Logical Consistency (Advice?)

[Frank Quasar]

Yes, those are some good points and I agree with you on that. I'm in the same boat for the most part, especially early that morning as I was reading that thread because I couldn't necessarily absorb everything I read initially.

In some additional news: I was in Ask Yourself's server last night, and I came to notice that some of the members were having a little set back with the whole P1 argument. P1 being that humans are of moral value, whatever justification that is applied to a human will not follow and make it permissible to kill them, so the carnist can remain consistent whilst opposing veganism. They can say intelligence justifies killing a pig, but it wouldn't for a marginal case, and since they accept P1 they remain consistent in accordance to this position. That is generally the belief of the opposition.

I haven't really seen them come up with a comforting rebuttal to this, nor have I seen anything from Ask Yourself specifically yet, but what really interested me was the really short conversation about the Argument From Relevance.

Some members have taken note of this, and they may consider the idea of possibly hedging out the importance of sentience as a morally relevant trait and begin building up their framework with the argument from marginal cases once this has been done. It's kind of an interesting thing, to be honest.

Maybe an article on the Argument From Relevance would be good, if it is ever created I may post it in the server and look for feedback from them.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

yeah, i should do that. any particular threads on the forum that goes over this in some good detail that i could probably read from? i read most of the AMP thread this morning.

What kind of threads are you looking for?

[Frank Quasar]

I'm interested in threads that generally talk about the importance of logical consistency (and contradiction) that I can read from on the forum.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I'm interested in threads that generally talk about the importance of logical consistency (and contradiction) that I can read from on the forum.

I’m sorry, I don’t really remember any (or see any in my post history that I checked).

I struggle with this issue myself because I’m not sure which system of logic we should be using. @brimstoneSalad has made several compelling cases (to me) for classical logic, but these discussions generally presume the necessity of some logic. I’m just not sure that the fact that contradictions are incoherent really justifies not having them if we can still sensibly describe them in some other way, like how we might find Baye’s theorem incoherent if we are sufficiently young or confused, but still know that it is true.

If you are worried about why we should use logic at all, I would say that it is because if we don’t, then there is no way to distinguish between what arguments can be upheld and which cannot, which may be true, but nevertheless not worth wagering on if you want to use your life satisfactorily.