Those are all fine examples, now break them down, what are the core assumptions and why are they inconsistant?
To use your opening example.
Assumption A: Torture is bad. Assumption B: Torture consists of X, Y, and Z.
Conclusion C: X, Y, and Z are bad. (B & A Modus Tolens)
The above is a valid argument. to argue that Torture is ok (not bad) given the above assumptions would be contradictory and thus inconsistant. However by adjusting or adding an assumption it is possible to write a consitant argument in favor of "Its ok when we do it, but not when they do it". For instance, if we were to change Assumption A: to "Torture without reason is bad" the whole argument takes on a new dimension.
Is it bullshit? most likely, but that's why "consitancy" is a seperate concept from "validity".
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/11 20:23 (UTC)To use your opening example.
Assumption A: Torture is bad.
Assumption B: Torture consists of X, Y, and Z.
Conclusion C: X, Y, and Z are bad. (B & A Modus Tolens)
The above is a valid argument. to argue that Torture is ok (not bad) given the above assumptions would be contradictory and thus inconsistant. However by adjusting or adding an assumption it is possible to write a consitant argument in favor of "Its ok when we do it, but not when they do it". For instance, if we were to change Assumption A: to "Torture without reason is bad" the whole argument takes on a new dimension.
Is it bullshit? most likely, but that's why "consitancy" is a seperate concept from "validity".