Logical inversions: Many prominent arguments today just don't make sense

"'Logic!' said the Professor half to himself. 'Why don't they teach logic at these schools?'" Professor Digory in C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was complaining about the fatuous reasoning of the children in the novel who did not believe in the existence of Narnia.

Today the problem is not just that logic is untaught. Many people, including some of the most well-schooled, do not believe in logic. How else to explain the almost comically bad thinking that passes for policy analysis of some of the most important issues of our day?

When the Supreme Court legalized "virtual" child pornography (see "Images have consequences," May 4), many of the nation's most prominent newspapers defended the decision. Portraying themselves as First Amendment fundamentalists, they editorialized that even the most offensive speech deserves protection; otherwise, all of our freedoms are in jeopardy.

And yet, nearly every newspaper that took this position also pushed for a campaign-restrictions bill that would limit political speech.

Do they believe the founders of the nation, when they drew up the Bill of Rights, intended to protect computer simulations of adults having sex with little children—and not protect American citizens expressing their political opinions in the course of electing their representatives?

And even if liberal journalists reject the "original intent" approach to constitutional interpretation, if we need to protect all speech no matter how offensive, then shouldn't this apply to speech that they find offensive, namely that of special-interest groups, lobbyists, and grassroots activists?

Or consider the cloning debate. Most everyone agrees that using cloning to produce a human baby is wrong and should be banned by law. But many people, including influential scientific groups, believe that "therapeutic" cloning, producing embryos whose stem cells and other genetic material can be used to treat disease, should be allowed.

In other words, it is wrong to use cloning technology to produce a living baby. But it is right to use cloning technology to produce a baby that is killed for its spare parts.

Surely, therapeutic cloning is more of a moral problem than reproductive cloning. The latter is wrong too, since it violates God's design in the natural order, which ordains reproduction by means of sex, an arrangement that results in the family, the offices of husband and wife, father and mother. But a cloned child would not be a soulless monster, just the twin of some adult, and would be entitled to all the rights and value of any other human being.

But to clone a child and to deny his rights and value by not letting him grow up, instead using him as a macabre medicine for sick adults—surely this is even more problematic morally. Indeed, a major reason why reproductive cloning is immoral is that it requires the production of scores of embryos before one actually "takes," with the other embryos then being destroyed.

Of course, conservatives are often accused of being similarly contradictory. How can you be against abortion, goes one charge, but be in favor of the death penalty?

But clear, logical thinking requires the ability to make distinctions. It is wrong to kill an innocent person. It may not be wrong for the state to kill someone who is guilty. A baby in the womb is not the moral equivalent of a convicted serial killer or an al-Queda terrorist.

The contradiction is really on the other side. How can you oppose the death penalty, but be in favor of abortion? How can you be against executing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 innocent men, women, and little children, but be for executing, without trial, a baby who isn't even born yet and who hasn't hurt anybody?

Fallacies like these litter the field of public-policy discourse. Why is the American Civil Liberties Union so zealous for the First Amendment, but so indifferent to the Second Amendment? Aren't they in the same Constitution?

How can public-school teachers get away with saying that standardized tests encourage rote memorization and "teaching to the test" when the tests they are complaining about involve reading paragraphs, answering questions about them, and doing math problems, measuring reading and math comprehension, but not rote memory at all? And why is the ability to memorize a bad thing? Why do those who believe in euthanasia think suffering merits the death penalty? Hasn't it always been more despicable to kill a sick, helpless person than someone who can fight back? Don't sick people need to be cared for, not exterminated?

Mental clarity is generally a prerequisite for moral clarity. And being able to recognize bad thinking is necessary for citizens in a free society—otherwise, they will not remain free very much longer, but be at the mercy of the spin doctors and the demagogues.

Just just we are not toally objective, doesn't mean the truth isn't.

As long as you believe that the 'truth' can be adequately defined and circumscribed by human reason, you are right. If, however, you have a transcendental view of truth, ie. if you believe in God or a Reality that is beyond the sum total of human experience and your limited human capacity to reason, you realize that all the talking and arguing in the world will not suffice to convey what faith or intuitive inner experience has revealed to you. TexasForever is not a post-modernist, but I would bet he is not an atheist either!

