garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/14/85)
From Rich Rosen: > The basis of the "rational evaluation" is the process that causes it, and > whether or not the end result IS strictly rational, optimal, or (to use > YOUR word) free, depends upon other variables within the biochemical > system (e.g., > previous conditioning). Since such elements are going > to have a bearing on the final decision, there is no way that decision > can reasonably be called "free". > (Discussion along similar lines has mentioned Pascal's reasons for choosing > to believe in god. The point is the same: beliefs based on their utility > amount to a sort of corollary to wishful thinking--it would nice if the world > was the way I like it, and in this case I have nothing to lose because it > can't be proved either way, so I'll pick the belief I happen to like.) OK, so we ought not believe something based solely on its utility. (Too bad we don't have the free will it takes to decide whether or not we will do so.) On what basis, other than utility, do you recommend rationality? > Our observations do not make the universe what it is. The universe > is what it is with our without our observation of it. And the universe > is not the same as our observations of it (as many anthropocentrists > would believe). Do you mean to say that there is something outside the universe? (I.e., our observations?) > | > ... In what way is the total system NOT RATIONAL? What does > | > such a statement mean? Rational to whom? Rational thinking takes into > | > account THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. How could the way the system works NOT > | > BE RATIONAL when "rational" is defined to take into account how the system > | > is (perceived to be) working? ... > | > ...ALL thoughts seem to stem from the same very rational causes. Even > | > those of wishful thinkers and presupposers. (No :-) intended!!) The > | > rational causes? Chemical actions of the brain. Are some chemical actions more rational than others? If so, then their rationality must derive from something other than the chemical actions themselves. If not, why do you claim that your chemical actions are more rational than mine? > A rational definition of good/evil would take into account longterm > ultimate benefits/harms, and would seek to set up "rules" that fostered > ultimate benefit, seeking to maximize individual human life by > proscribing only the limits that prevent one human being from interfering > in the life of another. But you already said that we ought not to believe something because of its utility; yet you seem to be recommending that very thing. I.e., you think people should be rational, and by that you mean that they should believe that something is good or evil based on the long term utility of that belief. Christianity would fit the above definition of a rational definition of good and evil -- talk about LONG term benefit. I am so glad that you have admitted that Christianity is rational :-). No, I don't really think you meant that; therefore you must already have some presupposition of what constitutes absolute good, for example, noninterference. But you have already stated that the concept of absolute good is irrational, a matter of free will. Either there is absolute good, and we ought to try to discover it, or there is no absolute good, and we might as well choose, insofar as the word choose has meaning, based on utility. I don't see that there is any other choice. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys