Logical inconsistencies in personal beliefs

[XMan]

Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

 

[blackangst1]

I think your comment of "introspection" is accurate. I also think it's because most people make decisions based on emotion, not reality.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

The idea of changing your beliefs to fit an ideological pattern died out a few decades ago among most people. Today most people chose an ideologie that closely fits there belief pattern. This is really the biggest reason you *see* it now. (Though it has always been there, just people hid it for fear of loosing there ideological label).

I think it has always been this way, people have always held beliefs that perhaps did not make sense compared to the rest of there beliefs, but people do not feel the need to hide it any longer since big ideological battles of the century of pretty much played out.

 

[nageov3t]

I think that life begins at viability... so I'm generally pro-choice for non-late term abortions and anti death penalty.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

I think it's because they are conforming to an external ideology instead of an internal one. They hold with what the Democrats/Republicans tell them they should as opposed to developing something inside themselves.

I don't think that being pro-choice and against the death penalty is logically inconsistent though. Most people who are pro-choice don't consider a fetus a person, and so killing it is not the same as killing another person. (not trying to start an abortion debate, just saying how it is) Same probably for many vegetarians/vegans.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

I think it's because they are conforming to an external ideology instead of an internal one. They hold with what the Democrats/Republicans tell them they should as opposed to developing something inside themselves.

I don't think that being pro-choice and against the death penalty is logically inconsistent though. Most people who are pro-choice don't consider a fetus a person, and so killing it is not the same as killing another person. (not trying to start an abortion debate, just saying how it is) Same probably for many vegetarians/vegans.

By that rationale, cows, chickens, and fish, aren't people either . . . I know that for some veg/vegs, it's a health decision, but there are quite a few, "Aww, I can't eat a widdle bunny!" girls out there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

People have an unlimited ability to be self conflicting. Their experience as a being goes beyond what is rational. That's not good or bad, just human.

 

[bamacre]

Fiscal conservatives who support the neo-conservative foreign policy.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Many democratic and most all republican positions strike me as contradictory. The people who hold those beliefs of course don't see it that way, but that's because they allow themselves to have a conforming understanding of contemporary politics and world events.

Sort of like eskimospy said, you can have internal ideology by educating yourself and not simply digesting and regurgitating the party sound bytes. Unfortunately very few do this - instead they adopt the external ideology because its easier and appealing on primitive levels. Even most of the 'educated' ones are simply informed via biased editorial pieces that they take as truth. Sad. Therefore you have people with blatant contradictions in their political / personal beliefs. My $.02.

 

[Siddhartha]

I am pro-choice because pregnancy can negatvely affect a woman's morbidity and mortality. If I were a woman I would want to decide if I am to risk my life or not.

I am against the death penalty because I do think the government should be killing people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am pro-choice because pregnacy can negately affect a woman's morbidity and mortality. If I were a woman I would want to decide if I am to risk my life or not.

I am against the death penalty because I do think the government should be killing people.

On the other hand there is the school of thought that there is no difference between a baby being on one side of an orifice or the other. The instant "it" exits the vagina, it becomes a baby instead of a fetus. That's as artificial construct as any, yet there are some that claim before birth a woman has unlimited rights. It's not always easy to determine where the greater good lies.

 

[Vic]

I'm pro-choice and pro-capital punishment.

Strictly speaking though, it is impossible to always be logically consistent in one's personal beliefs. One should try, of course, but to go too far with it would ruin one's judgment with individual situations. It's not good to be too rigid in one's beliefs.

 

[soccerballtux]

not sure why you think pro-life goes with anti-death penalty

the few people that still get convicted for the death penalty completely deserve it

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

I think it's because they are conforming to an external ideology instead of an internal one. They hold with what the Democrats/Republicans tell them they should as opposed to developing something inside themselves.

I don't think that being pro-choice and against the death penalty is logically inconsistent though. Most people who are pro-choice don't consider a fetus a person, and so killing it is not the same as killing another person. (not trying to start an abortion debate, just saying how it is) Same probably for many vegetarians/vegans.

I agree with this and I am having a hard time trying to understand why I can't be pro-choice and against the death penalty.

and maybe I AM trying to start a debate

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fiscal conservatives who support the neo-conservative foreign policy.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I don't see any logical inconsistencies in the OP.

Pro-choice but against the death penalty: These people believe they should have a choice as to whether or not they bring a collection of cells in the uterus to term, and don't believe the state should have the power to end a life.

Pro-life but for death penalty: These people believe the foetus is an innocent and vulnerable human being who should be protected and killing him/her would be murder, but believe the state should have the power to execute convicted, guilty high-level criminals.

Pro-choice vegans: I don't even know what you're getting at here. No conflict whatsoever.

 

[naddicott]

My favorite example is inconsistent applications of the "precautionary principle", depending on the subject matter:

A). Happy to support a pre-emptive war against a country that might have WMDs.

