• 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!

Absolute Logic

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is logic, emotion, "right", "wrong", and every other preconcieved notion out there.

I am posting an ordeal where one chooses between absolute logic and emotion. Stick to the story, make your choice, and explain why.
_

Let us say you and your mother were lost in the frozen barren woods. You had kindling, a lighter, a knife, rocks, and little hope. Your mother was slowly succumbing to the atmosphere and neither of you had food. (Here we go) Would you kill your mother and survie through cannibalism because absolute logic dictates that you must do so to survive? Or would you let her be because you love her and would rather starve?

_

That is all. I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation. There is no other alternatives in this story. It must be a hard choice with deep reasons.

What are your thoughts and, more importantly, what would you do?
 
That's a no-brainer... I'd let her be.

In fact, I can't imagine that my answer would be any different no matter who it was that was with me.
 
That's a no-brainer... I'd let her be.

In fact, I can't imagine that my answer would be any different no matter who it was that was with me.

So it is emotions and morality over logic with this one..

Is emotion and morality greater than logic, Grim17?
 
Given the fact that, in your story, there's no indication that either of us would ultimately survive or get out of the situation, there isn't much of a point to killing her and eating her, except to prolong your own suffering a little longer, is there?

So no, I wouldn't do it. No logic to it.
 
I'd eat her only if she died. I wouldn't kill her myself. If she were still alive, I'd try to do my best so that the both of us survived.
 
I dont agree that the decision defines absolute logic
 
Given the fact that, in your story, there's no indication that either of us would ultimately survive or get out of the situation, there isn't much of a point to killing her and eating her, except to prolong your own suffering a little longer, is there?
So no, I wouldn't do it. No logic to it.

If that was what the OP implied, that there was no hope in doing such, this thread would not exist.
 
I dont agree that the decision defines absolute logic

Of course not. Many don't.

I see that emotions and notions of morality are keeping people from doing what logic in its purest form dictates.

Survival. (Is that not what evolutionists pine for, or do they not believe in thier notions to the fullest extent?)
 
For the purposes of the thread has the object of this situation already produced offspring?
 
Last edited:
For the purposes of the thread has the object of this situatio already produced offspring?

Don't spam this thread. Or this forum, for that matter, as you consistently do.

I've noticed that you merely post short responses with no substantial logical meat. But I suppose you should be happy, though; you're the main reason I have this new quote in my sig.

Cheers.
 
If that was what the OP implied, that there was no hope in doing such, this thread would not exist.

I can only go by what you post, not what you think you implied. You never said there was a guarantee that if you stayed alive, you'd be rescued, I responded as such.
 
You are operating under the false assumption that survival is always logical. Logic is only a measure of internal consistency with given assumptions. If the given assumption is to prioritize your survival at all costs, then yes it is logical to kill your mother. However, it is equally logical to decide that your mother is more important and commit suicide so she might live. An illogical action would be killing your mother for survival and then not eating her.
 
Of course not. Many don't.

I see that emotions and notions of morality are keeping people from doing what logic in its purest form dictates.

Survival. (Is that not what evolutionists pine for, or do they not believe in thier notions to the fullest extent?)

Evolution is an aggregated effected, not indivdidual.
 
I can only go by what you post, not what you think you implied. You never said there was a guarantee that if you stayed alive, you'd be rescued, I responded as such.

That is the response I wanted to see. Very good.

It'll be edited soon.
 
Oh, maybe I should entertain your pursuit of "absolute logic" oh philosopher king. If you have a problem with my posts, turning your nose up at that which doesn't fellate your psyche - I issued a response
that merited your thread in addendum. These forums are not yours, nor do you have the authority to issue a demand for me to leave. ..!.
 
Last edited:
Evolution is an aggregated effected, not indivdidual.

Individuals comprise the aggregation.

Don't we (not me) evolutional intellectuals believe in the collective?
 
