Logically inconsistant, my ***

[imported_luckyme]

I used to be surprised at comments about Actions being 'logically inconsistant', now I rather expect a majority of people to commit that linkage.

Good poker players are already exposed to the concept that there are no two identical situtions and that the correct, logical answer always starts out with "it depends". IOW, the consistancy exists in the accurate application of logic to two different (but very similar looking) situations, not in the comparison of the answers to just some of the variables involved.
"I have AA UTG, I should raise because..."
is not logically inconsistant with "I have AA UTG, I shouldn't raise because..." if there is even one eensy,teensie variable that is different between the two specific situations it may sway the answer.

So, what is logically inconsistant with having a SOP of being against shooting people, but having no qualms about ventilating a burglar about to crowbar your child?

Not all humans are of equal value.
A burglar taking a crowbar to my child ranks just above sewer rats. A child taking a crowbar to a burglar approaching them is a brave li'l darlin.

It's not logically inconsistant to have two different ratings on "whacking people with crowbars". Positions aren't logical entities. The method of arriving at them may be.

So, it makes no sense to think it's logically inconsistant to be "against killing" but "ok with some wars". Or, not a supporter of abortion but willing to concede some exceptions. Or, for the death penalty but against mercy killing.

IOW, we can consider people to be intellectually honest if they are consistant in fairly applying equal logical rigor to each situation based on the same variety of underlying principles that touch on the case in question. Looking for 'intellectual honesty' in the approach to different situations is much more meaningful ( and a better character assessment) than thinking there is a way of judging logical consistancy from merely looking at 'positions' on non-identical situations.

I intend this as stimulative, not definitive, have at it.. luckyme

[r3vbr]

Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, was Stalin really that bad?

I'm not into the 'evil' concept, but I get your drift. [ QUOTE ]
Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ] Hold it. Wasn't da Vinci involved in keeping some really neat code from us? and didn't he start that writing the message backwards nonsense that forced me to listen to the Rolling Stones in slow mode and in reverse to be sure I wasn't missing anything.( I wasn't, in either direction).

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore , Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

and how did you get these numbers?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore , Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

and how did you get these numbers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes there's so many things wrong with a statement that the idea of challenging it is just too overwhelming.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes there's so many things wrong with a statement that the idea of challenging it is just too overwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love Pauli's "It's not even wrong."

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

THANK YOU! I'm glad someone can just give a strait answer to the damn question. Enough with this wishy-washy debateble nonsense.

Honestly though I was crying laughing at that, especial to peoples responses like "where did you come up with those numbers?" could you have anymore not-gotten it? Awsome.

If you say "killing is wrong," you're making a universal statement. Had you said "killing is wrong except under such-and-such circumstances" that would be another thing. But you don't make any distinctions. There's a difference between saying you're "against killing" and saying that you're "against killing in this context for these reasons." You aren't even saying "killing is wrong in general." You're just saying "killing is wrong."

So essentially you are making the same mistake as someone who says "if you have AA you should raise." The fact you have failed to specify any conditions or qualifications indicates a very real flaw in the statement. If you suggest folding AA at some later date, you are being inconsistent with your previous position.

If you believe some wars are justified, or that killing in self-defense is justified, then you aren't "against killing." You may be "against murder," "against killing under certain circumstances," or even "mostly against killing." But you aren't just plain "against killing."

The problem with making sweeping statements is that even if they aren't intended to be categorical, they're vague enough to allow you to change your position as it suits you. "Oh, I am against killing - but that's an exception. And so is that. And that." You can dodge any argument against you by arbitrarily changing the conditions under which killing becomes "okay." Under the circumstances it's fair for an opponent to ask you to define the specific conditions under which killing is and is not allowed. And if in a discussion on the morality of killing you claim that "killing is wrong" it's fair to interpret that position as it was expressed - as absolute.