Creating a law to restrict the personal use of cars and requiring everyone to use public transportation would be as unthinkable as revising the laws of gravity. There are some forces so fundamental that we have no control over them.
What makes this analogy unsound?
Societies do have control over the laws they make.
Controlling personal car use takes minimal effort.
Rules and laws always have some exceptions.
The analogy is unsound because the laws of gravity are natural and universal phenomena that cannot be controlled or altered by human societies. In contrast, laws made by societies are man-made and can be revised or changed as needed. Additionally, controlling personal car use does require significant effort, as it involves planning and implementing efficient public transportation systems, infrastructure development, and addressing various logistical challenges. Finally, while rules and laws may have exceptions, the analogy fails to mention that there can be exceptions or exemptions to laws restricting personal car use, such as for medical emergencies or specific circumstances.
The analogy is unsound because it incorrectly assumes that societies have no control over the laws they make and that controlling personal car use takes minimal effort. In reality, societies have the ability to create and revise laws according to their needs and priorities. Moreover, implementing restrictions on personal car use would require significant effort and planning, including considerations for transportation infrastructure, accessibility, and public support. Additionally, it is important to note that rules and laws often have exceptions and allowances based on specific circumstances or needs.
The analogy comparing creating a law to restrict personal car use with revising the laws of gravity is unsound for several reasons.
First, the analogy suggests that societies have no control over the laws they create, which is incorrect. In reality, societies have the ability to create and amend laws based on their values, priorities, and needs. Laws are created by legislators who are elected or appointed by the people, reflecting individual and collective choices.
Second, the analogy assumes that controlling personal car use would require the same level of effort as revising the laws of gravity. However, this is not the case. Implementing restrictions on personal car use involves a range of possibilities, such as introducing congestion charges, promoting public transportation, implementing carpooling initiatives, or incentivizing electric or shared vehicles. While it may require effort, it is well within the scope of societal control.
Lastly, the analogy overlooks the fact that rules and laws often have exceptions. Not all laws are absolute, and there are frequently provisions or exemptions to address specific circumstances or accommodate certain needs. When it comes to restricting personal car use, there can be exceptions for medical emergencies, rural communities with limited public transportation options, or individuals with specific mobility needs, among other considerations.
In summary, the analogy comparing creating a law to restrict personal car use with revising laws of gravity is unsound because societies do have control over the laws they create, controlling personal car use takes minimal effort in comparison, and rules and laws often have exceptions.