-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
What do you think about.... (warning: philosophical content)
- Thread starter Spreeuw
- Start date
Spreeuw
One condom isn't enough
Well, this account fo rationality is being accepted in Business School, and especially Economic Rational Choice theory.
I didn't say I agree'd with it, because I don't. And I don't think people actually think that way. What I tried to ask, but obviously failed is:
The cost/benefit analysis is becoming more and more a standard for certain institutions to judge their performance. Schools and hospitals are benchmarked, and even some churches spreak of consumers instead of people. How do you think this relates to justice? Aren't there more grounds then efficiency to judge policy?
I think there are, and that's just why I'm wondering how this style of management collides with justice.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood.
Financial rationality is a poor definer of what is just (is it even one at all?)
For example; here in Britain I'm confident that I could rape anybody, male or female, old or young and only get sentenced to a max of 7 years. I'm confident that I'd be out of jail in under 5.
However, if I robbed a bank, it's an automatic 20 year sentence.
Do you think that's just? I don't.
Utilitarianism isn't perfect, I grant you, but what approach do you believe to be superior?
CunningStunts
I changed my middle-name to Freeones
Well, the basis for Western constitutional republics is a rule of law and individual rights, so the march of history has been towards freedom vice some "common good" at the expense of individuals. Of course, we have all shifted direction in the name of the "common good", but as the Western nations teeter on the bring of bankruptcy, both monetary and moral, many people are realizing we have strayed off our original philosophic grounding.
The problem with pure utilitarianism is that individuals can be completely repressed if that means value to the other 51% (see Soviet style communism). It also ultimately leads to larger, powerful governments, which in turn leads to corruption and more repression. :2 cents:
Spreeuw
One condom isn't enough
No, it's rationality detachted from ethics. That's why it's so useful for business (and blowing up the economy).
R
RogueAlan
Guest
I choose just over rationality, but would argue I hope to be both.
That said, if I try to remain conscious of being just to those around me, those i like and don't know (or don't like), I should also be able to behave in a rational manner.
I think the danger of being rational is that with a surprisingly little amount of... neglect or denial or 'best intent' you can rationalize almost anything. And then claim rational thinking justifies your position/ behavior. Which does not mean the position/ behavior is just.
So I guess I believe the slippery slope is less obvious in 'being rational' as opposed to 'being just.' And I recognize that we live in an inherently unjust world, as exemplified by the rape vs. bank robbery example offered by vodkazvictim.
The corollary might be that in the 1930's and 1940's the Nazis rationalized the extermination of millions. But the action was not rational.
So I am skeptical about being 'one or the other.' And I am skeptical that the best of us manages to be either all of the time. Or honest. Or generous. Or even well intended. I would say I want to be a responsible person, except too often in our unjust, irrational world, taking responsibility triggers unfair consequences... I have a friend who spent a year in prison for accepting responsibility for business practices at his firm THAT HE HAD NOT PARTICIPIATED IN, while those who had taken part received no more time. And on top of that, the government could not prove anyone had actually been harmed. But it was post-Enron, and the defense attorneys were concerned ANY business man even accused might be sent away for 20 years or more. I find that unjust, and the general behavior of the US government to be irrational.
But at the core the government is responsible to the people, which i continue to believe is better than the opposite. So please do not misunderstand, I love my country, I simply disagree with many of it's policies and practices...
And we can have this discussion about which is preferable because of the freedom of our various nations... even if they are not always rational or just.
But enough of that... solid post, thanks for making me think... Now, back to the porn!
RA
That said, if I try to remain conscious of being just to those around me, those i like and don't know (or don't like), I should also be able to behave in a rational manner.
I think the danger of being rational is that with a surprisingly little amount of... neglect or denial or 'best intent' you can rationalize almost anything. And then claim rational thinking justifies your position/ behavior. Which does not mean the position/ behavior is just.
So I guess I believe the slippery slope is less obvious in 'being rational' as opposed to 'being just.' And I recognize that we live in an inherently unjust world, as exemplified by the rape vs. bank robbery example offered by vodkazvictim.
The corollary might be that in the 1930's and 1940's the Nazis rationalized the extermination of millions. But the action was not rational.
