Dear Log,
Lately I've been thinking about the logical problems to do with consistency and inconsistency. I don't mean "consistency" in the mathematical sense of a "self-consistent system". I mean in pragmatic terms: if you take one approach to a certain situation, but take a different approach to another similar situation, is that wrong? Does it have the status of a logical fallacy? Or something more complex?
In some cases we have a special name for inconsistency: "unfairness". That is, if in one circumstance you are unkind and in another comparable circumstance you are kind, that can be called "unfair". But does this mean you have to be a bastard just because you were a bastard in the past, lest people say notice your change and accuse you of inconsistency? To take a legal example: are the courts obliged to mindlessly repeat the patterns in precedence, for the sake of consistency (which is argued to be a specific form of "equal treatment under the law"), even when precedent is plainly unfair in other aspects?
Moreover, just the concept of consistency presumes that you can take several different circumstances and argue that they either are or aren't comparable. So: "if the news is thick with coverage of Zimbabwe's troubles, but nothing about Zambia's, is this inconsistency, possibly motivated by the fact that there's white people being stomped on in Zimbabwe but not Zambia?". Possibly -- but maybe Zimbabwe and Zambia are just different situations; or maybe not so different at all.
And moreover, in all things there is a degree of emotional motivation, which you often can't get to work consistently. I.e., just because I care about one person, doesn't mean you can get me to care about someone who you can agree is objectively comparable.
On the one hand, if I'm in glorious downtown Albuquerque and see two panhandlers, and give money to the one and not to the other, I would take a dim view of anyone who says "You're being unfair, because the first one is Navajo and the other one is Hispano" or the first a man and the second a woman, or the first clearly disabled and the second not, etc. But on the other hand, if I ran a homeless shelter whose policy (explicit or de facto) was to help only Hispanos, or only Catholics, or only English-speakers, etc., that would be clearly less defensible. But when I try to answer "why?", I feel like I'm just rationalizing, more than enumerating the clear reasons.
To take a more topical example: The Axis of Evil! The argument goes that [the governments of!] Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are Evil(tm) because they want to develop nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. The US government has nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. Does that make the US government Evil(tm)? Ah no, because Evil(tm) is something that only others can be! Okay, how about Israel's government? The Israeli military has never met a Strangelovian weapon they doesn't like; does that make them Evil(tm)? Ah, no, because Israel Is Our Friend(tm), of course.
And how about China's government? They're not exactly friendly with the US; they have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; they have a habit of selling arms to about the nastiest people they can find on Earth; and every now and then they conduct "missile tests" within an inch of Taiwan, showing that wise restraint is not among their skills. But they can't be in the Axis of Evil(tm) because they do things like make sunglasses and clock radio that we buy at Walgreen's.
On the one hand, the truth of the statement "Iraq's government is Evil(tm)" shouldn't have to depend on the truth of the statement "China's government is Evil(tm)". Doing something about one but not the other, is definite inconsistency, but one could argue that one has to start somewhere. And there is such a thing as wisely choosing one's battles (altho "battles" is usually used metaphorically there!).
But on the other hand, it's hard to get the masses riled up against an enemy that is basically The Axis Of Those Who Are Evil Yet Small Enough To Rattle Our Sabres At While We Ignore Clearly Greater Evils Elsewhere, Because Ah Well.
In fact, that way madness lies. And I've been there, and they don't validate parking.
This consistency problem is like pulling at a thread on a shirt and having the carpet unravel.
First, IANAL, but I have received impeccable legal training from The Networks over the years through such fine programming as Ally McBeal, LA Law, Law & Order (all three), Philly, and The Simpsons.To take a legal example: are the courts obliged to mindlessly repeat the patterns in precedence, for the sake of consistency (which is argued to be a specific form of "equal treatment under the law"), even when precedent is plainly unfair in other aspects?
Now, with the disclaimers out of the way, I think you're missing an important aspect of the consistency and fairness of case law. In the American legal system, the adversarial process is in place so that both the plantiff and defendant get a shot at citing (presumably relevant) case law that bolster their case. So it's not a cut-and-dry issue of citing legal precedent and applying the law consistenly for the sake of consistency, but rather finding the best way to interpret the law in this particular instance. (FSDO "best", which sometimes includes the judge saying "I don't like this case", or "this case has no merits", or some other travesty.) So the perspective matters here.
Second, WRT The Axis Of Evil(tm) vs. The Axis Of Powers Who Possess Nukular Weapons Who We Don't Want To Piss Off(tm), perspective matters too. Obviously, China is not in the Axis of Evil(tm) because they simultaneously possess one billion customers we desperately want to sell to, and a boundless supply of cheap labor to make products we want to buy (like American Flags). But the one thing that the Axis Of Evil(tm) powers have in common is that they condone violence against Americans and American interests and are actively or passively encouraging the construction of weapons of mass distruction to engage in such violence. So, depending on your perspective, the declaration of the Axis Of Evil is consistent in a way.
The real issue here is that the rationalization that can find consistency in the declaration of Evil(tm) is fundementally flawed and illogical. It's a political statement that must take into account all sorts of unstated goals, pacts, alliances and such that cannot be evaluated by simple logic alone. Otherwise Saudi Arabia would be on a list somewhere even though the Saudi royal house isn't enganging in the construction of weapons of mass distruction (unless you consider billions of gallons of burning crude oil to be a weapon).
Re:Perspective
pudge on 2002-02-13T18:49:52
But "law in this particular instance" I think missing what TorgoX is saying. What if even that is unfair? What if we decide previous precedents are *wrong*, and if we had to do them over again, we would judge them differently than we did at the time? Are we obligated to go along for the sake of consistency?
I think Yes, we are, *unless* we decide that we were wrong before and therefore set a new precedent (all other things being equal, the more recent precedent wins out). That is exactly what happens often: we break precedents, set new precedents, because we determine that to follow precedent would be the wrong thing to do. However, there's a greater bar to break precedent than to follow it, which can be a good thing, and can be a bad thing. In close calls, someone can get treated "unfairly," even when it's considered that the previous precedent might be wrong.
As to the Axis of Evil, I think what separates them is that they have shown a desire to actively use those weapons against their enemies, or to provide them to those who would. China and America, even at their worst times these days, aren't doing that. Few people seriously worried that China or America would actually use their nuclear weapons when China captured the American plane. I am no fan of China's government, but I didn't believe for a moment that they would take that step, and I am sure America wouldn't.
Sure, economics plays a role in how they react to us, and vice versa, but even if it didn't, China just isn't going to try to use their weapons against us in the forseeable future. I suppose they've sold to people who would use them, but I don't know how much that practice continues to today.
Anyway, I aim to be consistent. I miss the target most of the time, but the more I try, the more I hit the target, which is more than can be said for most people who don't try.Re:Perspective
TorgoX on 2002-02-14T08:50:50
Sure, economics plays a role in how they react to us, and vice versa, but even if it didn't, China just isn't going to try to use their weapons against us in the forseeable futureIf not for economic reasons, why wouldn't China's government start a war with the US's government, and/or vice versa?
Re:Perspective
pudge on 2002-02-14T13:12:52
Why WOULD they?
