Question Home

Position:Home>General - Arts & Humanities > I have a question about consequential and non-consequential reasoning???


Question:

I have a question about consequential and non-consequential reasoning???

1. The current minimum wage cannot support an individual in today's economy, much less a family. Every human being is worthy of dignity and respect and therefore deserves a living wage. Therefore the minimum wage should be increased.

2. Increases in the minimum wage force employers to lay off workers and/or to raise prices in order to remain in business. Unemployment and inflation have negative results for everyone. Therefore the minimum wage should not be increased.

Which is closer to consequential reasoning and which is closer to non-consequential reasoning? While both arguments deal with both "principle" and "reality," each leans more in a certain direction.


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

The very faculty of reasoning has limitations:

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.