Survival Logic
An individual who is threatened or cornered will act in a way to maximize their chances of survival. In this mode, logic is employed, but it is not the same objective reasoning that others use to solve math problems or search a map for a route home. Nevertheless, survival logic makes sense. It subjectively meets their specific needs at the moment, in their situation. There is an instinct to survive. A runner feels their muscles burning, but the extra kick of adrenaline helps them to push their boundaries. A swimmer feels their lungs emptied, but instinctively waits until they are above water before inhaling. In the same way, the mind goes into survival mode to protect the self when needed. For the swimmer and the runner the examples are positive: they are legitimate uses of survival mode. In negative application, it is easy to observe a liar in survival mode, when they are already identified and confirmed as lying, digging themself deeper with lies to cover lies when asked to explain their rationale. This negative use seems more deliberate, less legitimate, while still thinking within the same mode. Survival logic seems like a violation of the rules of humanity from the outside, but from the inside it seems like the only choice.
Adam and Eve knew to hide when they heard God approach, but when asked how they knew they were naked, if they had eaten from the forbidden tree, Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. The answer is clear, there is no hiding the truth, so lying will not do. With their answers, it seems that they understand their guilt and acknowledge their transgression—they do not play dumb. Deflecting the guilt in order to minimize the consequences is the logical reaction. They could assume God would easily see through any lie, so they admit they ate from the tree. But they bury the admission by first giving their reason for transgressing and pointing to another guilty party. It is the logic of a child who knows they have done wrong but wants to avoid disappointing the parent and receiving punishment. But there is no need to look to mythological stories to find practical instances of this logic.
For a literal example, there are instances of explorers or soldiers who, short of supplies and with no rescue in sight, resort to cannibalism. One of the most universal rules of humanity, one of the most horrific acts a man can commit against his own conscience, is justified in the moment when the alternative is starving to death. Even for the ancient Greeks it seemed like anything goes, but there were two revolting and unimaginable acts: incest and cannibalism. The civilized man, distinct from the animals, does not do such a thing. Yet, a group of men, deserted on a raft or in the middle of nowhere looking for land or a search party, waiting, starving, losing hope, watching their companions die from lack of nourishment, can come to the conclusion that it is better to eat the flesh of another human being than starve to death as well. But there is no need to be so extreme to find more tangible instances of this logic.
Now for a more relatable example, one that everyone has observed. Someone who has already committed perjury, someone who testifies to defend their sibling’s character, or someone who has witnessed social consequences of the “snitches get stitches” phrase will double down and lie under oath. Sure, it is immoral to lie. Of course, the truth is a worthy pursuit and justice is a nice objective. And if nothing else, the legal consequences of perjury is a prison sentence in itself. But when put into opposition with the instinct to defend family, the justification seems easy. Family members or friends can love so much that they would rather risk going to prison themself than carry the guilt of contributing to a sentence of their loved one. They would rather sacrifice themself than contribute to the downfall. The stronger the love, the faster they conclude that the choice is easy, or no choice at all.
Softer examples are abundant now that we have established the concept. A child taking food when he lacks the money to pay for it. He might be breaking the rules of society, but what he knows is hunger, which is more immediate. A teenager fleeing from the police when he is caught with illegal drugs. He might be caught and be charged with several more counts by resisting arrest, but what he thinks in the moment is that the only option is to run. A renter lying about their cat to lease an apartment with a no pet policy. The renting market is quick and a scam anyways, the renter reasons, so this is a way to stick it to the man. A politician voting against his values in order to be reelected—or more likely, to keep his lobbyists’ support. He reasons that he does more overall good with issues that matter more, and the upward trajectory of his career is the most important factor to keep supporting those issues that matter most.
Instinctive
Survival logic is rather instinctive opposed to reflective. In survival mode there is a crisis of values at odds, whether it be to uphold moral, societal, legal, personal, or familial principles—there is a conflict between them. Usually individuals are very clear about the priorities of their own values, even if they have not considered them consciously, ranked them in their mind, or acknowledged them. Just as a mother reaches to catch a falling baby, the sibling commits to their testimony or a politician defends his stance on instinct. When in conflict, there often is no moment taken to do the calculations and weigh the risks. The action is taken.
Immediate
Survival logic is rather immediate. Choices are made in the moment because there is not the need to rationally weigh the options when the values are already clear. In the case of perjury, any hesitation would be interpreted as lying or at least being conflicted. The action is taken quickly before there is time to consider long term or eternal consequences because the moment calls for decisiveness. Survival mode is about survival of the self, the self being the most immediate being to protect, with loved ones being a close second. Even at the end of the world, we can imagine a mother surround her child with her body as a useless guard against a coming armageddon.
Irrational
Survival logic is rather irrational, yet there is a rationality within it because it is based on small scale reasoning. With the cannibalism example, hunger is more present in the senses, more demanding, more tangible, more realized than any abstract moral code or divine laws. This small scale reasoning looks at the immediate choices and consequences, it only calculates the least resistance to survival, it considers only how to overcome the clear and present threat. Zoomed out, it is irrational for Adam to try to lie to God, for the suicidal person to swim back up for air, for the witness on the stand to dig themself deeper into the lie that is blatantly false. But the impulse to survive overrides reason with small scale reasoning.
Emotive
Survival logic is rather emotive, based on emotions more than reason, and producing enough emotions to overwhelm attempts at thought. The child who steals food is able to pull on the heartstrings if caught: he only did it for his family, the system is unjust, he is so hungry after not eating in days, he does not have anything, he is scared to get in trouble. When the child makes his emotion based case, the listener might end up crying and giving him more resources. Politicians have learned a more sophisticated version of the same game: play on pride of community, duty to country, even devotion to God in order to invoke a following that focuses on emotional perception over facts and details.
Agressive
Survival logic is rather aggressive. Because the one acting in survival logic relies on emotions more than reason, their modes of convincing others can resort to aggression. If one member of the group concludes that cannibalism is necessary before the others, the others will likely attempt to convince him of the violation of reason. But he is beyond rational persuasion, in immediacy and emotive mode, and so any attempts to rationally persuade him will fall on deaf ears and be taken as opposition. He is past the justification mode, onto the fighting to survive mode. He might use fight or flight instincts and make hostile or violent grabs for power. End the debate, get to business.