LogFAQs > #950524396

I don't think that has anything to do with fallacious reasoning. A consequentialist would argue if you make a mistake and something good happens, you did something good. It depends on the theory that informs the value of mistake.

You can't really have "the mistake had a good outcome" as an a priori premise

It can look lile this:
-if the mistake has a good outcome, it's not a mistake
-the mistake had a good outcome because it wasn't a mistake

Then you might have circular reasoning, but,

-Mistakes with good outcomes are not mistakes
-your mistake had a good outcome
- you made no mistakes

Is valid

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]