Logical Consistency (Advice?)

[Frank Quasar]

recently i introduced my friend to veganism and we were having a normal conversation on the topic of ethics. in our discussion i noticed that he was being rather inconsistent with his beliefs, and on top of this, he was inconsistent within his application of his argument to justify killing animals.

i brought up the point about logical consistency and how he was being inconsistent on several areas, as well as making several special pleas with ad hoc rationalizations. i tried to talk about the importance of logical consistency, but he wasn't fully on board with everything i said, and he went as far as to say that if we were absolutely logically consistent with everything we'd probably be in some situations where it's really fucked. he doesn't neglect it completely, it just appears to be on the ethics of veganism specifically where this is tripping him up.

he said if he was persuaded by this he may drop a lot of his initial positions and possibly align himself with veganism, but so far he seems okay with his position, but he's open to change and not dogmatically clinging to his position to absolute.

what could i perhaps say in order to convince him of the basics about logical consistency and it's importance? any good little points i could maybe take note of in order to show him? i would invite him to this forum, but he's extremely busy with work and other priorities so i doubt he'd like the idea of getting caught up in the forum, so i might just send him a screenshot to read most likely.

i would like to hear your general thoughts on this. thank you.

[cornivore]

i tried to talk about the importance of logical consistency

What did you say about the importance of logical consistency?

[Frank Quasar]

i just told him that his set of beliefs rest on some contradictions and cannot both be true at the same time. if he allows his beliefs to conflict with each other so wildly his system if internally in conflict and possibly may suffer the principle of explosion and whatnot. with consistency it's a tool that we use to better help us reach truth, and having all of these internal inconsistencies limits this with issues etc.

i don't think i hammered hard hitting points home for him to buy, so i'll see what i could possibly say for discussion.

[cornivore]

if he allows his beliefs to conflict with each other so wildly his system if internally in conflict and possibly may suffer the principle of explosion and whatnot.

I'm not sure if I follow the logic in that sentence (you might want to rephrase it next time). Looks like there's another topic here you might get some ideas from: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

[Frank Quasar]

strangely enough, i was reading that thread this morning, lol. you might be interested in reading this, AMP created this little article and referenced the forum, seems to me some things have changed. Brim may also be interested too.

https://amp3083.wordpress.com/2017/08/0 ... aac-brown/

what i meant by that statement is that he allows for his system to hold such wild contradictions and it may implode via the principle of explosion, or something of the sort. he tries to rationalize his way out of it with extremely weird points, but it's apparent that he's pulling this stuff out of his ass.

i'll re-read everything there, once again, but i do hope to collect some solid key points for the importance of logical consistency that may have not already been mentioned in a digestible, concise manner. want to make it easy for him to comprehend so he doesn't get too lost.

[cornivore]

I think some things have to be experienced for comprehension to take place, and maybe you're asking someone to comprehend what you feel, not what you say... in a digestible concise manner, you might offer to cook something pleasant then.

[brimstoneSalad]

strangely enough, i was reading that thread this morning, lol. you might be interested in reading this, AMP created this little article and referenced the forum, seems to me some things have changed. Brim may also be interested too.

AMP has been on the forum, he doesn't accept logic as true, so he's not a great source of information or argument.

he tries to rationalize his way out of it with extremely weird points, but it's apparent that he's pulling this stuff out of his ass.

If he's rationalizing then he probably accepts the importance of logical consistency on some level (despite his outburst against it), but he's just making a very very elaborate system to avoid contradictions.
Here it may be useful to talk about Occam's razor.
You can make a system where the sun revolves around the Earth if you make complicated enough rules. Likewise you can justify anything from slavery to the holocaust with enough special exceptions and double standards hinged on far fetched assertions.

The important thing to establish is how he can criticize things he doesn't like (presumably racism, slavery, sex trafficking, genocide, etc.) without the proponents of those things being able to do exactly what he's doing. He needs to abide by the same standards of reason and evidence that he would accept from others, and he's not doing that.

When two people disagree on ethics, are they both equally right with only the ability to criticize each other based on their respective opinions (subjectivism), or is there some rational method of determining who is being more reasonable (one of them being wrong)?

If they disagree do they just have to either agree to disagree (which forces you to accept slavery, etc. if other people believe in it), make emotional appeals and hope the other person will happen to agree, or use violence to solve it based on whoever is left standing?

Using reason, logic, scientific evidence: this is the only way to reliably show others are wrong and convince them to change without violence (emotional appeals aren't reliable). Discourse and reason are the alternative to violence to resolve disagreement. And all the other person has to do is accept those things (which is a very low bar, vs. what they'd need to accept for a more complex system of agreement).

You might want to start by explaining what reasoned discourse does (solves disagreements without violence), and how it depends on logic.

[Frank Quasar]

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. i've found some decent videos from YouTuber teachphilosophy that i can cite him.

[brimstoneSalad]

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. i've found some decent videos from YouTuber teachphilosophy that i can cite him.

I'm not sure. That's a big problem with the forum, we have so many threads and it's hard to search.

@Cirion Spellbinder might know and be able to link you to one.

[cornivore]

i read most of the AMP thread this morning.

I didn't read much of it myself, just came across it searching for something else. My mindset lately has to do with intermittent fasting, and being physically consistent with it, but this topic is interesting all the same. What people say about meditation is that it has as much to do with the experience of it, which I imagine their description of it wouldn't quite convey. Or with the saying it's better to give than receive—how would one really understand the sentiment unless they practiced it? Personally that's how proverbs and idioms are to me, I can understand the words, but not necessarily their context, unless I've been involved in that situation. Anyway I think it could help to explain that an appreciation for something like veganism is based on the experience of it too, just as I now appreciate fasting. I couldn't really get in the "mood" to not eat, until I came to the understanding that such a mood could only be based on past experience, and then it turned out to be a better experience than I expected, just as veganism has over time.