I'm already sick of typing and hearing "permeating logic" in my head, and I don't even think it is all that original of an idea. I just kind of made it up to defend the idea that the most logical, rational view is always the best, an idea you have dislodged at least a little in my mind.

Another thing: if we are talking about a construct like law, for example, we very much are talking about something with a form of permeating logic, and one cannot throw out just any conclusion one desires via elimination of premises, as one would also need to throw out other conclusions that result from those premises elsewhere, or risk contradictions with whatever replaces the undesirable conclusion.

We cannot say that, for instance, "people are always responsible for breaking the law when they break the law, except when they break a law that circumstances can mitigate", even though we might not consider one responsible for breaking a law due to mitigating circumstances, and think it is wrong to convict someone when circumstances are mitigating, because this leads to a contradiction with the general case that people are always responsible for breaking the law when they break the law.

This retention of logic seems all-important to me, at least when discussing certain things.

What you mean is more apparent to me now, you are describing a logical chain, where we use conclusions derived from past consideration as factors in present and future thought, yes? And also that our perspective is like a house of cards, each card is necessary to maintain the structure. That "structure" is our internal consistency and represents the coherency of a worldview. Do you accept that explanation, or did I miss something?

This is just a description of how logic operates, in a way, you're describing rational thought itself. One needs reasons for justification, and where else would these reasons come if not belief? Believed to be true, believed to be important, believed to be worthwhile, or whatever else. These beliefs could be about what is true, what is right, what is sensible, what is noble, and much more. Do you agree with the comparison?

In something like law, we can argue about what outcomes we should pursue and why, and that's about all I'm interested in. If I can be convinced that a law will deliver an outcome I approve of, then I will approve of that law. I don't care whether it's logically consistent with the other laws that exist... Do you?

To be honest, I'm still quite unsure as to what amendment to OP you're proposing, or what argument you're putting forward here. I'd like to have a better understanding before saying anything else.

I don't care whether it's logically consistent with the other laws that exist... Do you? — Judaka

Should we not try to avoid contradictions in law? Aren't parity and justice and general equality before the law to be desired over the short-term efficiency of judging a law only by its theoretical, although perhaps beneficial, outcome - at least some of the time?

Applying law, which is the main reason law exists - to be applied - becomes difficult when the laws you are referencing could be contradictory. For instance: the idea of mutual combat, a thing that goes on at most martial arts gyms pretty regularly, although not all, explains why we don't throw people in prison for leg-kicking each other vigorously.

However, a gunman might latch onto this and say that they and another engaged in a mutual shootout and, as a symptom, the other died, but they shouldn't be charged with murder because it was mutual.

Both circumstances could be construed as mutual combat, and if we do not have some sort of logic to parse the differences between mutual combat in a safe environment and mutual combat outside of a safe environment, we may end up allowing a murderer to get away with murder, or potentially imprisoning someone for wheel-kicking someone else in the head while sparring, depending on which way you lean.

I suppose my amendment to the OP is that no belief exists in a vacuum; rational thought requires a prioritization of logic to have better compatibility among beliefs or elements, especially when dealing with an applied logic, such as in law. The selection of the efficient, ostensibly desired outcome by mere selection of which factors give said outcome could have implications elsewhere that are antithetical to retaining overall structural coherence of such a system of beliefs or laws or whatever.

In a perfect world, I think rational thought and desired outcome would be congruous.

Of course, they are not, largely, but when it comes to something as important as the climate crisis, the argument could be made to totally reshape society. The desired outcome - the avoidance of intense suffering for a large portion of humanity - is so all encompassing that reason and logic should be employed, perhaps even exclusively, to pursue this goal as doggedly as is necessary. It doesn't matter if environmentally friendly laws contradict other laws, as mitigation of the climate catastrophe is the force by which we should measure and shape other laws - not the other way around.

This would also apply for avoiding nuclear war or any other existential crisis that humanity might face.

I promise I'm not contradicting myself, as I think climate laws would still need to be logical, and thus airtight, so there is that.

Should we not try to avoid contradictions in law? Aren't parity and justice and general equality before the law to be desired over the short-term efficiency of judging a law only by its theoretical, although perhaps beneficial, outcome - at least some of the time? — ToothyMaw

My issue with your approach to this question is that you are purposefully cherry-picking examples where contradictions are problematic, really, to a cartoonish level. Your example isn't of a law that is contradictory, it's of a law that is so ambiguous that it's utterly dysfunctional. I didn't want to discuss things like law to begin with, and I'm shocked by the silliness of your example & argument.

The pre-requisite to me asking whether you care about contradictions in law is we're judging it based on the outcomes it's delivering. I'm not asking you whether it's fine for a law to be dysfunctional and useless... Those are the things that I care about the most.

I suppose my amendment to the OP is that no belief exists in a vacuum; rational thought requires a prioritization of logic to have better compatibility among beliefs or elements, especially when dealing with an applied logic, such as in law. The selection of the efficient, ostensibly desired outcome by mere selection of which factors give said outcome could have implications elsewhere that are antithetical to retaining overall structural coherence of such a system of beliefs or laws or whatever. — ToothyMaw

You present permeating logic as a fragile, intricate structure that we risk at our peril, causing some unspecified consequences if we try to improve outcomes by making changes to how we think and what we believe.

Really? This is what you believe?

One should abandon a bad chess strategy, they should discard an old way of doing something when they find a better way, but when it comes to opinions on masculinity or something, they ought not to touch it with a 10-foot pole, is that right? Because who knows how it might undermine their position on marriage or gender roles?

And what then? They'll fall over in despair and regret? They'll wish they hadn't tried to fix the real problem that they deemed worthwhile to address. It's too hard to make new opinions, or just find a different way to argue the same point?

So, what exactly are these consequences you speak of? Are they so dire that they can't just be dealt with as they occur? Have you ever seen this be a problem, or experienced this problem yourself? If you are just arguing this for the sake of playing devil's advocate, please don't.

Wasn't playing devil's advocate, but I'll just let it ride. Good interacting with you. I don't think I have a whole lot to offer on this one. See you around, I guess.

You didn't deserve the tone of my last response, I was influenced by some work-induced stress and should've waited until I was more relaxed before I commented. My apologies and thanks for discussing this topic with me.

:up: