Consistency, Bah Humbug

[David Sklansky]

Here is your answer:

Truly inconsistent positions are impossible to both be correct. If you hold both positions it means you had to have made an error when you got to at least one of those positions. Or that, more likely you didn't even get to that position through thought. But rather through unexamined feelings which you then tried to rationalize.

In real life most situations do not have the exact same circumstances behind them. Eating dogs as delicacies is different than dog fighting. Killing Iraqi children for the benefit of mankind is different than killing embryos for their stem cells for the benefit of mankind. Thus it is logically possible to come to two different kinds of conclusions. Since even the slightest change in a variable opens up the possibility that a chain of deductions will get diametrically opposed answers.

But even though it is possible, IT IS NOT LIKELY. In other words if someone has opposite conclusions about situations that can be shown to have very similar variables (although it might take some non trivial thinking to show it) it is a good bet that the opposite conclusions came from shoddy thinking or rationalized wishfull thinking rather than because of the loophole that the variables didn't perfectly coincide. Even if you personally are an exception, you must know that most people aren't.

Therefore it is extremely valuable to point out quasi inconsistency to people who honestly want to examine their positions for bias or stupidity.