" How can you be against abortion, goes one charge, but be in favor of the death penalty?"

Offhand, I'd guess that it is because fetuses have committed no crime, where as felons who murder people have.

A small and subtle difference often overlooked by wanna-be logicians.

--Boris

grant free-speech freedom to pornographers (simulators or no) while denying the identical freedom to citizen groups who want their voices to be heard in the electoral process?

I happen to agree with you simply because my life experience is such that the thought of children, real or imagined, put on display in sexual activities is not even a question for debate. I did not reach that conclusion "logically" it is just a gut level horror of the concept. I, therefore, am not open to a "logical" argument from those that agree with the decision. If forced I could give some reasons why the court decided the way they did but, IMO there is nothing "logical" about it. People of faith can never give a “logical” explanation for their faith because the very concept of faith is illogical but, that faith is as real to those that hold that faith as the air they breath.

What would the Supreme Court say if Congress were to pass a statute which stated that anything which looks like real child porn maybe legally presumed to be such, absent evidence that it wasn't?

I'm not altogether convinced that at least five justices would render a Solomonic decision, but let's give them the chance.

Given that I'm unaware of any challenge to the proof-of-age record-keeping required by makers of 'ordinary' porn,

I'm all for entangling them in the largest bureaucratic record-keeping briar patch imaginable.

I would think such a statute could probably pass constitutional muster while nonetheless avoiding the law-enforcement problems about which Ashcroft is concerned.

Whom do you know who could get that legislative ball rolling?

"Fallacies like these litter the field of public-policy discourse. Why is the American Civil Liberties Union so zealous for the First Amendment, but so indifferent to the Second Amendment? Aren't they in the same Constitution?"

-------------------------------------

Fallacies like these litter the field of public-policy discourse. Why are FR's states 'rights' advocates so zealous for the 10th Amendment, but so indifferent to states violating the Second Amendment? Aren't they in the same Constitution?

"The contradiction is really on the other side. How can you oppose the death penalty, but be in favor of abortion? How can you be against executing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 innocent men, women, and little children, but be for executing, without trial, a baby who isn't even born yet and who hasn't hurt anybody?"

Shout it from the rooftops.

Aren't they in the same Constitution?

Not if you are a believer in original intent. The Founders put into place a model of government that held the individual state's constitutions superior to the Federal constitution. Otherwise, why have a state constitution to begin with? You are upset that California has no 2nd amendment equivalent in its constitution but, each state constitution has methods of revision. Why not start a movement to amend California's constitution OR move to a state that fits your philosophy/

MLO sounds like a Postmodern relativist?

Excuse me? You certainly don't sound logical jumping to a conclusion like that. If it concerns you, I'm a rationalist and an objectivist, but my philosophy wasn't the issue. I simply pointed out that the article engaged in the same sort of illogical thinking it criticized, and it does. Look for it and you can spot it. If you've made up your mind it doesn't, because maybe you agree with its political view, then you probably won't find it. I will be glad to point out what I mean tomorrow. It's after midnight now and it will have to wait.

Not if you are a believer in original intent. The Founders put into place a model of government that held the individual state's constitutions superior to the Federal constitution.

A common fallacy belied by Article VI, 2nd paragraph, "The Constitution ----- shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Otherwise, why have a state constitution to begin with?

States can have all powers not delegated to, or prohibited by the US constitution. See the 10th. -- Thus, state constitutions control those powers delegated by their people.

You are upset that California has no 2nd amendment equivalent in its constitution but, each state constitution has methods of revision.

You aren't upset at violations? Why? -- The 2nd clearly mentions 'the right of the people'. Why deny this fact?

Why not start a movement to amend California's constitution OR move to a state that fits your philosophy.

I prefer to stand and fight for the US constitution. You can run if you like.

I did not reach that conclusion "logically" it is just a gut level horror of the concept.

I would point you out to you something that Veith neglected when he invoked C.S. Lewis in the opening to this essay.

