Mistakes of Logic

The clear window of sound logical reasoning is perhaps the greatest tool available to the human mind.  It helps us decipher truth from supposition, and helps us predict the consequences of actions.

Sadly, logical reasoning - often called 'thinking critically', is a seldom and poorly-applied instrument in the realms of government and law, where you'd think they should be most abundantly and expertly employed.

Hobbling Logic at Hobby Lobby

Take for instance, the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision just announced.  In a 5-4 decree, the court agreed that a private, for-profit company could be excluded based on religious belief from the requirement to pay for emergency birth control as a feature of its government-mandated health insurance.  The majority of the Justices appear to feel that this is justified since birth control is controversial and opposition to it could be a strongly held religious belief.  They said that this decision would not impact other provisions of the health insurance law that mandate other controversial services, but let's examine that logically:

What difference would there be?  That opposition to birth control is a more strongly-held religious belief than other concerning provisions? 

I would be willing to bet you can find people who are as upset about other clauses in the healthcare laws. 

And what about belief systems that say the only healing you should receive comes from God and not from medicine?  Or that only alternative medications and therapies based on strong religious and cultural beliefs are correct and not western medicine?  

Logically, the arguments are the same, and if the right to allow an exclusion based on religion is right in one case, it's logically right in every case.  

Logic is destroyed by biased interpretation - if your personal concern is a dislike of birth control, that's what you seek to exempt on religious grounds. And you make up illogical reasons why the same exclusion does not apply to other mandated procedures and services. But logically, if any one provision can be excluded based on religion, then any of them can. 

Certainly the precedent will be now be set for court cases testing each and every one of the provisions.

Also missing from the Court's decision was any logical consideration of the rights of the employees.  Those working for Hobby Lobby will not have access to the same coverage as those working for other companies.  As the arguers for the Hobby Lobby decision claimed, the company's workers might be able to get birth control from some other path, but that doesn't change the fact that their beliefs are not being considered while the beliefs of the company's owner hold sway.  This makes no logical sense considering the health services are for the individual worker's benefit, not the company's.  A company does not and can not receive birth control; that service applies only to its individual workers.

The Sterling Conundrum

The LA Clippers ownership debacle is another example, with less impact on society but no less illogical.  

You may recall that owner Donald Sterling was purged from participating in the National Basketball Association based on the leak to the press of racist comments he made in private conversations.  Part of that purge included pressure on him to sell the Clippers to another party, but this was something he didn't want to do and vowed to fight the move.

Enter the plan for his ex-wife and co-owner to have him declared unfit based on diminished capacity and forge a deal without his permission.

So, where's the logical mistake here?  Well, simply this:  if Donald Sterling is suffering from diminished mental capacity, then couldn't his racist remarks be the result of that mental deterioration? If so, then he is suffering an illness and should not have been excluded from the League and forced to sell.  On the other hand, if he is not mentally deficient, then he can't be excluded from decisions on the sale of the team.  

It's either one or the other, logically speaking, but our disgust at his rants have biased us against him, and make us willing to listen to specious and illogical arguments being used to disenfranchise him.  We don't like him so we suspend logic, but that isn't the way decisions should be made.  Of course, that's the way decisions are made all the time. 

It's human nature to look for loopholes in logic to suit our biases, but - logically, there are no such things ...