Comment by rayiner
5 hours ago
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.
5 hours ago
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.
> 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.
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?
2 replies →
> Consequentialism in general is a third-world mindset.
Ah, this must be why so many utilitarian philosophers are European and American.
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?