Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
If you are making an argument based on the circumstances then using a broad principle is just contradicting yourself. Like: "In this case the increased ability to catch criminals is not worth the privacy risks. In conclusion: it's always wrong for the government to impinge on our privacy". In my aside in that original post I was objecting to people saying the second part when they believe the first part. That aside has little to do with this thread though...
But I would say that you are interpreting the two as formal pieces of logic that conflict, when in reality they are fine within the context of informal speech.
It is perfectly fine to say it is always wrong for government to impinge on privacy and then advocate for it in certain cases because there is a another level that people consider beyond right/wrong which is necessary/not necessary. Do you have a problem with people saying that legalized abortion is morally wrong but necessary since I don't want the inevitable abortions to be done on women in backalleys?