- Sep 29, 2019
As an argument you have the conclusion followed by 3 premises. If rearrange it:
-One human life is worth more than all the property in the world
-Property can be replaced.
-Human life is more important than
Rioting and looting isn’t evil.
You can see the premises and conclusion are unrelated. The premises talk about ‘value’ in the use or exchange value sense, whereas the conclusion talks about the ‘moral value’ of an action which is not even mentioned in the premises.
We might ask some follow ups:
- Who is permitted to loot, who not?
-Can anyone loot anything? Can I steal the phone that was used to make this tweet?
Pure nonsense, as always.