Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 19, 2022, 3:29 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
#31
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
That’s generally taken to be the difference between a rational thing and a rationalized thing, no?

I think that the sort of rationality being described might exclude that by default. A happy accident rather than the rigorous application of formal process.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#32
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
(July 15, 2021 at 10:51 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That’s generally taken to be the difference between a rational thing and a rationalized thing, no?  

I think that the sort of rationality being described might exclude that by default.  A happy accident rather than the rigorous application of formal process.

I was thinking differently, somewhat, recently. My distinction between rational and rationalizing was whether the reasons were ad hoc or well established.
[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply
#33
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
Ad hoc rationalizations as happy accident, well established as rigorous application of process. Deemed so afterward, vs pursued explicitly from the outset.

Very very little in our lives falls in the latter category, or so it seems to me in my experience. Is that what we’re trying to discuss ( or part of it) with whatever the difference is between us and full rationality?

If so, I can see us being a whole lot better and a whole lot worse. More competent in explicitly pursuing some goal, whatever that goal may be.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#34
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
(July 15, 2021 at 10:41 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok another question. In this 100% rational world would the rationale be known before the decision or could we deem it rational afterwards.

I meant the former. The rationale would be known beforehand.
Reply
#35
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
So, (and this is a hypothetical if only to short circuit argument on the particulars) if a person explicitly set out to and did follow rational processes that necessitated or directly lead to the rejection of any climate change action, that would count as candidate 100% rationality, wouldn’t it?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#36
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
It would indeed qualify as rational. But one must wonder what rationale was used in selecting such a goal.
Reply
#37
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
In the thought experiment- whatever you would consider a valid/logical one, even if it straight up blew.

Outside of the hypothetical, and back to the anecdotal…I could be a very persuasive 100% rational objector to climate action. I do face to face work, I’ve heard it all. Plenty of the arguments can be zeroed out as batshit, but not all of them. Some of the remainder are challenging. Those anti-advocates who offer them are effective. Which is to say that I end up spending a lot of time genuinely asking myself those questions and can’t always answer them.

Just imagine how much better they’d be as opposition if they weren’t human. If they were 100% rational.

No easy rebuttals, hundreds more hours of labor to collect data to offer counter argument.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#38
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
(July 15, 2021 at 3:32 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: In the thought experiment- whatever you would consider a valid/logical one, even if it straight up blew.

Outside of the hypothetical, and back to the anecdotal…I could be a very persuasive 100% rational objector to climate action.  I do face to face work, I’ve heard it all.  Plenty of the arguments can be zeroed out as batshit, but not all of them.  Some of the remainder are challenging.  Those anti-advocates who offer them are effective.  Which is to say that I end up spending a lot of time genuinely asking myself those questions and can’t always answer them.

Just imagine how much better they’d be as opposition if they weren’t human.  If they were 100% rational.

No easy rebuttals, hundreds more hours of labor to collect data to offer counter argument.

That's the kind of problem that makes Kantian ethics fail right out of the gate.

Which sucks really. Because I rather like Kantian ethics. Kant really tries (and almost succeeds) at tying up ethics neatly in a logical bow. But alas, what if your rule or maxim is to do bad shit? I don't really fault Kant for not seeing this. After all, who sets out to do bad shit intentionally (just for the sake of doing it)?

Turns out, plenty of people. 

Also turns out, you could frame preventing climate change as a completely evil thing... and then, yes, the obvious course of action is to "prevent the preventing" of climate change if one buys into this.

But this particular thing is not an issue in a 100% rational world. It may be the only strength a 100% rational world has over a 99% rational one. In a 100% rational world, the obvious thing to do is scrutinize the case for anthropogenic climate change. Then act accordingly. This (which is what most of us skeptics have already done) would prevent the problem of acting rationally according to bad ideas issue.
Reply
#39
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
IMHO, motivated reasoning is perfectly acceptable if the underlying motivation is virtuous...I am not vey disturbed by Gettier problems.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#40
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
I think that you’re still framing the issue as though 100% rationality would lead to our conclusions about addressing climate change.

That all rational roads must by force lead to us and our position. That it takes a bad faith argument or the insistence that climate action as conceived would be evil - but that all of this would be zeroed out by 100% rationality.

That’s not been the case in my experience. While I don’t know any 100% rational people I’ve heard many 100% rational arguments from people against what we like to call the transition to appropriate technology and methodology.

They’re little mirrors of large scale arguments against the same. It is unclear, for example, why a completely rational producer would abandon massive investments in infrastructure and equipment specific to their models in order to service an ideological imperative held by others which they themselves have no personal a-rational attachment to.

It is similarly unclear that a 100% rational developing or disadvantaged producer( or society, for that matter) would forgo the benefits of rapid industrialization and mechanization, of petro-chemical agriculture and integrated pest management.

It’s unclear why a producer would abandon or fail to seek those subsidies and programs on the table for crops and methods deemed inappropriate in light of climate change.

It’s unclear why a producer would do -anything- to save the world knowing that a significant number of other people will refuse or simply not be able to comply, and in this, factually prevent the satisfaction of that goal.

Unclear in the case of full rationality- but a super easy pitch if the producer has some pre-existing a-rational attachment to the issue or goal. In this, I’d go so far as to say that the entire movement is made up of True Believers, for better and for worse. Climate action as conceived of is not a 100% rational goal. It’s rationalizable, after the fact, if it works, which it may not. The hook is always always always some personal conviction. That’s the difference between people who show up for free food and merchandise and snore through the presentations, the difference between people who see the dollars and cents but don’t care for the goal and the people who will pursue it at great expense to themselves.

People look for alternative models after they’re already hooked. They want to do something- and mist of them would like to see at least the pretense of rational expectations of success. Personal success, global success. It’s not always the case that these objectors are loons or making bad faith arguments or even that they have bad goals. Plenty of them want to be involved, but it actually and literally doesn’t make sense for them to do so. That’s the work that remains. They can’t be rationally argued out of their positions because their position is inarguably true until we find a solution that fits them.

Reason, rationality at any percentage, does not produce good outcomes..or at least outcomes you and I would call good. That’s not it’s function, not it’s effect. Our good outcomes may in fact be on the side of irrationality or a-rationality. Our motivation in this may be part of the set we’re zeroing out in the thought experiment. A world full of fully rational people may assess the issue outside of those zeroed out impulses and very legitimately conclude that climate action is a pleasant but indefensible fiction.

That it doesn’t work, won’t work, can’t work, and we’d only be harming people if we dive in headfirst.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  If you were accused but were innocent ... GrandizerII 40 1736 December 3, 2018 at 9:44 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  An easy proof that rational numbers are countable. Jehanne 7 1452 February 22, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Argument from "better to seek proper vision". Mystic 53 4234 October 25, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Is the fear of irrational fears rational? ErGingerbreadMandude 26 5402 August 13, 2017 at 9:48 pm
Last Post: Losty
  Is there a logical, rational reason why hate is bad? WisdomOfTheTrees 27 2850 February 4, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  What if Creationists were Athiest for a day? ScienceAf 59 3976 August 29, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Afterlife, I'd be happy if it were true..... maestroanth 35 2945 June 12, 2016 at 3:13 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Oxford Metaphysics Podcasts - 100+ available online, free Heat 0 614 April 5, 2016 at 9:39 pm
Last Post: Heat
  Is world better without Saddam? TrueChristian 90 8795 December 31, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  In regard to the rational person's choice Mohammed1212 23 5093 April 27, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Last Post: noctalla



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)