trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/11/83)
Response to ssc-vax!sts - Stan:
I do not know whether there are any "completely rational humans",
in the sense I think you mean. You seem to mean people who will
never again take an irrational action, no matter how small. I
am not certain that such a person is possible, but I claim that
it really is not as important to Objectivism to be "perfectly
rational" as you imply - rather, it is important to *seek* to be
perfectly rational. A few small failures certainly would not
destroy the value of being rational most of the time. I think
that that is the best answer I can give you - "perfect rationality"
is an ideal, whether it can be humanly attained or not. (But I see
nothing inherent in human nature that would prevent attaining it.)
I do think that it is possible for rights to conflict - but that
it simply need not, and does not, occur that often among rational
people. You cited two examples - abortion and what is often called
"the lifeboat problem". Both are uncommon, and grow less common as
civilization advances, and humans get better at saving and protecting
lives. Medical knowledge and engineering advances help avoid such.
I assume, unless otherwise specified, that the people discussed below
are rational ("perfect" or nearly so ). Also, note that it is irrational
to deliberately *cause* a conflict of rights. In a society of "perfectly"
rational people, I would expect such situations to come about only by
causes outside of human control.
In the abortion case, since the fetus cannot decide, and the mother
can, and since the mother is responsible for the potential human
being that she carries, SHE should be the one to decide. If a
third party is involved somehow, it should ask the mother what
her choice is, perhaps only making sure that she is fully informed.
Full information would include all relevant factors, including
what the father thinks - but the decision must rest with the mother,
since she is the one that would die, and is responsible for the life
of the child. Not all rational mothers would necessarily make the same
decision, because not all would have the same circumstances. (This
is not to rule out the possibility that it is nearly always rational
to choose one way or the other.)
The latter is easier to address. Such situations are not common
in human society, and so should not be the basis of common morality.
However, one's moral system should allow one to resolve this problem.
There are probably many ways to resolve this rationally. It might
even be rational for them to all decide to die together, rather than
let anyone else die for them. They might decide that there is no
way to judge among them, but that it is best for some to survive,
no matter what - and so they would all draw lots. There might be
sub conditions - such as a pilot that is required to live that the
others might live. One thing that can be said is that *no one*
should die unless it is voluntary (whether they are rational or not).
In general, if one assumes that the people involved in such "rights in
conflict" situations are rational, I believe one can say that they
will discover a solution that is right in their circumstances. If
an irrational person causes a conflict between rights, the rational
person involved will have to decide which right is more fundamental
(EG life is a more fundamental right than property), if possible, and
act to protect that right. If equal rights are in conflict, the rational
person will have to act on the basis of his or her rational values. If
absolutely everything else - rights, values, etc, are equal, and they
cannot come to agreement with an irrational person, then the rational
person should act for themself, since rationality is of higher value
than irrationality. (This is not to say that the rational person could
not have acted for himself if there had been other considerations.)
Tom Craver
houti!trcbch@unc.UUCP (08/11/83)
Tom, I'm sorry. I haven't the faintest idea what you are carrying on (at length) about. Saying that a person, or argument, or idea is rational says only that it is derived by reason. Derived from what? Clearly, if you are proceeding from erroneous assumptions you can be a "perfectly rational" person but can make decisions which viewed from a more global standpoint are stupid as h-ll! In this case, since your assumptions are unstated or do not appear to me to be rationally derived, I find your argument entirely irra- tional. (This is not meant to be a cheap shot, but a self-referential case where a differing set of assumptions causes an entire line of thinking to be deemed irrational.) Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill