The Failure Of Logic

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi umdpoker,

I would be astonished beyond words if any would-be murderer in history has ever engaged in this kind of reasoning. It may be comparatively more likely in economic crimes, where you can balance the chance of prosecution and conviction, and the penalty, against the likely profit. But it's not even remotely applicable in violent crimes.

This is, btw, one of the best arguments against the death penalty. Despite the poorly-reasoned arguments of a handful of researchers who claim to have interviewed prison inmates who say they didn't kill someone out of fear of the death penalty, the overwhelming evidence is that would-be violent criminals simply don't do this kind of reasoning. This is "the myth of the rational, economic, criminal actor" and there is more than ample evidence that it is, indeed, a myth.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas More wrote Utopia and argued against having the death penalty for burglary as it meant the burglar might as well kill the householders. This is medieval England.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

If ever you get the opportunity to drag your attention away from these forums and your other studies -- and my guess is that you're in college so you don't have a whole lot of time right now -- you might do some reading on criminal law theory. The myth of the rational, economic, criminal actor has been thoroughly disproven.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

[ QUOTE ]
It is a thought experiment that shows logic is no guide to living the "good" life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one here has argued that logic alone can guide one's actions. Logic is a process of analysis, but it is only as useful as the premises upon which it is based.

Given your premises as stated, the flaw in the burglar's reasoning and premises occurred prior to the burglary, where he began with a premise of "if I can steal it, I'm entitled to it," then failed to follow through the chain of possible consequences ("if I break in to steal it and someone is home, it might turn violent or even deadly").

In short, you've created a thought experiment which: (a) is based on a flawed statement of the subject you introduce as a counterexample; and, (b) punctuated the problem in a way designed to illustrate your pre-determined conclusion. An accurate statement of the law, or a different punctuation of the problem, can prove the opposite conclusion. So all you've done is prove that you can misstate and narrow the discourse in ways that make logical analysis irrelevant. That says nothing at all about the utility of logic, and a whole lot about your approach to rhetoric.

Cris

[The Yugoslavian]

Al,

Ummm, I don't see how there is a 'failure of logic' present within this thought experiment. I can only guess that you feel logic has, or should have, some moral component to it. However, logic, in a strict sense, does not and so saying that logic has failed is misleading and/or wrong.

It seems that your thought experiment really conveys the failure of the hypothetical law to deter felony murder.

Perhaps the point is that the law is illogical but this also wouldn't demonstrate how logic is failing.

I'm a bit tired and haven't had the chance to read through all of the replys to your post. Perhaps you have talked further about how the thought experiment demonstrates a failure of logic.

I am actually fairly interested to know what you're trying to communicate about logic and/or morality and/or laws.

[Al Mirpuri]

Dear The Yugoslavian,

Many have posted on this forum about the wonders of logic in aiding one's life.

I posted my thought experiment to show that logic can offer a guide to life that is downright immoral.

No logic does not a moral component. Logic is about the relationship between propositions. More loosely, it can cover means-ends reasoning.

I just wanted to point out that logic was not a magic bullet for anyone's life.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Al,

If ever you get the opportunity to drag your attention away from these forums and your other studies -- and my guess is that you're in college so you don't have a whole lot of time right now -- you might do some reading on criminal law theory. The myth of the rational, economic, criminal actor has been thoroughly disproven.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris you are so way off the mark about my age and occupation. However, that is just a minor thing.

All criminals do not need to be rational actors. Only the criminal in my thought experiment needs to be. However, let me assure you that criminals who are rational actors exist.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Al,

[ QUOTE ]
It is a thought experiment that shows logic is no guide to living the "good" life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one here has argued that logic alone can guide one's actions. Logic is a process of analysis, but it is only as useful as the premises upon which it is based.

Given your premises as stated, the flaw in the burglar's reasoning and premises occurred prior to the burglary, where he began with a premise of "if I can steal it, I'm entitled to it," then failed to follow through the chain of possible consequences ("if I break in to steal it and someone is home, it might turn violent or even deadly").

In short, you've created a thought experiment which: (a) is based on a flawed statement of the subject you introduce as a counterexample; and, (b) punctuated the problem in a way designed to illustrate your pre-determined conclusion. An accurate statement of the law, or a different punctuation of the problem, can prove the opposite conclusion. So all you've done is prove that you can misstate and narrow the discourse in ways that make logical analysis irrelevant. That says nothing at all about the utility of logic, and a whole lot about your approach to rhetoric.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

You have consistently missed the point. And do so once again. You are trapped by your own publically stated comments ie these posts. You are now repeating yourself. You have come across a problem. The problem is that two intelligent actors can disagree about something. I deny that the thought experiment was flaws. Though the creator of it has many flaws.

Why do you feel the need to comment about my age and status? Ad hominem attack?

[crash]

"Strictly speaking, actions aren't logical or illogical; arguments are. An argument is logical if its conclusion follows from its premises. An argument is illogical if its conclusion does not follow from its premises."

Are you using "logical" to be synonomous with "valid" here?
(ie "logical" = "if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true")

If so, then inductive arguments are not "logical"?

If not, and you're saying that "logical" refers to both valid argument and inductive arguments, then you seem to have a little bit of a circularity problem.

[The Yugoslavian]

Oh, okay. I'm all for trying to persuade people not to get hung up on magic bullets.

One thing that may be effective is to clearly call attention to the fact that logic does not have a moral component and in that sense has a much more limited use when it comes to moral arguments than people assume.

Logic (IMHO) is simply a very useful tool that allows us (human beings) to tackle many difficult and not so difficult problems. Note that it is a very useful tool and in that sense I would say valuable, however, logic alone does not entail any *rich* meaning or significance (such as living a Good life or being moral).

Anyway, carry on.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

An ad hominem attack from CrisBrown?!? This has got to be a first!

Next thing you know, she'll start talking about the possibility of you raping her daughter, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

CrisBrown definitely likes to argue and I think does sometimes say things that seem to be valuable. I do wonder, however, if she spends too much time posting willy-nilly and not enough time trying to actually figure out what a poster actually means or is trying to communicate through the imperfect medium of message board text.