The Art of Reasoning

“All humans are mortal

I am a human

Therefore I am mortal”

In the above example, it can be seen how logic and reasoning can be used to obtain knowledge. I do not have evidence that I am mortal, I have not died, but since I know that I am a human, and know that humans are mortal, I can reasonably assume that I am mortal. The example uses a syllogism, a certain pattern of reasoning, which goes:

“All A is B

C is A

C is B.”

Or

“All A is B 

C is not B

C is not A.”

These statements can be valid or invalid, otherwise known as a fallacy. In a valid statement, the logic is right, and follows the rules above. A fallacy breaks these rules, and the conclusion is made on wrong logic. However, these two do not affect whether the premises and the conclusions are true. Funnily enough, even if the logic is right, the statement might be false, and if the logic is wrong, the statement might still be true. In a sound argument, the premises and the conclusion are true, and the logic is valid. This is really the only fool proof sort of argument.

People commit fallacies often, and of different kinds. There is the Ad misericordiam, saying that you have worked hard on something to justify it, hasty generalisations, Ad hominem, saying that somebody else’s statement is not true because of who they are, appealing to ignorance, ad populum, meaning appealing to the majority, appealing to authority, unpalatable consequences, contradictions in terms, using circular arguments, or identifying a false cause for something (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

Another common fault that people do, when trying to reason is induction. In induction, you start from the specific and go to the general. Essentially, you take a situation, and then try to device premises to support it, instead of coming up with the conclusion from premises. This is used to support your own prejudices. 

I found it interesting to see how, through reasoning you can conclude something that is not explicitly obvious, something that there is no concrete evidence for. For instance I can conclude that all ice in the in the spring time is weak, and so if it is spring, and I am standing in front of a body of ice, then I can conclude that the ice is weak. Therefore, I would know that I would fall into the water if I went on it, without ever trying to do it. Also, it is fascinating how, sometimes, even if the logic is not valid, the conclusion can be true, and how even if the logic is valid, the conclusion is false. It shows that logic is far from always being right.

Being able to reason correctly is immensely valuable in real life. For instance, while trying to prove a point, you conclusion seems a lot truer if you can back it up with valid premises, and sound logic. It is also useful to know the kind of fallacies that people utter, so as to recognize them, and not take the conclusion that people make based on them for granted (here a significant example would be claims that politicians make).

How important is consistency in moral reasoning?

On an individual basis, consistency in moral reasoning is to be expected, because otherwise you would be compromising your morals. If at one point, you reason that torture is wrong, but later claim that there are people who have committed so hideous crimes that they deserve to be hurt, it would be considered hypocrisy. However, in society, moral reasoning is never consistent, there are people who think in different ways. Also moral standards in society can seem slightly paradoxical. For instance, in countries with capital punishment, for killing someone, there seems to be inconsistency in the reasoning. However, is this important? It is merely the product of different lines of logic. For instance people who support capital punishment, reason that murders have committed a horrible crime, taking someone else’s life, so therefore they deserve the harshest punishment possible, and in equal measure. Those who go against it say that by killing someone as a form of punishment, you are doing the same to the persona s they did to someone else. It does not mean that either side is right, but it comes to show that there is inconsistency in moral reasoning. In fact this can be considered a good thing, because it will allow for people to think about different solution and problems form different perspectives if working as a group, allowing for the best possible solution to be chosen. However, it does cause controversy, and means that morals are the same everywhere. Still, on the whole, it can be concluded that as far as society is concerned, more important that consistency in moral thinking is sound moral thinking.