tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post8377225856133562862..comments2024-03-27T23:52:14.065-07:00Comments on Wrestling with Philosophy : If You Were Purely Rational, How Would You Behave?Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-3732473936717907512011-09-01T11:27:46.680-07:002011-09-01T11:27:46.680-07:00Kant has a problem and anyone who thinks that we c...Kant has a problem and anyone who thinks that we could have conflicting duties, where duties are not ranked, will have a problem. I would just deny that self-preservation is a duty. Also, I accept moral rationalism for a number of reasons (for one, see http://www.public.asu.edu/~dportmor/Consequentialism_and_Moral_Rationalism.pdf). This means that if we are morally obligated to do X, then we are rationally obligated to do X. And if we are morally obligated to do X and MR is true, then that means all things considered, we ought to do X. If we can ever be morally obligated to sacrifice our life, then we could also be rationally obligated to do so. I don't see anything problematic with that. <br /><br />Consider this example. An evil genius says that he is going to either set off a bomb that will kill everyone in the world, except you or he will just kill you. He then lets you choose which you prefer. I would argue that sentient beings are morally considerable and when acting we must weigh the interests of all sentient beings affected by the action. In this example, it seems obvious that the cumulative total of every sentient beings interest in living outweighs a single individual's interest in living. So the moral, and thus rational, thing to do for the individual is to choose to end his life over ending everyone else's lives.Travisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-83049802927930814322011-08-29T23:32:02.802-07:002011-08-29T23:32:02.802-07:00@Travis: what about situations, in the Kantian fra...@Travis: what about situations, in the Kantian framework, where duty to do the right thing conflicts with self-preservation (for example)? I think Kant wants to say that the right is always good but the good isn't always right. Maybe later he will say that self preservation is a duty, or maybe not but either way there's going to be a problem. If self preservation is a duty and we are in a situation where we must disregard self preservation to fulfill another duty, how should we act? What would Reason tell us to do? Which course of action with be "right"? Suppose Kant says self preservation isn't a duty, how can disregarding self preservation be considered rational? From my limited knowledge on Kant it seems he has a problem. Any ideas?aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-33850742867623964632011-08-29T23:23:58.141-07:002011-08-29T23:23:58.141-07:00From Travis Timmerman, re: Is it necessarily ratio...From Travis Timmerman, re: Is it necessarily rational to do the right thing? Yes. It is. Or, at least, if you act immorally, you are acting irrationally from an objective standpoint.aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-3264046253511736022011-08-29T23:09:49.648-07:002011-08-29T23:09:49.648-07:00@roy. you are right. we have many vestigial "...@roy. you are right. we have many vestigial "components" that don't serve any obvious purpose. I suppose Kant could (weakly) argue that at one point in our evolutionary history, these parts did serve a purpose. Nevertheless, I'm going to agree with you on this point. However I'm not sure his main argument is wrong, that to act morally is rational. I think this point is even stronger if we grant that not everyone agrees with Kant's conception of morality. If I subscribed to Duquettian morals, then it would be irrational for me not to act in accordance with them. What Kant needs to show, and he admits this will be difficult, is that a purely rational being will act in accordance with his particular moral law. In this section he doesn't yet present the main argument for that conclusion so, if you can stand the suspense, you'll just have to wait until I read about it and post it!aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-45234705090222934002011-08-29T23:05:23.520-07:002011-08-29T23:05:23.520-07:00From RD: "1. Nature is purposive. Applied to ...From RD: "1. Nature is purposive. Applied to us that is to say, all organs and faculties function for a specific purpose."<br /><br />Not true. In humans, some body parts only serve a temporary purpose, for example, tonsils and adenoids, which are only necess...ary in the first year of life. Other body parts such as male nipples serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. The same goes for several different muscles in the human body. I could go on and on with this one.aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.com