B). Unwilling to lift a finger to slow/prevent environmental damage that might be catastrophic.

The inverse inconsistency could be true in a case where a pro-environment (pro-Human survival variant)/ anti-war advocate opposes an intervention that might prevent a somewhat credible threat (eg. something like what the public believed pre-Iraq, not what the government actually knew).

Complete isolationists who also oppose any environmental efforts are at least internally consistent on the "precautionary" point.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

I think it's because they are conforming to an external ideology instead of an internal one. They hold with what the Democrats/Republicans tell them they should as opposed to developing something inside themselves.

I don't think that being pro-choice and against the death penalty is logically inconsistent though. Most people who are pro-choice don't consider a fetus a person, and so killing it is not the same as killing another person. (not trying to start an abortion debate, just saying how it is) Same probably for many vegetarians/vegans.

So people base their personal beliefs on a political opinion?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I don't see any logical inconsistencies in the OP.

Pro-choice but against the death penalty: These people believe they should have a choice as to whether or not they bring a collection of cells in the uterus to term, and don't believe the state should have the power to end a life.

Pro-life but for death penalty: These people believe the foetus is an innocent and vulnerable human being who should be protected and killing him/her would be murder, but believe the state should have the power to execute convicted, guilty high-level criminals.

Pro-choice vegans: I don't even know what you're getting at here. No conflict whatsoever.

Agree^

I'll try an example that I (hopefully?) believe illustrates inconsistancies.

Liberals on the 2nd & 4th Amendments.

On the 4th - Strongly opposed to any perceived encroachment on this (protection from unreasonable search and seizures). Frequently cite "those who give up their freedoms for safety deserve neither".

On the 2nd (particularly regarding the individual right to guns)- Times have changed, guns kill people. We'd be better with no guns etc.

On the one hand, the matter the danger, the right must be respected. On the other, because of the danger, we need to get rid of the right (to a gun).

Repubs (note I do not say "conservative") - Could likely say the same thing, but just reverse the positions.

Seems inconsistant to me.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I think it's because they are conforming to an external ideology instead of an internal one. They hold with what the Democrats/Republicans tell them they should as opposed to developing something inside themselves.

I don't think that being pro-choice and against the death penalty is logically inconsistent though. Most people who are pro-choice don't consider a fetus a person, and so killing it is not the same as killing another person. (not trying to start an abortion debate, just saying how it is) Same probably for many vegetarians/vegans.

So people base their personal beliefs on a political opinion?

Yeap.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan
Has anyone ever noticed some people who believe strongly in particular positions hold other positions, which, when you look at them, they just don't jive together?

Some examples I've noticed . . .

People who are aggressively pro-life . . . but have no problem with the death penalty.

Inversely, people who are pro-choice . . . .but very much against the death penalty.

I've know vegans/vegetarians who couldn't stomach (heh) the thought of eating meat because it would hurt a cute little animal . . . but are very pro-choice. I've met some of the Mary Kay Kommandos, too (classic reference) - against animal testing, yet pro-choice.

This isn't a partisan issue, I've seen it from people of all political stripes. Why is it, you think, that people can't be consistent in their personal philosophies? Lack of introspection? Or something else?

I think it's because they are conforming to an external ideology instead of an internal one. They hold with what the Democrats/Republicans tell them they should as opposed to developing something inside themselves.

I don't think that being pro-choice and against the death penalty is logically inconsistent though. Most people who are pro-choice don't consider a fetus a person, and so killing it is not the same as killing another person. (not trying to start an abortion debate, just saying how it is) Same probably for many vegetarians/vegans.

So people base their personal beliefs on a political opinion?

I've seen some champion a politician as a saint, and vilify another as a demon, yet when "their guy" pulls the same stunt, not only is OK, but they never said it was wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fiscal conservatives who support the neo-conservative foreign policy.

All the examples you gave can be explained or rationalized, depending on your ow views, to distinguish them as not inconsistent.

Some have already been addressed, but:

Abortion: "Not a person, woman's own body" vs. "Unborn innocent person"

Capital punishment "Human being, life is sacred" vs. "lost their right to continue living"

"Animals are living creatures deserving of rights" vs. "Animals are not people, they're for use for food, labor and other purposes including lab testing"

(I'd written the above a while ago but had not yet posted it, so it has some duplication with other posts now).

However, I do think that it's normal to develop some inconsistencies, one example I've been guilty of is catching myself applying a double standard depending who did something.

I have such strong issues with much of what Bush has done, (and those are reasonable rather than the idiotic 'BDS'), that I sometimes generalize his doing other lesser wrongs to how terrible he is and then think about how I'll tend to minimize the same behavior from someone else, and I'm not being fair to him.

It's common - would the media and public reaction to Michal Jackson holding his child out the window for pictures have been the same before all his controversies when he had recently released "Thriller" as it was later? If you heard OJ Simpson was arrested for drunk driving (he wasn't), 'one more thing that bastard did wrong', would you react with the same anger as when 24 star Kiefer Sutherland was (he was), 'oh, that was bad, but I'll keep watching him...'?

