Bad Logic

[Drew]

Suppose someone makes the following argument.

1. There are people who steal chocolate and are motivated to argue that the public should accept this as acceptable behaviour.

2. These same people have a deep inner desire for chocolate.

3. Therefore, those with a deep inner desire for chocolate are inclined to argue for public acceptance of chocolate thievery.

Let's suppose that 1 and 2 have been established as factual. Does conclusion 3 follow?

No, it most certainly does not.

It is possible that 3 is true, but further information is required to make the case stick. This group of choclate thieves may be stealing chocolate precisely because they have a general problem with resisting whatever inner urges they happen to have. They may also steal cigarrettes, cheat on their wives, and kick their dogs. As such, their chocolate stealing-behaviour is a manifestation of this more general character weakness, rather than of their lust for chocolate in particular. Any arguments such people make in respect to public acceptance of chocolate thievery should be properly attributed to this general character flaw, not to their love of chocolate in particular.

Obviously, if they lusted after pretzels and detested chocolate, they would probably be pretzel-thieving, adulterers and dog kickers who argue that the public should accept pretzel thievery.

Of course, if this overall explanation were correct, we should observe that the number of pretzel thieves in society as compared to chocolate thieves stands in the same ratio as the ratio of pretzel lovers to chocolate lovers (actually this may not be exactly true, but for now I will go with it).

Why? Because the real issue is not the specific target of the "lust" but the general inability to handle whatever lust a person happens to have.

 

[Rick W]

I've also heard the argument to augment yours:
"Make it legal for safety. People will do it anyway."
So, instead of a choclate thief risking getting cut on broken glass give him the key to the shop.

But I go off in a tangent. sorry.

 

[ChristineES]

This is interesting, in my Philosophy class we are learning about three stages of life as told bt Kierkegaard:

1. Aesthetic- All people start here, choices are made by whim or desire, without worrying about the consequences. Most people outgrow this.

2.Ethical-Choose by virtue or duty making the law/morality of society our own. Most people never go further than this stage.

3. Religious-We will obey all God's commands- passion, inward commitment subjective truth that is person- Make a leap of faith.

It would appear whoever is stealing chocolate never left the aesthetic stage. :-D

 

[Oscar3]

is not open thiesm a philosophy as well.

 

[ChristineES]

Yes, it is a philosophy as is Diesm (the belief that God was just a "spark" that started the universe working), Pantheism (the belief that everything is God, as in Hinduism), Agnostic (a term coined by John Wisdom who did not know which to believe), and Atheism (belief that there is no God). We studied all of those, I found it very interesting, except for Neitzsche, whose philosophies influenced Hitler. Kierkegaard was was a Theist.

 

[stranger]

re bad logic

Hi Drew,

I tested your example by substituting 'xxxxx' for 'chocolate' and came up with the conclusion, 'Yes, they most certainly do'.

The reason is as follows: Their activity is against norms so they have a problem, if the norms can be changed to agree with the activity, then they cease to have a problem with the new norms of society. However, by changing the norms of society, those who opposed the changing of the norms now have a problem.

Have I got it wrong?

In Christ: Stranger

 

[MrVersatile48]

See When 7x5=75

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 207#310207

Ian

 

[moniker]

I've also heard the argument to augment yours:
"Make it legal for safety. People will do it anyway."
So, instead of a choclate thief risking getting cut on broken glass give him the key to the shop.

But I go off in a tangent. sorry.

I've only ever herad that argument used seriously in regards to victimless crimes, though. Theft would not be a victimless crime, so your analogy doesn't run parallel.

 

[ChristineES]

I have heard the argument used with drugs, particularly marijuana, "make it legal, people will use it anyway". The logic doesn't work for me since "everyone" doing something does not mean it is moral.

Try using murder, rape, and other heinous crimes in place of stealing chocolate and you will definately see the problem with this argument.

 

[Rick W]

I've only ever herad that argument used seriously in regards to victimless crimes, though. Theft would not be a victimless crime, so your analogy doesn't run parallel.

Over the years I've heard it used for prostitution (sex workers), drugs (mostly marijuana), abortion, gambling, alcohol (Utah's anti-keg laws and bars to be open 24/7)... what some may term "victimless crimes".

"Theft would not be a victimless crime"
It's not about theft.

Why? Because the real issue is not the specific target of the "lust" but the general inability to handle whatever lust a person happens to have.

I believe the OP's target is lust and the general public's acceptance of the practice/act to fulfill that desire. It appears Drew is focusing on a moral issue not one that may compel a judge to order restitution as in an actual theft of property.

 

[Rick W]

Try using murder, rape, and other heinous crimes in place of stealing chocolate and you will definately see the problem with this argument.

Again, I don't believe Drew's focus is on those types of crimes.

Anyway,
Victimless crimes?

Does adultery have a victim? If so then why is it not illegal? I've never known anyone to pull jail time for being unfaithful. Therefore adultery is a victimless crime?

Shacking-up is another one. Society lost that moral standard through the sexual revolution started back in the late sixties. No victim. Yet, 40% of the babies born today are out of wedlock and I'd wager a considerable percentage of moms are single mothers. So the child is raised without the family presence of a father. Victimless crime maybe but not to the child who is deprived of a father's role within the family.
And now we have to deal with support for these single mothers on a social level. We reap what we sow.

Victimless crimes do have consequences.

 

[moniker]

Anyway, Victimless crimes?