Lewis, being thought by many to be the 20th Century's most renowned defender of Christianity, naturally did not think we should rely on logic alone. But certainly did he not trust in gut feeling alone. He believed in all the civilizing influences that could be brought to bear upon the young, the true measures that really help produce a man of decency.

That is what prompted me to bring the following to you for review and consideration .
Lewis railed against both cold logic and untempered visceral responses, and warned us of those who would stear you, me, and all the rest of us, into keeping the two human capacities separated.

In his famous 3-part essay The Abolition of Man(1943), he identified the first step in our dehumanization. He titled it "Men without Chests." He said the new public school curriculums would undermine the very culture that had rewarded us with liberty and prosperity and honor and beauty. And that the first step in that program would be achieved by denying our children the lessons of our hearts.

What is heart? It is the tying together of both the cerebral and visceral human responses with understanding, wisdom and the love of good judgment. The concluding lines to that first essay are:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.

It seems to me his observations could be of some help to you here.

Tpaine, read just ammedment1 and 2. Both amendments state "Congress shall pass no law..etc". It is a restriction on the Federal government. The Federal constitution guarantees to the people of the states a "republican form of government" and each state has that in place. You hang your hat on the 14th amendment that was NOT a part of the original constitution. The 14th amendment has only served as the vehicle for the Federal government to impose its will on every citizen of every state. The fact is, the 14th amendment is responsible for "Brown v board of education", "Roe v Wade", and a host of other social engineering decisions. The 14th amendment has only been used as an argument by conservatives in one case. That was the Florida situation in the last election and ironically, the final decision was not won on that argument.

I agree with you completely. I have a "gut" reaction to any sexual activity involving children. I also recognize that others have a "gut" reaction to anything that may set a precedent for future restrictions of legitimate speech. The courts, if not activist, make their decisions on the narrow definition of the law in question and past precedent on similar cases. The USSC has historically jealously guarded the 1st amendment, more so than any other. They have guarded it to the point that dung covered paintings of the Virgin Mary, Christ in a jar of urine and the burring of the flag are protected forms of speech. The decision did not surprise me but given what is now protected as "speech" I could use a "logical" argument that by drawing the line at children would not be a threat to free speech.

Tpaine, read just ammedment1 and 2. Both amendments state "Congress shall pass no law..etc". It is a restriction on the Federal government.

The 2nd has no such language. - Weird contention.

The Federal constitution guarantees to the people of the states a "republican form of government" and each state has that in place.

Yep. - In theory. - You 'states rights' advocates would change that to a tyrannny of the 'moral' majority, if you could.

--- the 14th amendment that was NOT a part of the original constitution.

Of course it wasn't. It was made necessary by violations of individual rights by states after the civil war. Gun rights violations, among others, were listed in the ratification debates.

The 14th amendment has only served as the vehicle for the Federal government to impose its will on every citizen of every state.

The tired old 'evil amendment' fallacy, -- agit-prop spread by the 'states rights' authoritarians.

The fact is, the 14th amendment is responsible for "Brown v board of education", "Roe v Wade", and a host of other social engineering decisions. The 14th amendment has only been used as an argument by conservatives in one case. That was the Florida situation in the last election and ironically, the final decision was not won on that argument.

Socalled 'conservatives' want states to have the power to ignore the constitution. They are Rino statists, not true conservatives who honor individual liberty.

Socalled 'conservatives' want states to have the power to ignore the constitution. They are Rino statists, not true conservatives who honor individual liberty

Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left? How has the 14th returned your 2nd amendment rights in California? Are you in fact a fan of big Federal government?

Socalled 'conservatives' WANT states to have the power to ignore the constitution. They are Rino statists, not true conservatives who honor individual liberty

Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left?

Honoring individual liberty doesn't advance federalism, or leftist causes. That's 'tar baby' debate.

How has the 14th returned your 2nd amendment rights in California?

It hasn't yet, but I have high hopes that the USSC will be forced to 'incorporate' the 2nd, by using their own logic.

Are you in fact a fan of big Federal government?

Stupid question. --- Nope, the opposite. -- A fan of the constitution, a very libertarian document.

And, -- seeing it's stupid time in texas, I'm going to bed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.