A Question of Logic

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks, Penguin. To be honest, my real answer was "both yes and no and neither yes nor no." but that wasn't on the poll. It doesn't do to use examples, since the possible examples are infinite and potentially illustrate yes, no and neither, as you and others have shown.

But the examples show that the two statements are not equivalent in some situations. This means that they can't be considered to be equivalent generally.

So, doing away with examples, what is the difference between "is X" and "is not X"? IMO, defining what X is automatically defines what it is not, and defining what not X is automatically defines what it is (ie. "other than X")

I think the distinction here is the difference between "if" and "iff"... I know I only ever used the second in high school math.

The distinction we were given is that "if" specifies one set of circumstances leading to a given outcome, but allows for others. "Iff" (short for "if and only if"), OTOH, does not allow for any other possibility. For example:

- "Billy can get a chocolate bar if his parents give him his allowance" is true - the allowance will let him get a chocolate bar.
- "Billy can get a chocolate bar iff his parents give him his allowance" is false - Billy could find some money on the sidewalk, or someone could give him a chocolate bar.

The way the statements in the OP were phrased, they first statement definted only one set of conditions for A & B; it didn't define the relationship for A & B in all cases.

This is a big flaw in Aristotelian logic. The assumption a statement or concept must be either true or false does not reflect the diversity of human experience or the disordered chaos of human psychology. Unfortunately, the influence of this lame duck form of binary reasoning infuses language to the extent it is next to impossible to shake the habit of pretending we are able to coolly and rationally distinguish truth from falsehood.

I see your point to a certain extent, but I think it's important to point out that this thread isn't about proving the truth or merit of "B", it's about trying to figure out whether "B"'s truth or merit is dependent only on "A".

 

[Alceste]

I see your point to a certain extent, but I think it's important to point out that this thread isn't about proving the truth or merit of "B", it's about trying to figure out whether "B"'s truth or merit is dependent only on "A".

Fair enough - that's why I should have read the thread and figured out what example we're talking about before voting.

With regards to the topic at hand, I think the meaning of the amendment on life and liberty is pretty clear - the state can not deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law (and so, implicitly, can deprive a citizen of all three with due process of law). Any attempt to get around the obvious meaning is semantic wankery.

I take it the problem raised is that the phrasing is of the "if not A, then not B" type, which is not in every case identical, logically, but in this case the writers could not possibly have meant anything other than the above. If they didn't also mean "if A then B" there would have been no reason to include "B" (ie. the part about due process) at all.

 

[lilithu]

With regards to the topic at hand, I think the meaning of the amendment on life and liberty is pretty clear - the state can not deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law (and so, implicitly, can deprive a citizen of all three with due process of law). Any attempt to get around the obvious meaning is semantic wankery.

Obvious meaning to someone who can't tell the difference between 1 and 2?

Back to the car analogy:
Without fuel, your car can't run. Necessarily true? Yes.

With fuel, your car can run. Necessarily true? NO!

Need I point out to you (and Halcyon) that PoisonShady and mball, both of whom support the death penalty to varying extents, agree that the Fifth Amendment does NOT say if that there is due process of the law, the govt can deprive people of life, liberty, and property.

It is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition. The Framers of our Constitution did NOT grant govt the right to kill.

If they didn't also mean "if A then B" there would have been no reason to include "B" (ie. the part about due process) at all.

The reason to include "B" is because of B. The point of the Fifth Amendment is to protect our right to due process.

 

[Alceste]

Obvious meaning to someone who can't tell the difference between 1 and 2?

Touché!

Back to the car analogy:
Without fuel, your car can't run. Necessarily true? Yes.

With fuel, your car can run. Necessarily true? NO!

OK, we're not talking about fuel and cars, and I still don't agree that a universal logic rule (yes or no) applies to the A / B question.

(By the way, your car can run downhill without fuel, and some cars run on batteries. So there. )

Need I point out to you (and Halcyon) that PoisonShady and mball, both of whom support the death penalty to varying extents, agree that the Fifth Amendment does NOT say if that there is due process of the law, the govt can deprive people of life, liberty, and property.