Does adultery have a victim? If so then why is it not illegal? I've never known anyone to pull jail time for being unfaithful. Therefore adultery is a victimless crime?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc much? Something not being a crime does not either make it moral nor victimless (let alone a victimless crime, seeing how it isn't actually a criminal act it'd be rather hard to be any kind of crime.), so please don't try and conflate the two terms. A victimless crime refers to behavior that is illegal but does not violate or threaten the rights of anyone else.

I'll go with drug use for an example if you have no objections. Smoking marijuana at home, alone, has the same negative effects on anyone else in society as sitting home alone and drinking (either alcohol or milk, it doesn't really matter). There is no victim in that act outside of, perhaps, the person who is chosing to smoke. What he does with his own body is none of my or the State's concern so long as it is not infringing on the rights of others. If he were to, later, go out and do something that negatively impacted others or society, for instance drive while under the influence and risk vehicular manslaughter, then that should be made illegal (and it is) but not the act of smoking.

Victimless crimes do have consequences.

Not for society in any but the most abstract of ways. The consequences are personal, and those are consequences that the individual freely accepted when he took those actions.

Oh, and

Theft would not be a victimless crime

It's not about theft.

Did you finish reading that sentence? Your analogy involved theft, so it was indeed about theft.

 

[Rick W]

Did you finish reading that sentence? Your analogy involved theft, so it was indeed about theft.

So did Drew's.

Tell ya what. Let's hold on for a bit and see what Drew has to say.

 

[Relic]

Victimless crimes do have consequences.

Amen, PotLuck.


UnGodly actions reap UnGodly results.

"Feelings" must never rule over what God deems sinful. The Absolute truth along with the consequences of actions taken as either positive or negative cannot be changed. Attempting to alterate any aspect or element of an absolute law in God's creation in a negative manner is either immediately, or eventually, going to result as a futile attempt to overthrow the almighty sovereign unchanging laws of God.

No man can outrank God by trying to make up their own standards of living without facing the consequences of it. If it is in line with Godly standards, it will be rewarded as such. If it is against Godly standards, it will be rewarded as such. Again, no man can change what God already set in place according to His Holiness. You are either for it or you are against it. Deny the truth of the God who created all things and you will reap the consequences of going against set laws that govern all of creation.


No faulty philosophies or religions or Bad Logic which stems from secular thinking will ever make what a person "feels" outrank what God deems unrighteous. A persons illogical "Feelings" will never replace the righteousness of God which is already fixed into place, yes, even long before anyone was born. Go against it and they will reap the negative effect of it.

Emotions/feelings have absolute laws that must be adhered to also.

If anyone thinks or believes they can outsmart God they are mistaken. Indeed, we reap what we sow, no matter what type of logic is acted upon.

.

 

[Drew]

Re: re bad logic

Hi Drew,

I tested your example by substituting 'xxxxx' for 'chocolate' and came up with the conclusion, 'Yes, they most certainly do'.

The reason is as follows: Their activity is against norms so they have a problem, if the norms can be changed to agree with the activity, then they cease to have a problem with the new norms of society. However, by changing the norms of society, those who opposed the changing of the norms now have a problem.

Have I got it wrong?

In Christ: Stranger

Hi Stranger: Not sure I followed your post. Can you please elaborate? What is 'xxxxxx'?

 

[Relic]

Re: re bad logic

Hi Stranger: Not sure I followed your post. Can you please elaborate? What is 'xxxxxx'?

:o

Drew doesn't follow what 'xxxxxx' means as an example, :o

But in other postings Drew made himself, he understand what his own example of "XYZ' means. :

Here's proof that Drew does indeed understand using a "general" /substitute example in an equation:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 740#309740


.

 

[stranger]

Re: re bad logic

Hi Stranger: Not sure I followed your post. Can you please elaborate? What is 'xxxxxx'?

Drew,
The 'xxxxxx' is what I substituted for 'stealing chocolate' eg. the 'xxxxxx' can be 'smoking marjuana', 'increasing speed limits' . . . whatever. . .

Your argument would read:
1. There are people who want to 'smoke marjuana' and are motivated to argue that the public should accept this as acceptable behaviour.

2. These same people have a deep inner desire for smoking marjuana.

3. Therefore, those with a deep inner desire for smoking marjuana are inclined to argue for public acceptance of smoking marjuana.

Let's suppose that 1 and 2 have been established as factual. Does conclusion 3 follow?

Yes, it most certainly does.

In Christ: stranger

 

[Drew]

Tell ya what. Let's hold on for a bit and see what Drew has to say.

Say about what, may I ask? I will assume that we are now talking about the issue of victimless crimes.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?

Gesundheit. For we less educated, "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" apparrently means "a logical fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second." I certainly agree this fallacy is committed all the time.

Regarding "victimless crimes": I hold the following opinions:

1. There are behaviours that are legal which have victims (e.g. adultery).

2. It is not at all clear to me whether the fact that an act harms another is sufficient grounds for making it illegal - I suspect it is probably not.

3. The world is a complex web of inter-related things, and just because there is no immediately obvious harm to others from activity "x" does not mean such harm does not take place.

I am not sure this is of any relevance. My OP really had to do with some funny logic that was being used in another thread (that got locked).

 

[stranger]

Re: re bad logic

.....

Drew doesn't follow what 'xxxxxx' means as an example, ....

But in other postings Drew made himself, he understand what his own example of "XYZ' means. :

Here's proof that Drew does indeed understand using a "general" /substitute example in an equation:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 740#309740

Hi Relic,

Yes, I did not see your post until after I sent a reply.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Drew]

Here's proof that Drew does indeed understand using a "general" /substitute example in an equation:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 740#309740

I heartily urge any and to follow this link and read the whole thread.