The term "valid but illicit" is used in the context of ethical or legal theories to describe a situation where an action or decision is logically sound and meets the necessary criteria for validity, yet its execution or consequences are considered morally or legally improper or prohibited.
The term "valid" in this context refers to something that is considered logically or legally correct, adhering to a set of established rules or principles. It implies that the reasoning or arguments supporting the action or decision are logically consistent and free from logical fallacies or errors.
On the other hand, "illicit" describes an act that is not authorized, allowed, or permitted within a particular moral, ethical, or legal framework. It suggests that the action or decision is morally wrong or forbidden, violating established ethical principles or legal statutes.
When an action or decision is labeled as "valid but illicit," it suggests that the underlying reasoning or arguments may be logically or legally sound, but the action itself is morally or legally flawed. This situation arises when an action is not in accordance with accepted norms, principles, or regulations, despite being logically or legally consistent.
The concept of "valid but illicit" highlights the distinction between what is logically or legally valid and what is considered ethically or legally permissible. It engenders discussions surrounding the tension between the rights of individuals and the obligations imposed by societal or legal norms.