So I am skeptical about being 'one or the other.' And I am skeptical that the best of us manages to be either all of the time. Or honest. Or generous. Or even well intended. I would say I want to be a responsible person, except too often in our unjust, irrational world, taking responsibility triggers unfair consequences... I have a friend who spent a year in prison for accepting responsibility for business practices at his firm THAT HE HAD NOT PARTICIPIATED IN, while those who had taken part received no more time. And on top of that, the government could not prove anyone had actually been harmed. But it was post-Enron, and the defense attorneys were concerned ANY business man even accused might be sent away for 20 years or more. I find that unjust, and the general behavior of the US government to be irrational.
But at the core the government is responsible to the people, which i continue to believe is better than the opposite. So please do not misunderstand, I love my country, I simply disagree with many of it's policies and practices...
And we can have this discussion about which is preferable because of the freedom of our various nations... even if they are not always rational or just.
But enough of that... solid post, thanks for making me think... Now, back to the porn!
RA
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Philosophical there are differing views on this, depending upon wether you place value on intent or result. Placing value on intent:
A guy who tries to do the right thing but fails is better than a guy who is coerced into doing the right thing and so does it unwillingly.
Placing value on result means that a guy who tries to do the right thing but fails is better than a guy who is coerced into doing the right thing and does so willing.
Which do you think is better?
We should go drinking... Diarhoea...
:hatsoff:
Those that reject Utilitarianism have shown its weaknesses, but have yet to propose an alternative they deem superior btw...
Spreeuw
One condom isn't enough
Especially collectively it's a difficult matter.
On the one hand I think that applying simple ration choice theory on the collective institutions is a bad thing, it's make them move further and further away from their original goals and meaning.
On the other hand, when a powerful institution using something other then utilitarianism, but say, deontology or teleology it means setting a standard for all those under their power.
Hower, explicitly deciding what is just for society was exactly the role of those institutions like schools, hospitals and churches (or other places of worship).
On the one hand I think that applying simple ration choice theory on the collective institutions is a bad thing, it's make them move further and further away from their original goals and meaning.
On the other hand, when a powerful institution using something other then utilitarianism, but say, deontology or teleology it means setting a standard for all those under their power.
Hower, explicitly deciding what is just for society was exactly the role of those institutions like schools, hospitals and churches (or other places of worship).
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
So what value system do you use to set the rules for Deontology? What sets the rules?
Presumably Utilitarianism: You want what is best for everybody, so you make rules designed to give the best to everybody using Utilitarianism.
So are you still practicing Deontology?
And the same for Teleology:
What do you use to reach the end goal? Deontology or Utilitarianism? If you use Deontology, what value system was used to make the rules?
xfire
@ChrisFreemanX
Utilitarianism is more concerned with consequences than rules. That is, what maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain; the original "happiness calculus" as it were. Bentham and Mills assumed that any government entity that would subscribe to their philosophy would have just ends in mind. Deontoligically, Kant specifically, was more concerned with duties and rules, the categorical imperative, as it were, to treat everyone as an end in and of themselves and not merely a means to an end. Kant was a devout Christian so his Deontologics were thusly influenced.
As a just person.
You can construct reasons for terrible things, if you are a good thinker.
But on a lot of things, you don't even have to think, you FEEL it they are the right thing to do.
If you see a child in a car in the blazing sun, obviously in the process half-baked already, do you need to think about maybe you hurt yourself while smashing the window?
You just do it.
You can construct reasons for terrible things, if you are a good thinker.
But on a lot of things, you don't even have to think, you FEEL it they are the right thing to do.
If you see a child in a car in the blazing sun, obviously in the process half-baked already, do you need to think about maybe you hurt yourself while smashing the window?
You just do it.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Which, as far as I can determine, agrees with my point: The rules of Deontology are shaped by the ethics of utilitarianism: Maximising happiness.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Surely a common consensus? Or will we be going into meta-ethics here?
Hot Mega
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Therein lies the conundrum, 'just' is different things to different people.
(FOR EXAMPLE for those who can't simply ignore posts that hint at politics they don't like) Some goobers think it's just to witchhunt and impeach a president simply because he got elected and they don't like the party he's from.
Similar threads
