If you think it should be legal, you support it.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I said I don't support people doing X, but I don't think doing X should be illegal.
I was told if I think it should be legal, I "must support it", I said no I don't. I just don't think it's an illegal level of bad, I don't know why you struggle with this concept and he basically said "ditto".
Like for example is I support the legalisation of drugs, but still think that drugs are bad.
So am I in the wrong here, because this argument went in circles and got nowhere?
Comments on Question
Others have focused on the equivocation with the word "support," which is correct. We could also focus on the fact "illegal" is a semantically overloaded word. That is, it comes with a lot of baggage. If something is illegal, that means it has a prescribed penalty, and that penalty could be way too harsh for a person's liking.
Let's use a reductio and imagine we live in a country where the law states anyone caught smoking crack must be immediately executed on the spot. Agents of the state bust in and shoot crack-smokers in the head in front of their friends and family. You are horrified, so you argue: "I don't support people smoking crack, but I don't think smoking crack should be illegal (because people are getting shot in the head for doing it!)"
Would the counter-argument, "If you think smoking crack shouldn't be illegal, then you support smoking crack" make sense? Of course not.
There's also the matter of agency. I'm not sure how this one ties in with a logical fallacy (perhaps Dr. Bo can weigh in), but the general reasoning here depends on one's view of agency, which is to say individual freedom. Should one be free to do things that could result in negative outcomes, even death? Drink, smoke, have casual sex? Drive fast, skydive, go helicopter skiing? Live hard, die young, leave a good-looking corpse? If so, then your statement is perfectly rational.
If not, then it is irrational because people need to be saved from themselves with laws, and thus being against laws would equal support for bad behaviors. Like I said, the main issue here is semantic overload.
Answers
4I think Lysander Spooner answered this question over a century ago in his well-written pamphlet “Vices are not crimes.”
"If you think X should be legal, you should support it."
What is meant by support?
- if the person is referring to supporting X becoming legalised, then this is true but pretty obvious. If someone says X should be legal it implies support for legalisation anyway.
- if the person is referring to supporting X being performed by people, this does not follow. The principle "just because you can doesn't mean you should" comes into play here. Someone could say "I think X should be legal so people can exercise their preferences, even if I disagree", and that could be a valid argument.
Equivocation and then non sequitur.
It seems to me that this discussion goes beyond the realm of logic and enters the realm of philosophy. Statement: X should not to do Y, is not the same as the statement: X should be prevented from doing Y. On the other hand, you will probably agree that there is no point in supporting something if you want it to be illegal.
I feel the problem is with the equivocation of "support." Granted, there is an implied equivocation. "Support" could mean to be for it in a legal sense. But it can also mean be for it in a personal sense. Clearly, one can support laws, like make abortions legal and not want to have an abortion themselves (for which it is impossible for the majority of the population).
This argument is ultimately more complex than a simple fallacy, however. There would be a legal component to it, but without being a lawyer, you can say something such as:
I support X legally because I believe that making X legal would have net beneficial effect on society, even though anyone who chose to do X would experience some level of harm.
This argument is solid and reasonable. If both parties can agree on that, you can plug in X and argue the pros and cons of making it legal if needed.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
What is legal or illegal has to do with government. You can believe something is morally wrong but at the same time do not feel the government should be involve with it. It is a weak argument. Example: Drugs are bad and people should not do it but does the government has the right to interfere if it only affects the person doing the drugs.