jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/12/84)
In defense of rationalization As Laura says, there are two ways of deriving an ethical system. One is to take "self-evident" axioms, and deduce their consequences. The other, which she contemptuously calls "rationalization", is to select the conclusions you find palatable, find a set of axioms from which you can deduce them, and work with these. On the face of it, the former alternative seems the nobler, the cleaner. The trouble is, when a disciple of this alternative manifests the "self-evident" axioms, one invariably disagrees. "I could come up with a much better, more self-evident, set of axioms!", one cries. Then one examines the consequences of the presented axioms, and deduces absurdities from them. If one wants to salvage ones reputation as a purist, perforce these absurdities must be accepted. After all, desiring to choose ones axioms for their reasonable consequences would be RATIONALIZATION, and no purist would want to be accused of THAT. Those of us with fewer scruples SEARCH for our 'axioms', and change them when their consequences seem inconsistent. We may exclude an axiom from our Weltansicht if that axiom leads to incompatible conclusions. Of course, we may call this inductive reasoning rather than 'rationalization', but perhaps that is just rationalization at work.... Over the years, I have built an ethical model that suits me very well, and allows me to appreciate other people as they are, rather than as I think they should be. Why should I separate myself from my rationalizations, just because someone claims bloodless axioms are purer? Jens Bernhard Fiederer -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf