Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts, e.g. in a criminal defense?
[deleted]
Kettle Logic
11–20 of 85 posts
Re: Kettle Logic
#12Re: Kettle Logic
#13It seems that this is a sort of "dual" to what's called "Argument in the alternative" [1], which I've seen confused for kettle logic more often than I've seen kettle logic used itself.
It's a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to rule them all out, but isn't that kind of what kettle logic does as well? Can a kettle logic argument be easily rephrased into an argument in the alternative?
I feel like there's a difference between them that's more than just whether the argument is true/valid or not, but I can't quite put it into words.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
Re: Kettle Logic
#14Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts, e.g. in a criminal defense?
It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly force.
These two assertions ('shooting was an accident...' and 'she was within her rights...') are not inherently contradictory, though. That's what's remarkable about Kettle Logic: genuine contradictions can be employed in a proof in a convincing (and not necessarily invalid) manner. The above can be orthogonal or complementary assertions, but they are not contradictory.
Re: Kettle Logic
#15Or, as my generation learned it from Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!"
Re: Kettle Logic
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
'permissible' isn't quite the point ... if it makes the jury think you're lying, maybe it isn't the best strategy.
1. The jury should not base their decision on their belief whether either side is lying. 2. The defence is expected to lie, and if the prosecution cannot prove that every single one of the defence's arguments are lies, then the jury cannot convict beyond reasonable doubt. 3. The jury should assume that the prosecution is lying by default, and acquit if the prosecution does not convince them otherwise.
The jury can decide that any given testimony is a lie and weight it accordingly.
Re: Kettle Logic
#17Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts, e.g. in a criminal defense?
It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly force.
That's not kettle logic, that's a mode of legal argumentation that deals with boolean "and" constructions of a law.
If some charge requires both [A] and [B] for the accused to be guilty, then this argument is that it's neither [A] nor [B], but the defendant is innocent if they can prove either half of the argument, since the condition is "[A] and [B]", not "[A] or [B]".
Re: Kettle Logic
#18Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts, e.g. in a criminal defense?
It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly force.
That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?
Re: Kettle Logic
#19It seems that this is a sort of "dual" to what's called "Argument in the alternative" [1], which I've seen confused for kettle logic more often than I've seen kettle logic used itself. It's a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to rule them all out, but isn't that kind of what kettle logic does as well? Can a kettle logic argument be eas…
[deleted]
Re: Kettle Logic
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly force.
That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?
Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.