Logic of the justice of the law

[Speakpigeon]

Using your personal sense of logic, i.e. your logical intuition, thank you to answer the following two questions.

A) Which of the following propositions do you see as false, and which as true?

(1) The law is just.
(2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.
(3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
(4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?

(5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

Thanks for your answers.
EB

 

[sculptor]

A logical equivalent of Jörmungandr?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Only a Sith deals is absolutes!

(Or, the law should be dynamic.)

 

[Baldeee]

(1) The law is just.

False.
It should be true, I think, but it isn't, not in the absolute sense.
I.e. there is always likely to be some law rushed onto the statute books without being fully thought out such that it is unfair on some people.

(2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.

False.
Shouldn't need explaining.

(3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

There's a difference between the law itself and the implementation of the law.
The law can be just but implemented unfairly.
So false.

(4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

Based on my answer to (3) I have to go with true, otherwise I'd be contradicting myself.

That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?

(5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

​

Not valid.
The conclusion does not follow from the one premise you've provided.
The premise merely states that one can not state that the law is just on the basis of innocent people not going to jail.
You need additional premises to get from there to the conclusion.
So not valid.

 

[James R]

(1) The law is just.

Impossible to determine, since you haven't specified which law or laws you're talking about.
Aside from that, justice is not something that law on its own can deliver.

(2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.

False.

(3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

Impossible to determine. See (1).

(4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

True. The given statement in (4) is true, because statement (3) is impossible to determine.

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?
(5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.

By this point, we're so bogged down in meta-analysis that the issue in question is hard to unpack.

But once we jump through the hoops, (5) is false. See (4) and (1).

Is there a point to this thread?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is there a point to this thread?

There would be a point if people answered the bloody questions. As it is, we're not even at the level where it would be meaningful to discuss the fine points.
Nothing new here.
EB

 

[origin]

There would be a point if people answered the bloody questions.

Oh bugger off. I suspect people are board of your 'oh so deep philosophical ' questions.

 

[Sarkus]

Two people have taken the time to respond to your questions... and you pretty much throw it back in their faces. Nice. If you don't like their answers, what is it about them that you don't like?

 

[Speakpigeon]

No. Only Baldeee answered the question. Good, honest answers, so thanks. But one is too little for any interesting conversation.
EB