It is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition. The Framers of our Constitution did NOT grant govt the right to kill.

Well, who can say? I would have to look them up and see what they felt about capital punishment, personally, in order to be able to come up with an accurate interpretation of the sentence. The meaning seems clear enough to me. Personally, think capital punishment is totally retarded, but I didn't write that sentence. If it had been up to me, I would have written "the government does not have the right to kill any person anywhere for any reason, except by his or her own request and with his or her permission" and left it there. No ambiguity.

The reason to include "B" is because of B. The point of the Fifth Amendment is to protect our right to due process.

Yes, I agree. Therefore the sentence would likely have been written with the intention of clarifying what consequences might follow this guaranteed "due process". If they intended the consequences of lawbreaking were only to be the loss of liberty and / or property, there should have been no mention of "life" in that sentence. Likewise, if the state were not permitted to deprive a person of their life under any circumstances, the caveat "without due process" would not have appeared.

 

[lilithu]

OK, we're not talking about fuel and cars,

We're talking A and B, and "fuel" and "cars" is just as much A and B as "due process" and "deprived of life, liberty, and property."

and I still don't agree that a universal logic rule (yes or no) applies to the A / B question.

A universal logic rule does not apply to the question of how we should punish any particular person found guilty of an offense. I agree that human experience is too varied. BUT a universal logic rule does very well apply to the question of whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants govt the right to kill.

(By the way, your car can run downhill without fuel, and some cars run on batteries. So there. )

Fine, without energy, your car engine cannot run. Necessarily true? Yes.

From that, is it logical of you to infer that: with energy, your car engine can run.

(Hint: the answer is no.)

Well, who can say? I would have to look them up and see what they felt about capital punishment, personally, in order to be able to come up with an accurate interpretation of the sentence.

I honestly do not understand why you need to know how others feel about capital punishment to be able to know what a sentence means. The reason I brought the others up was to show that the interpretation is based on objective logic, not subjective bias. I was not suggesting that their feelings (or anyone else's) were relevant to interpretation of Constitutional law.

If it had been up to me, I would have written "the government does not have the right to kill any person anywhere for any reason, except by his or her own request and with his or her permission" and left it there. No ambiguity.

You're entirely missing the point. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment wasn't to prohibit capital punishment. No where in the Constitution is capital punishment prohibited. If it were, we wouldn't have capital punishment. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment was to protect our right to due process. It is not ambiguous at all. It quite clearly protects our right to due process.

 

[McBell]

lilithu must have me on ignore :sad4:

 

[Poisonshady313]

Need I point out to you (and Halcyon) that PoisonShady and mball, both of whom support the death penalty to varying extents, agree that the Fifth Amendment does NOT say if that there is due process of the law, the govt can deprive people of life, liberty, and property.

I never agreed to that. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it sure does imply it... it's taken for granted that this is the natural state of affairs.

The fifth amendment makes it clear that the death penalty is most certainly an option that can be exercised once due process is granted.

The Framers of our Constitution did NOT grant govt the right to kill.

They didn't prohibit either. They just kinda took it for granted that that was the natural course of things. Execution for capital crimes was always a given... no need to put it in writing.

The point of the Fifth Amendment is to protect our right to due process.

That's true... but it's understood by the amendment that the consequence of due process may be the deprivation of liberty, property, and/or life.

 

[lilithu]

I never agreed to that.

Quoting...

You said that the 5th amendment doesn't speak to the death penalty... you're right. It speaks to due process.

It doesn't say it explicitly, but it sure does imply it... it's taken for granted that this is the natural state of affairs.

I'm NOT disputing that capital punishment was taken for granted. I am saying that the Fifth Amendment does not grant govt the right to kill, whether on condition of due process or not. It does not logically imply it any more than 'If not A then not B' implies 'If A then B.'