It happens all the time, the way people can discriminate against gays on marriage, while not realizing how it conflicts with their otherwise opposition to bigotry. People actually warp things such as saying 'oh those gays are just selfishly wanting that right' without realizing how that's exactly how someone being unjustly discriminated against should feel, turning it instead into 'selfish'. You frequently hear how they want 'special treatment' and have 'an agenda', because those fantasies allow the conflicting values to more easily be ok.

 

[1prophet]

Rational people with critical thinking skills don't make good consumers and are not easily manipulated.

On the other hand using irrational fears and desires to control the masses works very well as proved by Edward Bernays especially when they are made to believe it was their own personal choice no matter how illogical the belief.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fiscal conservatives who support the neo-conservative foreign policy.

All the examples you gave can be explained or rationalized, depending on your ow views, to distinguish them as not inconsistent.

Some have already been addressed, but:

Abortion: "Not a person, woman's own body" vs. "Unborn innocent person"

Capital punishment "Human being, life is sacred" vs. "lost their right to continue living"

"Animals are living creatures deserving of rights" vs. "Animals are not people, they're for use for food, labor and other purposes including lab testing"

(I'd written the above a while ago but had not yet posted it, so it has some duplication with other posts now).

However, I do think that it's normal to develop some inconsistencies, one example I've been guilty of is catching myself applying a double standard depending who did something.

I have such strong issues with much of what Bush has done, (and those are reasonable rather than the idiotic 'BDS'), that I sometimes generalize his doing other lesser wrongs to how terrible he is and then think about how I'll tend to minimize the same behavior from someone else, and I'm not being fair to him.

It's common - would the media and public reaction to Michal Jackson holding his child out the window for pictures have been the same before all his controversies when he had recently released "Thriller" as it was later? If you heard OJ Simpson was arrested for drunk driving (he wasn't), 'one more thing that bastard did wrong', would you react with the same anger as when 24 star Kiefer Sutherland was (he was), 'oh, that was bad, but I'll keep watching him...'?

It happens all the time, the way people can discriminate against gays on marriage, while not realizing how it conflicts with their otherwise opposition to bigotry. People actually warp things such as saying 'oh those gays are just selfishly wanting that right' without realizing how that's exactly how someone being unjustly discriminated against should feel, turning it instead into 'selfish'. You frequently hear how they want 'special treatment' and have 'an agenda', because those fantasies allow the conflicting values to more easily be ok.

well said, especially what I bolded. A glaring one that pisses me off is people get all up in arms about the war (I dont want to derail this into yet another war thread, just an example)...people get all excited about the 4000+ soldiers that have died in 6 years, but no one really gives a rat's ass about the 100,000+ that have died here at home in drunk driving accidents in the same timeframe. As you said, we all are hypocrites to one extent or another.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I don't see any logical inconsistencies in the OP.

Pro-choice but against the death penalty: These people believe they should have a choice as to whether or not they bring a collection of cells in the uterus to term, and don't believe the state should have the power to end a life.

Pro-life but for death penalty: These people believe the foetus is an innocent and vulnerable human being who should be protected and killing him/her would be murder, but believe the state should have the power to execute convicted, guilty high-level criminals.

Pro-choice vegans: I don't even know what you're getting at here. No conflict whatsoever.

Agree^

I'll try an example that I (hopefully?) believe illustrates inconsistancies.

Liberals on the 2nd & 4th Amendments.

On the 4th - Strongly opposed to any perceived encroachment on this (protection from unreasonable search and seizures). Frequently cite "those who give up their freedoms for safety deserve neither".

On the 2nd (particularly regarding the individual right to guns)- Times have changed, guns kill people. We'd be better with no guns etc.

On the one hand, the matter the danger, the right must be respected. On the other, because of the danger, we need to get rid of the right (to a gun).

Repubs (note I do not say "conservative") - Could likely say the same thing, but just reverse the positions.

Seems inconsistant to me.

Fern

This is one of the most inconsistent beliefs on the left. They seem not to realize that the 2nd amendment cannot be dismantled without scuttling the 4th as well. The question of how the guns are to be taken away from the people is something they seem to choose to ignore, lest their quest for a gun-free utopia be challenged.

The right's contradictions tend to be of a more fundamental nature. Everything seems to be "do as I say, not as I do." They speak of small government and low taxes, but support costly foreign wars and strict 'law and order' moral agendas. They speak proudly of 'freedom' while condemning anyone who does not conform to traditional values and morals, and while actually advocating agendas to drastically curtail freedom under the notion of protecting it (this is probably the most inconsistent belief on the right). Etc.

And if you are going to refrain from using the term 'conservative' improperly, could I ask you to do the same with 'liberal.' Gun control is a leftist, not a liberal, agenda.