Is this correst?
Legal--> not immoral
immoral--> not legal
THNAKS!
pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question Forum
-
myfriendtoldmeimkeen
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:26 pm
-
Shrimps
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm
Re: pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question
Don't get to stuck up on moral logic.
The argument is straightforward: nothing that the law permits is immoral
(A) violates this right away: some lawful actions are immoral.
(B) is irrelevant (it would be a flaw if it were a logical deduction - denying the antecedent, blah blah - but it's not a logical deduction. It's a standalone statement which does not violate the original argument).
(C) irrelevant
(D) adds support to the argument
(E) irrelevant
The argument is straightforward: nothing that the law permits is immoral
(A) violates this right away: some lawful actions are immoral.
(B) is irrelevant (it would be a flaw if it were a logical deduction - denying the antecedent, blah blah - but it's not a logical deduction. It's a standalone statement which does not violate the original argument).
(C) irrelevant
(D) adds support to the argument
(E) irrelevant
-
sytycd
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:58 pm
Re: pt 9 section 2 question 16 LR Question
Sorry to be a little late to the conversation, but I was wondering how you interpreted "law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another" to mean "some lawful actions are moral"? I kept reading this as "there are some moral actions that the law does not deem permissible or impermissible," which I thought could be consistent with the statement that "the law does not permit anything that is immoral." Thanks in advance!
