Logic. Such a strong, unwavering word, or so we’ve come to believe. I used to think of it as an impenetrable wall, behind which all reason and truth would be protected. I believed that as long as my thoughts were built upon the tenants of logic, I could protect myself from self-deception...how little I truly knew. 

Logic, or logos, the root word, really comes from the word for word, or reason. In essence, it has been synonymous with both word and reason. It has been seen as a building block of an argument, without which, nothing can be built. Logic forms the individual threads that, when sewn together, construct an argument, and when those are sewn together, construct a defense, a position, or a statement on a subject. If two people debate a topic, and the audience gets to decide which person built a stronger position, we often judge that position on the logic of the individual arguments. 

But logic itself relies on definitions of words, which may or may not have a measurable or quantifiable corollary in reality. In other words, words themselves are often constructs which have fluid definitions. These definitions don’t have to undergo the scientific process, but rather undergo a sort of malleable shaping by the masses. For words are part of language, and language is not a science, but rather an emergent property of society and culture. Words can be shaped and abused. They can be invented originally to represent a quantifiable object in reality, only to evolve later into something that is entirely abstract. Yet, if we use words to create logic, we will always be subject to deception.

Let’s start for example with the argument that every life has value, and that every life is equal in value to any other. For the moment, put aside whether you agree or disagree with this argument, as we’re going to show you how you can build a logical argument on both sides using words as our tools. 

Taking the side in support of this statement, we can start with the quote from Thomas Jefferson that “all men are created equal.” These truths are self-evident, Thomas Jefferson wrote, and the founding fathers agreed. We, as Americans, support this declaration, and have defended it for many years, if not our entire life. Our Bill of Rights is built around this idea, and the amendments have largely been created to support and bolster the legal support of that statement. Our laws are generally not written with regard to one’s personal differences or wealth status, but rather on the assumption that all humans should be treated equally under the law.  

Or, we could start with the United Nations which states that human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their age, ethnic origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status” (wikipedia text). From these words, we can proceed that the civilized world generally agrees that human beings have certain rights regardless of who they are or what they have done. In other words, a baby has no money, no accomplishments, no degrees, yet this baby is born with certain rights simply because it is a human. From this state, we can deduce that humans are inherently equal at birth, and this same reasoning should extend throughout one’s life, as long as that person remains human. 

Now, this logic is coming from precedence. We are saying that because these smart people and organizations have collectively agreed upon this equality from human birth, then that argument is strong. It doesn’t necessarily use many bricks, but by resting these arguments upon other smart, well-respected individuals, you would have to disagree with both Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, and the United Nations in their stance. 

On the other hand, we could start the contra-argument with the idea that money has value. In other words, whatever is called money in a particular society carries with it a quantifiable value. A specific amount of money can buy goods and services including: water, shelter, food, transportation, education, etc. If we all agree that money has value, because of its ability to be exchanged for necessities, then individuals who have the ability to make more money than others are logically more valuable than people who can’t make as much money. 

While the second argument is technically built on better logic, it is inherently less appealing, and effectively is not practiced by most countries’ governments. Yet, in practice, as we age, we tend to lose our rights, and our value is more based on money, over inherent rights. While we preach that all people are equal, the reality is far from that. 

So, here is one issue that may be argued logically from both sides. I hope it elucidates the inherent problem in using logic alone when thinking about issues. While logic can seem quite appealing, and allow you to build impressively high arguments brick-by-brick, those arguments may be fundamentally flawed in ways that you don’t initially see. Logic is useful of course, but it has limitations that can’t be dismissed. Sometimes, there are other factors, including our instincts and emotions that must be factored into debates, so that logic doesn’t play tricks on us and creates a society where babies are treated differently depending on how much money their parents make.