Logic and Ethics

I love logic, but I feel that it is awfully hard to apply logic in the realm of morality. It seems like there is just fr too much emotional involvement in order for one to make a rational argument or decision. In addition to this, there are just too many facets of human nature that anyone can fashion an argument for any ethical belief which can be contradictory. Ex:

P1: People do not like it when they go hungry

P2: People possess empathy.

P3: People sometimes have an excess of food or money that they do not require.

C: People with an excess of food or money should donate it to the hungry.

OR

P1: Ownership of property is a cornerstone of living in a capitalistic society

P2: In a capitalistic society, a person may decide what to do with their own possessions to a legal extent.

C: People should not be obligated to give their resources to other people.

Contradiction.

I have been pondering over Aristotle's law of non-contradiction. It is one of the most well known axioms in logic and philosophy. I have been trying to think of a way to disprove this theory though and very few things come to mind. For it is impossible to have 'A' not equal 'A.' But then I started to think about the computers that were designed with quantum mechanics. Because some circuits in such a device could be both on and off at the same time, which was a clear contradiction. But the more I thought about it, I suddenly realized that since it did exist in reality, then it is indeed possible for something to be both on and off at the same time. In this manner, it would no longer be a contradiction, which would allow Aristotle's principle to still be intact.

The logic of the abnormal

So, this weekend, instead of starting immediately on my logic homework like a good student, I packed up my car and headed out to go volunteer at a special needs summer camp. While there however, I noticed that a lot of the kids there did not use the most rational of logical arguments. But then I realized that to these children, their arguments seemed completely rational and logical to themselves. Some things seemed so obvious to them that they even took it for granted that their illogical beliefs were correct. This got me thinking about how emotion plays a role in an argument.  

 Emotion plays a huge role about whether or not a person is willing to accept another argument. Many people like these kids accept and refuse different forms of arguments solely because they don't like what the argument is saying. So even though all rational and empirical evidence can point to one thing, people can still deny it with their own emotions. Some of the kids I worked with were like this. They held beliefs solely because they liked the ideas that they made up more than reality. I am sure people who claim to be rational do the exact same thing too.

Does this mean that logic and reasoning is weaker than one's own emotional power?

I don't even...

"According to the atheistic approach above, as far as I am concerned, he cannot say for sure that he knows that God does not exist, or he will be taken as a fool. So, he has no choice but to believe that God exists. If he knew for sure that God existed, he would not have to say that he believes in God. It stands the reason then, that atheists cannot be sure about anything or they will be taken by fools. In that case, he must believe that God exists, since he is not sure He does."

-FSTD

P1-An person will be taken as a fool if he believes god does not exist.

C1- An atheist must then accept god exists in order to avoid looking like a fool.

PP1- a believer in god would be secure enough to not have to express his beliefs.

[PP2-Since an atheist does not want to be taken to be a fool, he is unsure of his beliefs]

C2-An atheist must believe go exists since one is not sure that He does.

I occasionally stumble upon some quotes that make absolutely no sense. I have tried my hand at translating this persons argument to something intelligible. However, I don't think I have done it justice. If anyone would like to try their hand at it, be my guest because I would love to see what this man was even trying to say.

Does this mean we don't need to go to class anymore?

Over the Summer, I finally got to read a book that has long been on my reading list: Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol. It was a delightful read and the nonsensicalness of it I truly enjoyed. However, at the end of that story was another little story called What the Tortoise Said to Achilles (You can find the story here.). Lewis Carrol was not only an author, but a mathematician and a logician. This story was about a dialogue between the great hero Achilles and a tortoise who were in a race (This is a reference to Zeno's Paradox, found here if interested.). After Achilles won that race, The tortoise then proved to Achilles that the process of using logic actually involved an infinite number of assumptions that would make logic absolutely impossible. It gave me quite a headache when I read it. According to the internet, it also confounded many other philosophers as well. Throughout this logic course, I have often thought back to this story. What do my classmates make of it?