Rationality/Goodness

[ilikeverin]

*Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are able to and usually do make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people know what's best for them and others".  Voting "no" would imply that "people, generally speaking, do not make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people don't know what's best for them or others".

**Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are inclined to take the well-being of others into account, perhaps to the point of altruism", whereas "no" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are inclined to make decisions based on their own interests; behavior perceived as altruistic is only performed because of benefits conferred on the person".

No/Yes, of course.

[Rild]

there is no such thing as rationality, everyone lives in fairy tales

[Purple State]

No x2.

Rationality: People do not know what is best for them or others. They certainly think they do and act as such. Unfortunately, this false rationality results in every conflict we now face. Point in case, the economy. Everyone thought what they were doing was best for themselves and the country by making these mortgages into securities and then chopping these securities up into smaller pieces. They thought it reduced the risk of foreclosure and allowed them to lower interest rates. We know the result. Another case, Afghanistan. We support Afghanistan and the Taliban in their resistance of the Soviet Union with weapons and arms. We all know how that turned out as well.

Goodness: Both examples from above. Investors wanted to inflate their asset column and so created this "profitable" securities that turned out to be toxic. This allowed them to claim that they had more assets than they did and drastically increase executive compensation. They didn't care what anyone else got out of it. It was all about their own profit. In Afghanistan, the US had no intention of providing the Afghanis freedom and happiness. They wanted to cripple the USSR and win the Cold War without thought of the consequences of their selfish actions.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

*Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are able to and usually do make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people know what's best for them and others".  Voting "no" would imply that "people, generally speaking, do not make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people don't know what's best for them or others".

Oh yes they do, but not always rational reasons.

No/No. Though in reality it is complicated, rather I tend to think that human beings tend to have conflicting attitudes towards things inside themselves without even recognizing it, so applying abstractions like "good" or "rational" to them just obscures the picture.

[Bono]

*Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are able to and usually do make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people know what's best for them and others". 

But those implications are not remotely similar. The first is obviously true, the second may or may not be.

[anvi]

I have a feeling that, if we were mostly rational, we wouldn't have to ask the question of whether or not we were mostly rational.  Most of the time, we find rationale for our wishes and feelings, but whether those rationale are reasonable is another question.  I think people can be rational, but it's a struggle.  As to whether or not we are innately good (or evil), I don't think anymore in those terms.  I don't think human beings are innately or basically good or evil.  I just think the human learning curve really sucks.  It takes us a very, very long time to learn something important, and once we learn it, we forget it almost immediately.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No/No, I suppose.

[John Dibble]

No/No.

On the first count most people are typically swayed by their emotions too easily to be rational.

On the second count, people aren't typically "good" in the sense of being altruistic. That said, they aren't typically malicious either. Your average person will usually be concerned with themselves and their immediate family and close friends - their own social group. Outside of that group your average person won't care much. They might be mildly altruistic and give a few bucks to the Salvation Army guy ringing his bell if they can spare it, or they might have some petty prejudice towards some outside group that makes them treat others coldly. On balance it tends towards being neutral towards outsiders, with a primary desire just not to have too much outside interference.

[Citizen James]

Yes/Yes.

These are two of the key principles of democracy.   If you believe that people are not basically rational and willing to consider the common good, then you are likely to disapprove of the public as a whole making decisions of policy and weight.   

Since I seem to be alone so far, let me ask a few questions of those who think otherwise

Look at yourselves: Do you consider yourself to be basically rational and good?

If yes, what sets you apart from the common hoi paloi?  What makes you different/superior?  What makes you worthy of being a philosopher king over the lesser peoples?  I consider this is a common trap among the intellectually inclined - covering a full range of political views from randroids to communists to neoconservatives.

If not.  Well, I just feel sorry for you.

[ilikeverin]

Sorry if this thread is confusing; I was trying to mull over reasons for my nanny-statism and happened to think of this, after bono and I got into an argument over whether people would know what to do if the government suddenly disappeared.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes/Yes.

These are two of the key principles of democracy.   If you believe that people are not basically rational and willing to consider the common good, then you are likely to disapprove of the public as a whole making decisions of policy and weight.   

Since I seem to be alone so far, let me ask a few questions of those who think otherwise

Look at yourselves: Do you consider yourself to be basically rational and good?

