Isn't demonstrating that a course of action is logically

>>1645838
Yes, but both sides will ""prove"" that their opinion is correct. Quotation marks because usually one side is using a fallacious argument, but refuses to realize, at least according to the other side. Which side?

Welcome to philosophy.

>>1645838
Because it presupposes value in logical consistency without recognising it as a value. As such it is the exact same as erecting morality by placing value in life or pleasure or any other value, but without acknowledgeing it as a value. For that it is less sincere than moral systems arising from other values as for them logical consistency is not a "hidden" value, but arises from the need to fulfill the value their morality is based on. And logical inconstincency would prevent fulfilling them (logically inconsistent things "don't work").

>>1645838

You can bridge the ought is gap, but that is not the way.

Showing logical consistency is pretty useless most of the time, since debates are almost never centered around the validity of an argument, rather on the veracity of its premises.

>>1645838
>illogical means wrong
>logical means right
Nice values there, my friend.
Given, you can indeed show that my "course of action is logically inconsistent". That doesn't mean I necessarily have to care.

>>1645838
How do you demonstrate a course of action is "logically inconsistent" in the first place?

>>1647597
The actions taken go against the reason for taking the actions. Hypocrisy is the word.

>>1647060
You can't actually show logical consistency, you can only show inconsistency. Showing consistency would require infinite regression for the reason behind acting, and infinite foresight for the consequences of the action.