An Open Letter to Political Pundits: Convicts != Fetuses != Animals

[rowyn]

What is with this whole soundbite rhetorical argument that, somehow, one's position on the death penalty needs to be aligned with one's position on abortion and/or hunting? Is it so hard to imagine that one could believe that convicted criminals, fetuses, and wild animals are not, in fact, identical creatures and should not, therefore, be treated

Comments

[terrycloth]

Personally, I think consistency is a bit of a red herring anyway, even in places where it does apply.

There's some amount of altruistic value in being predictable -- it helps other people plan around your future actions. But that's really the only value that it has. Sometimes (like, say, if you're a politician and people are trying to vote on someone based on what they predict they'll do) this is *really important*, but normally it's just not.

So the threshhold for consistency should be (a) it's important that people correctly guess what you're going to do, and (b) your position is clear enough that they can correctly guess what you're going to do.

And for almost everyone in the world, on almost every possible topic, (a) doesn't apply.

[rowyn]

...

I don't think I've ever considered why consistency is considered a virtue before. O_o

I think it also has to do with fairness. I don't know, consistency in how you treat your friends is important, for example. And moreso in how employers treat employees (and vice versa). And really, really important for parents raising children. It seems like one of those things, like honesty, that it's easier to practice all the time than to figure out when it's important that you do so. Less likely to flub it that way.

[terrycloth]

You're not really talking about the same kind of consistency here.

Still, that sort of fairness is only good because people want to know how you're going to treat them. If how you treat them doesn't matter (if you're the kid, say) then whether you're fair doesn't matter either.

But 'being fair' is more likely to matter to other people than 'holding logically consistent beliefs', sure. For one thing, you've narrowed it down to your actions instead of your philosophy, which is a huge step.

And it's not a matter of deciding to be consistent or not -- it's really, how do you react when what you know is right in two separate cases seems to conflict? If the answer is 'do the wrong thing in one of the situations', you're doing it wrong.

[zaimoni]

it's really, how do you react when what you know is right in two separate cases seems to conflict?
Been there, done that: first reaction is that I'm transparently lying to myself, so stop the lie of knowing what is right.

The hypothetical doesn't have enough detail to go further than that.

[jordangreywolf]

The "logical inconsistency" argument is disingenuous, and when it is made, I am not persuaded that the arguer is seriously approaching the topic. Rather, I interpret it as a visceral reaction, grabbing and tossing a "clever" argument one has heard before, rather than personally engaging in an attempt to understand the other party's reasons for coming to a wrong conclusion, and attempting to persuade that person of the rightness of your own position

[jordangreywolf]

Oh yeah, and coincidentally, just a few minutes ago, I read an article from Ted Rall in which he is for mandated abortion in cases such as Bristol Palin's. Not that this in any way reflects on anyone else, since I'm not really sure what sort of public-opinion bloc Ted Rall "represents" anyway.

I wouldn't accuse him of being morally or logically inconsistent on this, either, or suggest that he hasn't put any thought into his viewpoints. But I can see him as being internally consistent, I can understand that there are likely many others who would come to the same logical conclusion based on their assumptions and values, and yet I can still be very confident that it would be a terrible thing if he were to have his way.

[rowyn]

I'm not really sure what sort of public-opinion bloc Ted Rall "represents" anyway.

I sincerely hope he doesn't represent anyone other than himself. O_O It's like seeing a net.bastard given his own platform in mainstream media. A world-class cretin, and not just for his repugnant ideas on what behaviors should be legislated away.