If yes, what sets you apart from the common hoi paloi?  What makes you different/superior?  What makes you worthy of being a philosopher king over the lesser peoples?  I consider this is a common trap among the intellectually inclined - covering a full range of political views from randroids to communists to neoconservatives.

If not.  Well, I just feel sorry for you.

I don't believe I'm innately rational or good. Rather I try to be. Our conception of rationality though is historical, it would seem very strange to, say, a medieval scholastic.

Anyway that's an argument via utility - "rationality and goodness are necessary for democracy" (Hasn't the last eight years disproved this?) does not say anything about the nature of our rationality or goodness, just that they are good for democracy.

[John Dibble]

Yes/Yes.

These are two of the key principles of democracy.   If you believe that people are not basically rational and willing to consider the common good, then you are likely to disapprove of the public as a whole making decisions of policy and weight.

   

Need I remind you that democracy brought us the likes of George W. Bush? Democracy is subject to people's momentary whims and lack of forethought. We wouldn't be having so many problem right now if people thought rationally.* We wouldn't have problems with special interests putting their own interests ahead of the common good if people were inherently good, either. That said, democracy is a good safegaurd against tyranny. If men were inherently good and rational, we could just put a few of our best in charge permanently and not have to worry about a cumbersome democratic process. But since the reality is they are not and hence can't be trusted, a democratic system puts a check on the power of those we put in charge. At the same time, there are checks on the democracy to prevent the people's momentary whims from harming the liberty of others - see the first amendment, for example.

This best sums up my thoughts on democracy:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two questions here.

The first is "Am I rational?" - I'd say yes. My Meyers-Briggs personallity type is INTJ, one of the types that tends to be very logic oriented. It's also one of the rare types. Being very intelligent also helps. To an extent this is biologically determined, let's say about 50/50 with upbringing being the other half. I had a good upbringing, and was taught to use my head and think critically. So I suppose I'm half inherently rational, and half taught to be rational. On the other hand I do occassionally make decisions based on emotion, just like anyone else would, just less often on average.

The second is "Am I good?" - again I'd say yes, but I'm certainly no Mother Teresa. This is more like 30/70 in my view. My personality type is kind of self-centered, so I often don't pick up on things that others are feeling. This makes empathy harder for me, though I do have it when I pick up on others feelings. That said I typically get along with others so long as they don't do anything intentionally wrong, I give to charity, and I've been considered well behaved most of the time. If I hadn't had the upbringing I did, I probably wouldn't care as much as I do about other people. Again though, like others I care a lot more about my immediate family and friends than I do strangers.

So what sets me apart from the average person? Luck of the draw - I happened to get really good genetics, really good parents, and be born in a country where my basic needs could be met and more. Had things been different I could be a heartless criminal that makes irrational decisions.

What makes me worthy of being a philosopher king over the lesser peoples? Nothing, I never said I was. Even if I tend to be more rational and slightly more good than your average Joe, your average Joe could still do a lot of things better than more or teach me something I don't know.

[Bono]

So, to all the people here who say they don't act based on reasons, why are you posting in this thread?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So, to all the people here who say they don't act based on reasons, why are you posting in this thread?

... That's not the question; the question is whether those reasons are 'rational' (whatever that means).

[Bono]

So, to all the people here who say they don't act based on reasons, why are you posting in this thread?

... That's not the question; the question is whether those reasons are 'rational' (whatever that means).

*Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are able to and usually do make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people know what's best for them and others".  Voting "no" would imply that "people, generally speaking, do not make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people don't know what's best for them or others".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So, to all the people here who say they don't act based on reasons, why are you posting in this thread?

... That's not the question; the question is whether those reasons are 'rational' (whatever that means).

*Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are able to and usually do make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people know what's best for them and others".  Voting "no" would imply that "people, generally speaking, do not make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people don't know what's best for them or others".

See the first post by me in this thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After all the question was on rationality, not on reasoning (nearly all(all?) human actions have reasoning behind them, but it's a logic somewhat unique to each individual.)

[ilikeverin]

So, to all the people here who say they don't act based on reasons, why are you posting in this thread?

... That's not the question; the question is whether those reasons are 'rational' (whatever that means).

*Voting "yes" would imply that "people, generally speaking, are able to and usually do make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people know what's best for them and others".  Voting "no" would imply that "people, generally speaking, do not make decisions based on some sort of reason" and/or "people don't know what's best for them or others".

This thought made me insert the second sentence to the explanation, because of course people don't take actions utterly at random.