 

[Yerda]

Out of curiosity, does this fifth amendment say that life cannot be taken without due process? Or any words to that effect?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Quoting...


I'm NOT disputing that capital punishment was taken for granted. I am saying that the Fifth Amendment does not grant govt the right to kill, whether on condition of due process or not. It does not logically imply it any more than 'If not A then not B' implies 'If A then B.'

The govt had been granted the right before hand... the 5th amendment only regulates it.

Regulation of it does necessarily mean that it exists.

Looking at the fifth amendment, you could tell that this is a country whose government has the power to execute people.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Out of curiosity, does this fifth amendment say that life cannot be taken without due process? Or any words to that effect?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

[Storm]

Out of curiosity, does this fifth amendment say that life cannot be taken without due process? Or any words to that effect?

In fact, it says exactly that:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

 

[lilithu]

Out of curiosity, does this fifth amendment say that life cannot be taken without due process? Or any words to that effect?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[Poisonshady313]

If life cannot be taken without due process, it can with it. Doesn't mean it will, or it must, or even that it should.... but it can.

It doesn't grant the right of the govt to kill... it identifies that the govt already has that right.

 

[Yerda]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property(B), without due process of law(A);

Lil, in saying that "If not A then not B" does not equal "If A then B" I think you are quite right. In regards to the above sentence I think the second part would be more accurately characterised as "B only if A" and not "B if A".

I'm not a legal expert but I would imagine that this only implies that there is a death penalty and due process is prerequisite of that sentence, and that it is itself not a justification of the death penalty.

 

[lilithu]

If life cannot be taken without due process, it can with it. Doesn't mean it will, or it must, or even that it should.... but it can.

Of course it can. It happens on a semi-regular basis. But "can" does not mean "has the right."

It doesn't grant the right of the govt to kill... it identifies that the govt already has that right.

No, it acknowledges that govt was already doing it. From that you can assume that govt has the right, but it's certainly not a Constitutionally granted right.

The govt had been granted the right before hand... the 5th amendment only regulates it.

Where?

 

[lilithu]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property(B), without due process of law(A);

Lil, in saying that "If not A then not B" does not equal "If A then B" I think you are quite right. In regards to the above sentence I think the second part would be more accurately characterised as "B only if A" and not "B if A".

I'm not a legal expert but I would imagine that this only implies that there is a death penalty and due process is prerequisite of that sentence, and that it is itself not a justification of the death penalty.

Thank you. :namaste I can only hope that others here will be able to follow your reasoning, as they seem unable to follow it the way that Penguin or myself have phrased it.

 

[Magic Man]

Thank you. :namaste I can only hope that others here will be able to follow your reasoning, as they seem unable to follow it the way that Penguin or myself have phrased it.

Um...he only said what Poison and others here have been saying. The 5th amendment doesn't say "The death penalty is acceptable", but it does say that life (among other things) cannot be taken away without due process. That leads directly to the conclusion that life can be taken away with due process. As he said, and others said, that doesn't mean it should be the punishment in every case, but it certainly can be according to that amendment.

 

[lilithu]

Um...he only said what Poison and others here have been saying. The 5th amendment doesn't say "The death penalty is acceptable", but it does say that life (among other things) cannot be taken away without due process. That leads directly to the conclusion that life can be taken away with due process. As he said, and others said, that doesn't mean it should be the punishment in every case, but it certainly can be according to that amendment.

I suggest you reread what he wrote.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not a legal expert but I would imagine that this only implies that there is a death penalty and due process is prerequisite of that sentence, and that it is itself not a justification of the death penalty.

Did you miss the part where he said that there is a death penalty according to this amendment? He says, in other words, that no matter what, you have to go through due process. After that, the death penalty as punishment is an option, not a requirement but an option. In other words that doesn't mean it should be the punishment in every case, but it certainly can be according to that amendment.

"...that it is itself not a justification of the death penalty" means that, according to this amendment, the death penalty isn't a requirement or necessary, but it is obviously an option.