(Two examples of modern Republicans inability to understand logic)

I have friends who have evolving opinions on climate change. Long ago, their opinion was “It’s a hoax”, because a political pundit they liked told them so. I think that because they didn’t seem to have any convincing evidence for their opinion. I should mention that these friends aren’t of limited intelligence. These are intelligent, educated men. Their opinion then evolved to, “Maybe it’s real, but it’s stopping an ice age, and that would be worse.” Then, “Just because it’s getting warmer, doesn’t mean it’s because of carbon emissions.” And finally, “Okay maybe, but China and India aren’t doing anything so why should we?” That year China became the world leader in Solar cells and it had already been leading in batteries. All their arguments were designed to allow them to vote for the party they wanted without feeling that maybe they were making a mistake.

Blaise Pascal had an argument about believing in God. It may not be the best argument for that, but the idea works well to understand the validity of certain points. Pascal said, either there is or isn’t a God as we are told by the church. Remember, back then in France, there was only one church. Pascal also said we can either live our lives as though there is a God, going to mass, saying prayers, obeying the commandments, or, we can live a life with no regard for morality. This can be diagrammed on a two-by-two grid. With “God, yes or no”, on the top and “virtuous life and non-virtuous life” on the side. This gives up four results. If you live a life of sin and there is no God, you may have had more fun but that’s it. If God exists, you are condemned to burn in hell for all eternity. So, either a “fun” existence or the most suffering anyone can imagine. If you live a virtuous life and God does not exist, well you may have had less fun, but you still had a life. Whereas, if God does exist, you get eternal bliss and joy. So, either “meh” or you get the best outcome you can imagine. Clearly, Pascal reasoned, you should believe in God since the outcomes are superior.

Now this is a complicated argument to boil down so simply, but climate change isn’t. If climate change is not real and you try to fix it, all you get is more efficiency with energy and more ways to generate it. Sure, it costs a lot to change, but you are getting something in return, more energy. If it is real and you do nothing, you risk all of civilization and possibly the stability of the Earth’s climate for centuries. A simple logic problem. Yet half or more of the United States can not grasp it or choses to not believe in logic because they don’t understand it. Far from the only example of this though, take understanding the difference between individual good and collective good.

Medical mask wearing became a political issue during the COVID epidemic. I always thought the Asians had a good idea wearing masks when they were ill. They have a lot more experience living in crowded conditions than Westerners do. It seems much more polite. The problem started during the pandemic when masks were required in public areas. Freedom loving Americans didn’t like being inconvenienced. But they got the argument wrong. There are two rights at stake, the individual’s good and the collective good. They aren’t just asking to not be inconvenienced by having to wear a mask, they are asking for the right to risk others be making them sick if they happened to be infected. We as individuals in a society have a duty to society at large. We may have to serve on a jury if asked or go to war to protect our country. Businesses aren’t supposed to pollute the environment or mistreat their workers to increase profits or sell shoddy goods that can hurt the consumer. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual. My conservative friends used to preach this. How people’s own selfishness fractures the social glue. But that was about other people’s selfishness, not theirs.

The same logical argument applies to vaccines. Most people who argue against them have little understanding of their importance. I hear them cry, “it isn’t the vaccines, it’s the mandates. My body my choice.” Which is weird, because I thought they didn’t like that argument. Why then should I be forced to have a vaccine? The answer is herd immunity. In order to protect the general public, all of the population must be vaccinated. No vaccine is 100% efficient. If the vaccine is only 90% efficient then 1 in every 10 are capable of getting the disease. Even a small drop in the percentage of people vaccinated can drastically increase the likelihood of an outbreak. An example would be the outbreak of measles here in the U.S. A disease that was all but eradicated a few years ago. “Okay,” you say, “but what if there is a chance, however small, that the vaccine could harm me?” If 4 people in every 1,000 could be harmed in some way, but 15 out of 1,000 could die in an outbreak, you take the shot. That’s your duty, like having to go to war to protect your country. Duty to country, not the self.

Logic can be cold, but it is always right.