system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: the logical consistency of a set of values is only a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.

Every issue is inherently unique and moral judgment shouldn't be made based on similar issues. Having consistent values is important only in so much as it provides a starting point to understanding a novel issue, but it shouldn't drive the ultimate judgement, and there has nothing wrong if that ultimate judgement is the opposite of that starting point.

If I believe A, B, and C, and logic dictates that I should then believe in Z, that shouldn't drive how I actually feel about Z, and it isn't believe in Z there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with my value set.

The chance my view you would have to argue that either there is something "wrong" with having inconsistent beliefs or that any value set is inherently consistent but can be too complex to understand.
gpt
A logical inconsistency within a belief system suggests that, somewhere within the belief system, you believe *S*="*A* is true **and** *A* is not true". Since a contradiction can never be true, this implies *S* is false. We have a lot of evidence to suggest that false beliefs about the nature of reality can lead to sub-optimal outcomes. Therefore, if we want to navigate reality more successfully, we should avoid believing things that are false. Therefore, we should strive for consistency in our beliefs. 

Your post is focused on moral issues rather than pure logical abstraction. Moral issues are complicated, and so it can sometimes appear that "*A* is true **and** *A* is not true" might be the case. However, our understanding of logic should lead us to question that intuition. More likely, there is some unaccounted for statement bundled up in *A* that we aren't seeing that makes *A* true in one situation and not true in another. The desire for consistency will motivate us to look for that nuance, which can lead to a deeper understanding that can be applied elsewhere.