Honest Ratio

Aligning ideas and principles in the correct proportion and ration is very important when dealing with a philosophical analysis of life and action. The misappropriation of ideas is one of man's highest errors. For instance, say that B is a direct result of A. Then, say that C can never be a product of A. Now, if a man states that he is dealing with C because of A, he is insane and mis-rationalizing, or mis-apportioning A to C, which is a logical fallacy. Any further action that results from this will be twisted and irksome in its nature and fruits. The problem comes when the reason why A to C is a logical fallacy is unclear on the surface.

For instance let us examine a men stepped in addiction to drugs. This man may justify his habits by saying his substance abuse is just for fun, a good time with friends, and doesn't really hurt anyone. As a result, he rationalizes, he may continue in his behavior without a worry, and the behavior itself is in fact all right. The problem with this is that first, he is flawed when he explains his addiction by saying it is just for a fun good time and harmless. He is mis equating it with nominally innocuous descriptions which treated superficially seem valid. The truth is that he is addicted for some deep psychological reason, perhaps insecurity or confusion or as a reaction to violence he was forced to endure or as a reaction to uncertainty and lack of control over his own life. All of these result in addiction which is an escape from the world and reality as the man knows it, and originated because it is sensually gratifying and erased the actuality of the life he was living. When he incorrectly equates his addiction with an otherwise virtuous or harmless ideal, and then twists that ideal to justify his behavior, he is committing an abhorrent crime. This crime is compelled by ignorance of the truth and an evil pragmatic wit that has one thing in mind: self vindication no matter what the cost. An inner argument like this will breed a defensive attitude and an quarrelsome or shameful demeanor when it comes to the subject of the addiction.

Just as with the man described above many people take nobel ideals such as love or truth or justice, and in the name of these ideals justify odious actions, because on the surface it appears to be logically sound. The concept is very similar to the idea of 'fair is foul and foul is fair' as seen in Macbeth. As a result of this antimetabole, Macbeth, through the wit of the Three Witches, was able to justify killing King Duncan for his own selfish gain. In the same way a man might put up with selfish desire for a woman, which in itself if misplaced and not reciprocated appropriately is an addiction on its own, as a means of escape from the world, and defend his doing so by saying that he loves her. Love is not self-seeking and as a result cannot be used to vindicate his hideous addiction, however, love also connotes absolute goodness, and therefore by saying 'my actions are because I love her' one is misplacing the name of love and using it as a tool of justification. In this case one's argument is benefited by the fact the love does indeed connote goodness, and is in fact good, therefore as an isolated statement 'my actions are because I love her' is valid. However, this man is mis-appropriating the name of love because his actions are not because he loves her, but because he loves himself. This is truly a Heart of Darkness of the world. The simple act of misappropriating ideals is bad enough on its own, but the act of twisting virtue to absolve wickedness is truly execrable.