Questions about Logic and Reason
Feb. 12th, 2007 09:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarahmichiganSome questions have come up in my mind or the mind of my LJ friends as I've been putting up logical fallacies, with examples, for discussion.
1. How much should we rely on reason and how much on emotion when making decisions about our personal lives? Setting law? Other decisions?
2. Are there circumstances where purely reason should be used to make decisions? Only emotion?
3. How much of our laws are based on morality? How much should be?
I tend to agree with the position that other people shouldn't be able to force their morality on me in the form of laws about private consensual adult behavior. And yet, some of our laws obviously reflect the majority's moral stance on various issues (i.e. "murder is wrong"). However, I think that while there is an *overlap* between morality and law, morality isn't the sole or even most important factor for determining law, because morals vary from good person to another good person, based on personal experience, religious and cultural background, etc. What I think is going on is a sort of "societal contract," in which we agree not to murder one another not so much for moral reasons as for practical ones. There's a reason that banishment was a terrible judgment thousands of years ago; especially in primitive environments, it's much harder to survive on your own than in a cooperative group. People who violate the unspoken social contract put the good of the group in danger, and that's why we agree to many laws that restrict our freedom-- it's because they're for the good of the whole group, even when they infringe on individual's rights.
Anyhow, additional thoughts on any of these questions?
1. How much should we rely on reason and how much on emotion when making decisions about our personal lives? Setting law? Other decisions?
2. Are there circumstances where purely reason should be used to make decisions? Only emotion?
3. How much of our laws are based on morality? How much should be?
I tend to agree with the position that other people shouldn't be able to force their morality on me in the form of laws about private consensual adult behavior. And yet, some of our laws obviously reflect the majority's moral stance on various issues (i.e. "murder is wrong"). However, I think that while there is an *overlap* between morality and law, morality isn't the sole or even most important factor for determining law, because morals vary from good person to another good person, based on personal experience, religious and cultural background, etc. What I think is going on is a sort of "societal contract," in which we agree not to murder one another not so much for moral reasons as for practical ones. There's a reason that banishment was a terrible judgment thousands of years ago; especially in primitive environments, it's much harder to survive on your own than in a cooperative group. People who violate the unspoken social contract put the good of the group in danger, and that's why we agree to many laws that restrict our freedom-- it's because they're for the good of the whole group, even when they infringe on individual's rights.
Anyhow, additional thoughts on any of these questions?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 10:56 pm (UTC)It's horribly difficult to pass laws that comprehensively represent everyone's morality.
It's not particularly difficult to pass laws that represent the overlap, and only the overlap.