sealchan
Well-Known Member
There is a problem that often goes ignored either because it is missed or it is shrugged off as counter to common sense. Rational arguments often make ludicrous or extraordinary claims when they "round the corner" or "loop back on themselves".
An example is best because rarely are such problems explicit...today I read an article about how someone was asked to leave a restaurant because they had made discriminatory statements publicy of an extreme nature. The article was concerned that asking someone to leave under the circumstances was a potentially dangerous precedent because it might lead to more of the same. This would instantiate segregationist practices along various potential political divides.
But I had to think of the irony of discriminating against someone who discriminates. This is an action with a logical self-reference aspect. It is the basis of white supremacist arguments about their freedom to speak or any other privileged class of individuals (Christians) who moan any time their beliefs have to share space.
The problem here is that from the perspective of moral values, it is clearly justifiable to exempt someone who defies a moral principle (equality/diversity). The idea that someone has an equal class status being of a class of people against people of a certain class is ludicrous from a moral standpoint but a rational claim on purely logical terms.
Because we often judge an argument or statement on its isolated logic, so often people say things that are ridiculous when seen outside the realm of pure logic. It is the logical use but extra-logical abuse of self reference at play in such cases. There is no purely logical counter argument to such a statement unless you recognize the problem of the self reference implicit in such a statement.
An example is best because rarely are such problems explicit...today I read an article about how someone was asked to leave a restaurant because they had made discriminatory statements publicy of an extreme nature. The article was concerned that asking someone to leave under the circumstances was a potentially dangerous precedent because it might lead to more of the same. This would instantiate segregationist practices along various potential political divides.
But I had to think of the irony of discriminating against someone who discriminates. This is an action with a logical self-reference aspect. It is the basis of white supremacist arguments about their freedom to speak or any other privileged class of individuals (Christians) who moan any time their beliefs have to share space.
The problem here is that from the perspective of moral values, it is clearly justifiable to exempt someone who defies a moral principle (equality/diversity). The idea that someone has an equal class status being of a class of people against people of a certain class is ludicrous from a moral standpoint but a rational claim on purely logical terms.
Because we often judge an argument or statement on its isolated logic, so often people say things that are ridiculous when seen outside the realm of pure logic. It is the logical use but extra-logical abuse of self reference at play in such cases. There is no purely logical counter argument to such a statement unless you recognize the problem of the self reference implicit in such a statement.
