1 year in prison)?

>you don't see why stealing $10 is a misdemeanor and stealing $1000 is a felony (depending on jurisdiction, but whatever you get the point).

A shift in magnitude follows a shift in magnitude, as expected.

I see what you're saying but it strikes me as naive to suggest that a felony and misdemeanor are different merely in magnitude. I suppose that was my mistake given my initial examples. In practical terms, one is a means of voter disenfranchisement, among many other life complications like "failing" employer and landlord background checks. One thing being a felony and the other being a misdemeanor can be seen as a difference in magnitude and as a difference in kind, and I was talking about the latter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com