Why care about consistency?

  1. Inconsistency in our opponents’ reasoning is cognitively salient to us. This is the so-called “argumentative theory of reasoning” developed by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Mercier and Sperber argue that human beings evolved a capacity for reasoning in order to win arguments rather than to acquire true beliefs about the world.
  2. Inconsistency and hypocrisy do not require the critic to assert a controversial position or make controversial criticisms of their opponent’s position. This makes it attractive for political competitors wishing to minimize their own exposure while criticizing their opponents.
  3. Inconsistency in the form of “double standards” can reflect unfair treatment of different people under the same procedure. Americans in particular are attentive to procedural unfairness. I suspect this reflects, in part, the adversarial nature of the American legal system and the role of procedural fairness in our notions of legal justice.




Political theory PhD. I write about politics and (social) science.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Wittich’s Anti-Spinoza and Substance as a Second Notion

A letter from Cosmos to Sapiens

Theory of planning for the time of pandemic

4 Philosophy Books You can Read (and Understand) Without Needing a Degree

Jordan Peterson is Wrong About Truth and the Bible — And Heres Why

Can I Be a Non-Dual Feminist?

The 5 tenets of One life

The Ethics of Sending Nudes

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Nick Geiser

Nick Geiser

Political theory PhD. I write about politics and (social) science.

More from Medium

To Hope or Not To Hope, That Is The Question

Photo by Ronak Valobobhai on Unsplash


When The Ethical Solution is the Most Frowned Upon: What To Do?

On the Meaning of Life — the World according to Sigmund Freud (Part 2)