Logically inconsistant, my ***

I think luckyme's position is that most of the statements made here don't represent wffs, and therefore can't really be considered logically inconsistent.

My original interpretation of the OP's problem assumed a situation like this:

All killings are wrong. All lethal acts of self-defense are killings. In this clase claiming that a "self-defense killing" isn't wrong would be inconsistent with the previous statements (all self-defense killings must be wrong).

Unfortunately, the language used on a message board forum has to be a bit vague. Going into exact detail would take too long (and would be arguably impossible). And when the definition of a term changes with the wind, it's really hard to pin it down into any sort of formal context.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, the language used on a message board forum has to be a bit vague. Going into exact detail would take too long (and would be arguably impossible). And when the definition of a term changes with the wind, it's really hard to pin it down into any sort of formal context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I've noticed some posters tend to make there first response along the lines of "define X" or, "please elaborate". After being burned enough times by assuming that a post to a internet forum actually rigorously means what it seems to, I 'spose. Even in situations that seem obvious, such as the "All killing is wrong. Death penalty is good." there are at least two possibilities. a) the person is logically challenged.
b) they misphrased a statement.
c) I misread some clue or an earlier post, etc.

note to self - if the post seems way off, make your first response a clarification request, or allow for the possibility of needing one. luckyme.

[chezlaw]

I agree with you but just for some different flavour:

An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests.

An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.

This is not about boats.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not about boats.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, thanks a lot. I just Know that allowing boats would have simplified it for me.
[ QUOTE ]
(A) An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests.

(B)An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running up the stairs is neither logical or illogical, my reasons for doing so may be.
Having forewarned you how narrow-minded I am, here's my first reaction to your statements -
I'm not sure, in the broadest sense, that (A) is a possibility, if you have anything further to prod me with, I'm listening. If we start with this framing -
(1) all my actions must be in my interests.
(2) I choose Action X believing it's not in my interest.
I'd still not rule the Action as illogical ( a quibble), I'd consider the premise (1) false and consider the chain of reasoning 'illogical' on that basis. If the premise is true, can a person actually do that?( as I've interpreted your statement), perhaps it’s ‘impossible’ rather than illogical to choose an action not in my interest.

With (B), I'm trying to see the linkage between beliefs and 'in my interest' and trying to avoid chasing my own tail.. An argument can be built correctly on false premises, in fact, I try and do that 3 times before lunch each day. Since we can rarely have all the evidence, our conclusions always start with a usually unexpressed redundant "if these premises are true... " and, "If these are all the facts/premises that apply …".

A person makes a decision that is obviously wrong but well thought out .. it only blows up when you say, "But ,Hortense, today is only tuesday." His logic built on the false premise that today was wednesday may have been so brilliant it made my navel tingle, and I'm not so eager to call his thinking 'illogical' in the same manner as I would too eagerly do for someone who knew it was only tuesday, had all the other info that Hortense did, and screwed the thinking process up horrendously. Circular reasoning, post hoc, whatever.
Then again, perhaps I'm process-biased.

Am I anywhere near the field you are standing in?

I'm not sure there is necessarily an inconsistency between 'I'm against killing' and 'it being ok to kill someone in a certain situation'. Or any other similar example you can come up with. The fact that it could be ok to kill, say in self-defence, doesn't make the initial statement 'I'm against killing' a contingent statement. It's about an application problem, or to put it in more common parlance, about choosing the lesser of two evils. You can only establish any statement as truly inconsistent by example of it's application if, in that example, every option is available - ie the person making the choice is omnipotent. I'm against plenty of things I find myself doing, such as hanging out with my family.

