PDA

View Full Version : When Reductio ad absurdum fails




Christian Liberty
01-26-2014, 10:22 PM
OK, so this was something bizarre that happened to me in a debate with my cousin. We were talking about speed limit laws, and I was arguing how the speed limits laws are essentially (I used easier to understand language, of course) a form of precrime and thus an NAP violation and not legitimate. My cousin responds "Well, they save lives and if we didn't have speed limits, more people would die." I responded by saying that if the speed limits were 5MPH even less (none?) people would die and repeated the viewpoint that you can only punish people who actually cause harm, not just those who might cause harm or because they "broke the law." I didn't expect her to actually agree with my reasoning, but she actually asked "Well, nobody would die then, right?" In response to the 5 MPH question. She actually seemed to imply that that might be a good idea because it might save lives.

I know reductio ad absurdum doesn't always work. I don't know if she really thinks that might be a good idea or (more likely) she just cares more in general about "saving lives" than logical principle. Its really hard NOT to feel superior to people that argue this way in particular. Its aggravating.