I would say that rational scrutiny could be applied to the problem of "Should I prioritize [these short term goals] at the expense of [these long term goals]?" Why can't reason be a mediating factor there?
ie. "It is reasonable to continue burning some coal to help us meet our short term energy goals, and keep our economy afloat. But (to combat climate change) we ought to aggressively reduce the amount of coal we burn and pursue other means of energy production that will produce less emissions."
The rational default is to make rational short term decisions and rational long term decisions. If there is a conflict between the two, that's no reason to stop being logical. Reason can help resolve that conflict as well.
(Let me know if I'm missing the point. I might be.)
ie. "It is reasonable to continue burning some coal to help us meet our short term energy goals, and keep our economy afloat. But (to combat climate change) we ought to aggressively reduce the amount of coal we burn and pursue other means of energy production that will produce less emissions."
The rational default is to make rational short term decisions and rational long term decisions. If there is a conflict between the two, that's no reason to stop being logical. Reason can help resolve that conflict as well.
(Let me know if I'm missing the point. I might be.)
