• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

should logic be consistent or useful ?

consistent or useful ?

  • consistent

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • useful

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Total voters
    8

NEUROSPORT

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
41
Location
Silicon Valley
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
should you apply the same logic to every situation or should you use different logic depending on situation so that you can arrive to the conclusions you want ?

for example during slavery you would say that we have an inalianable god given right to freedom. but not the slaves.

its convenient to not not use the same logic when thinking of what rights the slaves should have as you do when thinking about your rights.

we do that today also. we dont think that people in other countries have the right to not be bombed by us. but we think we have the right not to be bombed by them.

we say killing is wrong. unless we're killing iraqis then its cool.

does anybody feel like when we say something we should mean it ?
 
Last edited:
should you apply the same logic to every situation or should you use different logic depending on situation so that you can arrive to the conclusions you want ?

for example during slavery you would say that we have an inalianable god given right to freedom. but not the slaves.

its convenient to not not use the same logic when thinking of what rights the slaves should have as you do when thinking about your rights.

we do that today also. we dont think that people in other countries have the right to not be bombed by us. but we think we have the right not to be bombed by them.

we say killing is wrong. unless we're killing iraqis then its cool.

does anybody feel like when we say something we should mean it ?
I think the porblem you have here with the subject is thinking that because someone comes to one conclusion in one given situation, then he must come to the same conclusion in all situations.

This is called a non-sequitur--- this does not follow.

All situations are different, and so it it entirely likely that, in using the same tenets in all of them, you will reach a different conclusion.

Consider:
Because you painted one bedroom blue, you must then paint all your bedrooms blue.
 
Also, let's clear up some terminology.

Logic is logic. There is no "different" logic. Logic does not differ between people or situations any more than math does.

Logic by itself, though, is simply a tool, which can be put toward any goal. It's your desired outcome which may change from situation to situation, but logic never does.
 
There is a problem of definition in the OP.
 
should you apply the same logic to every situation or should you use different logic depending on situation so that you can arrive to the conclusions you want ?

I think you're a little confused about your definitions. Most of the decisions we make in our life aren't made based on some 'logic' problem. A perfect example is the example you've given here:

we say killing is wrong. unless we're killing iraqis then its cool.

does anybody feel like when we say something we should mean it ?

There's nothing illogical about killing an enemy who would kill you. And there's nothing illogical about teaching that killing is wrong. At most, you might argue that killing in war is a bit hypocritical. But it's perfectly logical to kill to preserve yourself. In fact, there's nothing illogical about dropping a bomb on 100,000 Japanese men, women and children in order to end a massive world war.

You can debate forever about the rightness or wrongness or whether it's the best choice or the most moral choice. But there's simply no 'logic' that can answer these questions.

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Why would I apply logic to choose an ice cream flavor, or decide whether I was enjoying myself at the beach?

Logic is one tool of the mind, among many.
 
we do that today also. we dont think that people in other countries have the right to not be bombed by us. but we think we have the right not to be bombed by them.

we say killing is wrong. unless we're killing iraqis then its cool.

does anybody feel like when we say something we should mean it ?

That's when nuance comes in
 
Many of us who have watched Star Trek all of our lives have given a great deal of thought to logic VS heuristics and as the program often shows both have their place in our world. The show often goes to great pains to illustrate that humans aren't logical, so the best you can do is take a common sense or heuristic approach to dealing with large masses of them. The tragedy is that this approach fails as often as it succeeds because after all, it is only a guess and we are only human.

How many logical solutions are trumped by common sense guesses? Logic dictates many things but when has logic ever had a place in the halls of our government, in our churches, or in our hearts for that matter. logic is fine when dealing with nearly anything vegetable animal or mineral but hardly ever with people, we refuse to see it when it is right in front of us, we dismiss it as unrealistic, we act counter to logic out of simple spite.

So as to the question should logic be useful or consistent. When it comes to everyday life logic is at best only useful, at worst non-existent. I think when dealing with our fellow humans even Mr. Spock would agree.
 
Last edited:
No.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not.
--------------------------

I suppose you could argue that "logic", if defined as some form of argument which is unassailable and cannot be disproved without violating some arbitrary "Rules of the Universe", would be only consistent, as "useful" is a matter of opinion.

I do not know if such a form of "logic" exists.

And I am not sure it would be a good thing if it did.

Many decisions which are made based on illogical reasons likely have the potential to cause a good effect. Equally, they have the potential for causing a bad effect.

The same goes for logic.

But can you really differentiate between the two?

From one perspective, a given decision might seem illogical. From another, it might seem logical.

It all depends on that which said "logic" is based upon. One set of input "I", when processed through a filter which is made up of all the pervious experiences, knowledge and wisdom that the person filtering it contains, would yield one result.
The same input "I", filtered through a different person's experiences, knowledge and wisdom, would yield a completely different result.

So, IMO, "logic" does not exist, except if constrained within a framework which prevents certain results.

For example, mathematics.

Given a set of boundaries (various laws of math), identical inputs will always result in the same output. Change the boundaries, and the output will change as well.

Edit: Then again, I am applying my own form of logic to this very debate...


Messes with your head, don't it? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom