Logical injustice occurs when someone is unfairly hindered from recognizing the coherence in their thoughts and expressions. This may stem from the imposition of inappropriate logical standards in situations where they don't apply. A classic example of this is responding with the strict standards of mathematical validity during a casual family reunion dinner—a party trick I've learned to ditch, albeit perhaps a few awkward family gatherings too late. Let’s explore this further.

Imagine a scenario where someone is wrestling with a significant life decision, such as relocating to a different city for a new job opportunity. This choice is fraught with uncertainty and will undoubtedly affect their entire family. In such a situation, relying solely on logical validity as a guiding principle can be more obstructive than helpful.

For instance, any argument they make in favour of moving can be countered with extreme or highly improbable scenarios. Consider the possibility of better career prospects and personal growth in the new city. A counter-argument might point out the instability of the world, suggesting the potential bankruptcy of the new company and the consequent isolation in an unfamiliar city. Or, to take it to an absurd level, one might argue about the unlikely event of extraterrestrial abduction at the new job, rendering any decision moot.

Although these counter-arguments technically make sense because they offer counterexamples, they aren't really useful or relevant in practice. In situations like these, sticking rigidly to logical validity doesn't help. It stops the person from sharing a clear and sensible argument for why moving could be beneficial. Basically, this is a case of logical injustice, where the right reasoning is overshadowed by overly strict logic.

To effectively handle these situations, it's essential to identify which logical approaches are suitable for each conversation. Striking a balance between clear reasoning and real-world applicability is crucial for encouraging meaningful and constructive discussions, particularly when it comes to personal and emotionally significant decisions.

Being logically just is not just about being logically correct; it's about understanding the context and applying logical principles that are fitting and constructive. By doing so, we not only respect others' viewpoints but also contribute to more coherent and considerate decision-making processes.