People often talk about the 'logic' of various ideologies or scenarios, such as the "logic of the right," or the "logic of the left," and even extend this to "war logic" or the "logic of natural selection." I find myself resistant to these phrases, mostly because their meanings are not always clear.

Contrast "the logic of the left" and "war logic" with "the logic of natural selection." The first two concern our thoughts about societal and conflict-related issues. "The logic of the left" typically involves a political inclination towards fair redistribution and social justice. It reflects how we think about society, our beliefs about what is just, and our opinions on necessary actions. "War logic" might refer to the rationale we accept in wartime contexts. For example, arguing that we should use atomic bombs on Japanese civilians to prevent the death of American (and Japanese) soldiers would be part of “war logic.” There are specific variables, such as being on one side of the conflict and valuing the lives of your soldiers higher than the lives of the others’ civilians, which isn’t morally commendable, but something we might accept under the umbrella of the "logic of war".

On the other hand, "the logic of natural selection" refers to the processes that guide biological evolution, like the survival of the fittest—a principle explaining why certain traits prevail in species due to the survival advantages they conferred in previous generations. Is this about how we conceptualize evolution, or about how evolution actually unfolds? If it's the former, then logic is applicable as a framework for understanding. If it's the latter, it isn't really about "logic" at all but about biological processes. Asserting that certain traits dominate due to "logic" is misleading—it's not logical, it's biological. Logic, in its true sense, does not govern natural selection any more than it governs gravity or quantum mechanics.