Oh, maybe I should entertain your pursuit of "absolute logic" oh philosopher king. If you have a problem with my posts, turning your nose up at that which doesn't fellate your psyche - I issued a response
that merited your thread in addendum. These forums are not yours, nor do you have the authority to issue a demand for me to leave. ..!.

Again you offer no substantial response. You merely spam and insult.

You're being redundant.
 
You are operating under the false assumption that survival is always logical. Logic is only a measure of internal consistency with given assumptions. If the given assumption is to prioritize your survival at all costs, then yes it is logical to kill your mother. However, it is equally logical to decide that your mother is more important and commit suicide so she might live. An illogical action would be killing your mother for survival and then not eating her.

What is logic?

Can someone obey logic in its purest form?

Machines have no emotion or morality. They only follow logic. When people strive to be more logical than others, they do not realize that to be utterly logic is to focus on logic alone and leave all else behind.
 
Individuals comprise the aggregation.

Don't we (not me) evolutional intellectuals believe in the collective?

Yes, individuals make up the aggregated group. But there is a difference between group dynamics, such as evolution, and individual dyanamics. If you want to say evolution says X about this individual, you are not quite applying evolution correctely because you are taking a singular point instead of aggregated statistics. In fact, death is a large part of the evolutionary process. Through various reproduction, you create a wide base, the sections of that base which cannot adapt well enough die off where as the sections of that base which do adapt survive, and you turn the crank again. Survival in and of itself is not productive to evolution, only the survival of the best adaptable parts. If everything survives, there is no evolution. So when you say "Survival. (Is that not what evolutionists pine for, or do they not believe in thier notions to the fullest extent?)"; you are trying to take an aggregated analysis of change over time and apply it to a very rapid process involving an individual.
 
Looking at the situation logically, I think a lot of people would kill their mother with the intention of eating her, but would justify it in their minds as putting her out of her misery so she wouldn't have to suffer. The interesting thing about emotions is that they can be rationalized so you don't have a conflict between logic and emotion.

That being said, the idea of "absolute" anything in logic is rather absurd. Perhaps an axiom, postulate, or mathematical proof, but certainly not an absolute.
 
Looking at the situation logically, I think a lot of people would kill their mother with the intention of eating her, but would justify it in their minds as putting her out of her misery so she wouldn't have to suffer. The interesting thing about emotions is that they can be rationalized so you don't have a conflict between logic and emotion.

That being said, the idea of "absolute" anything in logic is rather absurd. Perhaps an axiom, postulate, or mathematical proof, but certainly not an absolute.

Actually, given what they had on them; the most "logical" solution is not to kill your mother and eat her. But rather to build a fire, build shelter, and go forage for food. There is greater strength in number and if your mother can be nursed back so that she can then contribute, your collective survival probabilities increase.
 
What is logic?

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone obey logic in its purest form?

Logic doesn't tell you what to do. It is however possible to consistently follow a given set of goals in a logical fashion.

Machines have no emotion or morality. They only follow logic. When people strive to be more logical than others, they do not realize that to be utterly logic is to focus on logic alone and leave all else behind.

Being logical simply requires you have a clear set of priorities and follow them accurately. It doesn't mean you can't use your emotions to figure out what your priorities are.
 
When people strive to be more logical than others, they do not realize that to be utterly logic is to focus on logic alone and leave all else behind.

Not true. What is logical is to recognize that human being possess mirror neurons, which in turn make us empathatic creatures. As such, the practice of empathy is innate to us and it would be irrational to ignore that nature.
 
I would not eat my mother. If the situation is hopeless why would you do that anyway? In terms of absolute logic, is taking care of oneself the top priority? Why is it part of absolute logic to prolong one's life?
 
Actually, given what they had on them; the most "logical" solution is not to kill your mother and eat her. But rather to build a fire, build shelter, and go forage for food. There is greater strength in number and if your mother can be nursed back so that she can then contribute, your collective survival probabilities increase.

Very true. But you bring up an excellent point. Limiting such a situation to two options is inherently irrational. Someone using logic would recognize that there were many alternative options available.
 
Back
Top Bottom