The +/-EV thing with Hitler is pretty cool, made me smile [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But all that's really doing is digging up the utilitarian/consequentialist school of ethics vs value ethics. If an individual has genuinely constructed an ethical framework based on value/act, then no amount of +/-EV is going to sway an action.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Running up the stairs is neither logical or illogical, my reasons for doing so may be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, talking about actions being logical or not presupposes there is act of will going on.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, in the broadest sense, that (A) [(A) An action is illogical if you believe it is against your interests] is a possibility, if you have anything further to prod me with, I'm listening. If we start with this framing -
(1) all my actions must be in my interests.
(2) I choose Action X believing it's not in my interest.
I'd still not rule the Action as illogical ( a quibble), I'd consider the premise (1) false and consider the chain of reasoning 'illogical' on that basis. If the premise is true, can a person actually do that?( as I've interpreted your statement), perhaps it’s ‘impossible’ rather than illogical to choose an action not in my interest.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree premise (1) is false but I see it differently. I can't see any justification for saying that all your actions must be in your interests; where would this 'mustness' come from?

and as usual with me, I'm not 'proving' my claim about illogical actions but trying to understand what we mean by saying an action is illogical. If all my reasoning tells me that an action is against my interests, but then I do it anyway, then that is what I mean by an illgical action.

I hate examples but as its a poker forum; Mr P is trying to play poker well as possible, he knows he is beat on the end but cant stop himself calling.

Logically: Mr P's believes his interests imply ~calling
illogically: Mr P call.

[ QUOTE ]
With (B) [(B)An action is also illogical if you haven't realised it is against your interests but it logically follows from your beliefs that the act is against your interests.], I'm trying to see the linkage between beliefs and 'in my interest' and trying to avoid chasing my own tail.. An argument can be built correctly on false premises, in fact, I try and do that 3 times before lunch each day. Since we can rarely have all the evidence, our conclusions always start with a usually unexpressed redundant "if these premises are true... " and, "If these are all the facts/premises that apply …".

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll try to be clearer because its nothing to do with false premises.

Suppose Mr P's interests, I, imply wanting W to be the case and wanting W to be the case implies not doing action A. Then
1)I -> W
2) W -> ~A
therefore
3) I -> ~A

If Mr P believes 1) and 2) but hasn't realised that 3) is a logical consequence, so he doesn't realise that A doesn't serve his interests, then doing A is illogical (that is someone who is 100% logical would realise all the logical consequences of what they believe and act accordingly).

Poker analogy is not letting your opponent raise when it will make you want to throw up. Mr P wants to see a showdown but unthinkingly bets on the end, only realising after his opponent raised why he shouldn't have bet.

Mr P's believes his interest -> not letting his opponent raise
Mr P believes not letting his opponent raise -> not betting
therefore
A logical consequence of Mr P's beliefs is that he believes betting is against his interests.

Betting is illogical even if MR P never thinks about it enough to realise that betting is against his interests.

chez

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all humans are of equal value.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. The crazy thoughts swimming in the burgler's head are different than the crazy thoughts swimming in a 'rational' person's head which creates the difference in action. Some think some way, some think another way and the difference in opinion creates tension because the two groups are scared and ignorant of eachother and themselves. Both groups are still crazy though. When you know that you're crazy though, you can really beat the crap out of the burglar, but only cause you know that you're crazy. If you don't know that you're crazy, it will be anger that is kicking his face in. But if someone is crazy and doesn't know they are crazy, then they are just ignorant.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 'proving' my claim about illogical actions but trying to understand what we mean by saying an action is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)I -> W 2) W -> ~A therefore 3) I -> ~A

when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.

So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not. It's no accident that poker is dominated by males, a big chunk of it isn't about the money.

( this is off your point, but often it’s that his reasoning is flawed, he’s not able to juggle enough variables quickly enough to make good decisions, those are illogical actions because the steps themselves are screwed up. It’s a lesser crime to miss some facts, and have the logical steps correct for the shrunken fact set you are working with. Outcome is the same so we usually can’t tell from the outside which one it is just by looking at the final decision.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[ QUOTE ]
So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by actual interests, I don't think there is any such thing. All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I'd add (c) or he is mistaken about what his interests are, which questions this - [ QUOTE ]
All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

[/ QUOTE ] which is true. That doesn't allow us to conclude that what we believe we want is what we want, we're not internally omniscient either. In many cases, it's much easier to see what somebody wants from the outside than it is for them from the inside. The, "If you think you play poker (only) for the money, you're only fooling yourself" view of things.

Still, on a philosophy forum we can only deal with the logic as it is overtly presented, and leave the 'a persons philosophy grows out of their psychology' type questions to the psychology forum, I 'spose. ( although it does explain a lot of what we read here).
luckyme