The Final Reckoning of 'Same Logic, Same Response': Paving the Way for Meta-Coherence

The slogan “same logic, same response” did not resonate as I had hoped. Let's revisit the idea. I've been contemplating the concept of “meta-coherence.” While coherence pertains to the logical structures of arguments, beliefs, or theories, meta-coherence transcends this, operating on a higher level. To illustrate, consider two arguments that share logical structures but differ in content. Take, for example, Luxon's argument for repealing the smokefree legislation and its logical applicability to cannabis. Luxon's main point was that restricting distribution boosts crime and creates a black market. This is undoubtedly true for cannabis, where distribution restrictions are absolute, leading to a solely black market presence. Governments, naturally, aim to avoid crime and black markets, especially in drug distribution. The logic underpinning these arguments is identical, though their subjects differ.

Requesting Luxon to exhibit “meta-coherence” is essentially asking him to acknowledge this shared logic. However, this doesn't mean the government's approach to cannabis should mirror its stance on cigarette distribution. This is the point where the “same logic, same response” slogan falters. By “same response,” I didn't imply identical actions but rather a uniform attitude toward the logic of the argument, a testament to “meta-coherence.” In non-deductive decision-making contexts, external factors beyond the premises' scope influence the final decision. Cigarettes have a big health toll on society, are addictive, cause cancer, cost a lot of money, and are ultimately something bad for society (right?). Cannabis, as a recreational drug, has effects on society and individuals that are much less than those of other legal drugs such as alcohol, and indeed cigarettes (right?).

Luxon's stance on cannabis seems to favor the status quo, overlooking the stronger argument for legalizing recreational cannabis, which his logic inadvertently supports. This inconsistency ignores that the context might actually favor legal cannabis distribution while maintaining smokefree legislation. My initial “same response” advocacy has evolved into a deeper understanding. I champion a uniform recognition of logical coherence across various contexts. Logic is a critical component in decision-making but doesn't dictate the best course of action. It ensures coherence before considering external factors and context-specific details. "Meta-coherence," as I term it, entails evaluating argument coherence consistently – the 'meta' aspect. While “meta-coherence” might sound contrived, it captures my intention better than “same logic, same response”... To be continued.