Logical Integrity in Politics
As a philosopher and a logician, part of my role is to teach students the vital skill of applying logical reasoning effectively across various scenarios. This practice is not just an academic exercise; it plays a crucial role in real-world decision-making and problem-solving. In my experience, a common learning curve for students is moving beyond applying logic in isolated instances to embracing a more comprehensive application in a range of contexts
In the realm of politics, the application of logical reasoning is always under scrutiny, a reality that becomes particularly evident in the early tenure of political leaders. In the first week of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's role, his handling of the controversial decision to repeal the smokefree legislation provides a case in point. These initial public statements reveal a tendency for an arbitrary application of logic in policy-making and governance. While offering a glimpse into his approach to leadership, they also subtly highlight the challenges and potential pitfalls in maintaining logical integrity across different contexts. Such instances underscore the importance of this fundamental aspect of decision-making, especially critical in the complex scenarios faced by political leaders.
The Principle of Logical Integrity
"Logical Integrity Across Contexts" demands a uniform logical approach in various scenarios. It is a call for recognizing and applying similar logical patterns in structurally similar scenarios, regardless of their content differences. In the realm of politics, where decisions have significant societal impacts, this principle is particularly crucial.
Luxon's Dismissal and Embrace of Logic
On the 27th of November 2023, in his appearance on the AM show, Luxon discussed the government's smokefree legislation with Ryan Bridge. The dialogue unfolded as follows:
Luxon: "When you've actually limited distribution and you're the only place selling smokes in some towns in New Zealand, you become a massive target for crime and for ram raids, and there will be an expanded black market that will be largely untaxed."
Bridge: "Couldn't you make the same argument for cannabis? I mean, you're talking about not wanting to have a black market, wanting to be able to tax the externality. Why don't you do a similar thing with cannabis?"
Luxon: "Yeah, different story, different effects, but I mean the reality here is we've got a tool in vapes which has actually helped a lot of people coming off smokes, which has been good."
In this exchange, host Ryan Bridge raised a logical point, indicating that the reasoning Luxon applied to tobacco should logically extend to cannabis. However, Luxon diverted from engaging with this logical similarity, choosing instead to highlight the distinct contexts surrounding tobacco and cannabis. This approach led him to sidestep the logical substance of the argument, focusing on the specificities of each situation rather than the underlying logical reasoning, and thus not directly addressing Bridge's query.
On the 3rd of December 2023, during a press conference, Luxon addressed an earlier factual mistake regarding the number of stores allowed to sell cigarettes in Northland. Recognizing this error, Luxon pivoted to a logical argument to support his stance. He stated: “[It] doesn't change a thing. The bigger point still holds that actually the reason why we opposed the legislation at the time is - and remember it hasn't taken effect, it's come into law but it hasn't taken effect - was simply to say we think that's the wrong way to go about it.”
The following day, on the 4th of December 2023, Luxon appeared on the AM show again and reiterated his logical standpoint: "The major reason is that limiting distribution creates a black market and ultimately will create more crime." This statement underscored his belief that regardless of the exact number of stores, the limited distribution would inevitably lead to a black market and an increase in crime. This week, Luxon has shifted from dismissing logic to embracing it in order to rectify his factual mistake.
Importance of Logical Reasoning in Politics
The contrast in Luxon's approach to logical reasoning in these two scenarios, as evident in his statements on the 27th of November and the 4th of December 2023, emphasizes how the application of logic varies depending on the context and the narrative at hand. While different situations may lead to different courses of action, it is essential for leaders to exhibit a certain level of consistency in addressing issues that can be tackled using a similar logical framework. During his initial week in power, Luxon vacillated between invoking logical reasoning and disregarding it in arguments based on context, resulting in responses that appear arbitrary. Luxon's diverse approaches to logical reasoning in policy-making hint at the intricate interplay between logic, narrative, and decision-making. This not only influences the efficacy of policies but also has implications for public trust in political leadership.
Conclusion
The principle of "Logical Integrity Across Contexts" is vital for coherent political decision-making. As leaders like Luxon navigate the complexities of policy and governance, adhering to this principle becomes imperative. It is not only the narrative that matters in politics but also a firm commitment to logical reasoning that adapts to various scenarios.
