Why do we ask what the founding fathers would have wanted?

[g5000]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

It's just a fallacious appeal to authority that especially conservatives like to use when it suits their agenda.

It can be used as an Appeal to Authority.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the person is speaking outside their area of expertise. Therefore, it is not a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on the Constitution. But it would be a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on microwave ovens were he alive today.

"James Madison says Kenmore is better than Westinghouse. So there!"

Wrong. It's always a fallacy. Even the most credentialed authority to be dead wrong.

You are incorrect.

It would be logical and appropriate for James Madison to speak with authority about the Constitution.

It would be a logical fallacy for someone to accept his opinion of Kenmore vs. Westinghouse as valid. Especially since he died long before Kenmore and Westinghouse.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

It's just a fallacious appeal to authority that especially conservatives like to use when it suits their agenda.

It can be used as an Appeal to Authority.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the person is speaking outside their area of expertise. Therefore, it is not a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on the Constitution. But it would be a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on microwave ovens were he alive today.

"James Madison says Kenmore is better than Westinghouse. So there!"

Wrong. It's always a fallacy. Even the most credentialed authority to be dead wrong.

You are incorrect.

It would be logical and appropriate for James Madison to speak with authority about the Constitution.

It would be a logical fallacy for someone to accept his opinion of Kenmore vs. Westinghouse as valid. Especially since he died long before Kenmore and Westinghouse.

It would be illogical to accept Madison's opinion on no other basis that that it's John Madison's opinion.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

 

[g5000]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

It's just a fallacious appeal to authority that especially conservatives like to use when it suits their agenda.

It can be used as an Appeal to Authority.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the person is speaking outside their area of expertise. Therefore, it is not a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on the Constitution. But it would be a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on microwave ovens were he alive today.

"James Madison says Kenmore is better than Westinghouse. So there!"

Wrong. It's always a fallacy. Even the most credentialed authority to be dead wrong.

You are incorrect.

It would be logical and appropriate for James Madison to speak with authority about the Constitution.

It would be a logical fallacy for someone to accept his opinion of Kenmore vs. Westinghouse as valid. Especially since he died long before Kenmore and Westinghouse.

It would be illogical to accept Madison's opinion on no other basis that that it's John Madison's opinion.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

As "the Father of the Constitution", he would be an authority on it, dumbass.

Please take a Logic course.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't understand this tradition.
My question is what exactly is the purpose of using the founding fathers or even the foundations of the United States as a means of creating laws in today's society. From what I understand none of the people who made a lot of the rules today are no longer alive. So why would we care what these people wanted? Maybe this is a stupid question but whenever I hear people argue about politics almost inevitably someone brings up the foundations of the country. I always thought that what was more important was what was better for the people in that society. So can someone please clarify why this seems to be a valid argument?

It isn't a valid argument unless you believe all progress ended at the end of the 18th century.

It's just a fallacious appeal to authority that especially conservatives like to use when it suits their agenda.

It can be used as an Appeal to Authority.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the person is speaking outside their area of expertise. Therefore, it is not a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on the Constitution. But it would be a fallacy to use James Madison as an authority on microwave ovens were he alive today.

"James Madison says Kenmore is better than Westinghouse. So there!"

Wrong. It's always a fallacy. Even the most credentialed authority to be dead wrong.

You are incorrect.

It would be logical and appropriate for James Madison to speak with authority about the Constitution.

It would be a logical fallacy for someone to accept his opinion of Kenmore vs. Westinghouse as valid. Especially since he died long before Kenmore and Westinghouse.

It would be illogical to accept Madison's opinion on no other basis that that it's John Madison's opinion.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

As "the Father of the Constitution", he would be an authority on it, dumbass.

Please take a Logic course.

That's meaningless. When Einstein first postulated the theory of relativity, he wasn't the leading authority on physics. The leading authorities said his theory was bullshit