I've been lurking around this forum for a while but have abstained from posting, mostly because I felt my posts would be redundant to someone else's argument. But I think I have a pertinent question that has not been directly addressed.

Many or the posts here pertain to the legitimacy of certain beliefs or actions, both real and hypothetical (e.g. religion, death penalty, abortion, and dog deaths). Most of the arguments lie on what is the most logical ("+EV") choice, and arguments about the validity of the logic and assumptions ensue.

My dilemma is this: Is it sometimes valid to be illogical? (I used entitled instead of valid in the title of the post - they are not really the same thing but I'm interested in responses to either.)

I don't mean situations when people use false logic to come up with the correct answer, but rather when someone has used logic to come up what is clearly the best belief/action, and yet denies that action or belief.

I'm interested in what others think - I'll post my thoughts later...