Oh honey… tell that to Alan Turing, or millions or gay people, or the literal millions of people who smoked pot and are stuck in prison forever.
And that’s ignoring all the laws people break on the regular.
And that’s ignoring all the laws people break on the regular.
Nor did I say that all laws are just.
I'm not your honey, either.
Because otherwise, “they knew the law and chose to break it, therefore they get what’s coming to them” is a bit Javert from Les Mis.
> “they knew the law and chose to break it, therefore they get what’s coming to them”
Please don't make up quotes and attribute them to me. That's called the strawman fallacy.
> "People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong."[0]
Broader Context: In response to a commentary on how 'good and bad' can be complicated:
> "It's always someone else's fault."[1]
Broader-broader Context: Prison is punishment, etc.
So, a reasonable chain of thought here and paraphrase of what you've said is: "people know right from wrong" -> we're in the context of crime and punishment, so this is operating as a substitute for "they know what's legal and illegal". If it's not, it doesn't belong here, because at this point we should all know that legality != morality.
"and they chose wrong" -> therefore they chose the consequences - they chose punishment. The colloquial way of saying that is "they get what's coming to them".
So, while those weren't your words, was that your implicit statement? And if not, what is the implicit statement?
I ask because the people in those cells are real, and 23 of them died of heat.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834799
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834226Recall that I wrote this to you:
"I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just."
> People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.
The context being that the "bad" person is such simply because they chose to break the law. Even if it doesn't match your thoughts, surely you can see how one might read your comments as both claiming that laws are not morals, and also that those who break the law made the "wrong" (moral) choice (put another way: laws are morals).
Breaking the law is not strictly a moral failure. It can be, but they have an "orthogonal" relationship. To that point:
> I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just.
Choosing to follow an unjust law is a moral failure. That moral failure is baked into the word "unjust". This blanket statement that the choice to commit a crime is a choice to be "bad" is not self-evident (or it's laughably tautological) and, regardless, is contradicted by the assertion that not all laws are "just".
Of course, one can assume you have more nuanced thoughts than that; the point of my coment is that you've not communicated that nuance here, so you appear to be contradicting yourself: saying both that laws are morals and that they are not morals.