The Failure Of Logic

[Cerril]

Obviously the system is flawed. If that's the logical thing to do then he's being consistent and there's nothing wrong with his actions.

You would have to add further considerations to even be able to argue that killing two more people is wrong. Most of us tend to hold that belief, but why not this guy? If it's logical to hold the belief that killing people is wrong, he shouldn't be killing people. (likewise with robbery, or are you saying that the laws are illogical?)

[Cerril]

That's an interesting take on things, and it could work. My writings have mostly focused on the need to have the sentence*chance to get caught outweigh the gain from the crime.

Certainly in this case the law is not logical, or perhaps the enforcement is inefficient (the logical criminal believes he can get away).

I would be interested in reading your writings on social contracts (or whatever topic resulted in these thoughts)

[Cerril]

You're describing an interesting setting, but then if morality is completely divorced from logic he's doing nothing wrong in your thought experiment. We can't fault logic for that, it's the setting.

If anything, your thought experiment exposes the flaws in a morality divorced from logic, and an illogical penal system. So in that, it's a success.

[Cerril]

Well it might be in the phrasing. You aren't so much as arguing logic is flawed as that logic applied incompletely can be worse than acting completely contrary to logic (ironically, exactly what you're being accused of doing).

If you were to, say, argue that this guy is addressing his current situation logically but ignored certain critical mistakes to get him into this situation (or continues to ignore some), then yes, we would agree that his use of logic is absolutely terrible. I'm fairly sure that approached from that angle you would find most of the forum community agreeing with you as well - it seems there's a definite tendency here to find fault with people applying concepts incompletely or improperly.

[OnlinePokerCoach]

Sidenote: Robert De Niro’s character in the movie “Heat” (a great movie) does exactly that when their attack on a armoured truck goes awry. Once one guard is killed by the rookie, De Niro orders the execution of the remaining guards in order to facilitate the escape—and because the deaths no longer affect their punishment if they are caught.

OPC

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How could it be logical to give your life up to the authorities who would then extinguish it in the name of punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]
How could it be logical to eat a carrot?

I don't think you know what logical means.

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.

Metaphorically, we might say that a certain action is "logical" if it is likely to achieve the actor's objectives. If I want to shoot you, it would be "logical" for me to point my gun at you, and "illogical" for me to point it at myself. If I want to shoot myself, the reverse would be true.

If I want to eat a banana, it would be "logical" for me to eat a banana and "illogical" for me to eat a carrot instead.

If I want to eat a carrot, it would be "logical" for me eat a carrot, and "illogical" for me to eat a banana instead.

So just as the logic of an argument depends on the relationship between its premises and its conclusion ("Britney Spears is Mormon; all Mormons are over seven feet tall; therefore Britney Spears is over seven feet tall" is a perfectly logical argument), the "logic" of a certain act depends on the relationship between the actor's assumed objectives and the act's likelihood of achieving them.

But logic doesn't tell us what the premises of an argument should be -- it only tells us whether a given conclusion follows from them.

Similarly, "logic" in the metaphorical sense in which you're using it doesn't tell us what the actor's objectives should be; it just tells us whether a given act is likely to achieve them.

So to answer your question, How could it be logical to give your life up to the authorities who would then extinguish it in the name of punishment?, the answer is that it would be "logical" to give up your life to the authorities if your overriding goal is to spare the mother and child instead of sparing yourself.

If the burglar has different objectives than that, then go ahead and get all indignant about his objectives -- but not about logic. (Or in this case, "logic.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear maurile,

You have not told anything that comes as a surprise to me.

Much of what you cite I would also cite to support my position.

Yours faithfully,

Al Mirpuri.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

My point is that your "thought experiment" expresses what is known as a "logical absurdity;" it is a criticism of a given legal standard -- an automatic death penalty -- and not a criticism of logic itself.

That legal standard permits logical conclusions which are absurd -- that is, outrageous and/or harmful -- and thus creates a "logical absurdity." The Court recognized this logical absurdity, and changed the law.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Is it logical to step off a 20-story building ... if you want to die?

Cris

[theBruiser500]

Great post.

[Cerril]

Not to be a detractor (i completely agree with the content), but I've noticed that anything that gets red text, particularly David Sklansky Red Text <tm> in the Psychology forum, gets undue attention (quite a few 'I agree' posts here). There are a lot of good points in this thread and not all of them are summed up in this post.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be better to beat you all into agreeing to my point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true religious fanatic.

If the arguments don't seem to work, bring out the swords.

Dov