Reason as an Ethos

[Received]

I think there's a good reason why reason isn't included in the "big three" metaethical systems: deontology (duty, rules), consequentialism (morality is determined by its consequences, utilitarianism, which utilizes pleasure and pain along these lines, being the major form), and virtue ethics (virtue is central to ascertaining happiness as eudaimonia, or a flourishing life, i.e., well-being of the self).

This is because, I think, reason by itself doesn't give us any direction. Arguing for a life that is lived according to what's most rational doesn't give us starting points (premises) with which to reason, nor does it give us values which might be incommensurate with one another in this reasoning process, causing some people to adopt certain ethical stances relative to the values they hold (a manly man will have values that create premises leading to rational conclusions that are vastly different than the average egalitarian softy).

IOW, I don't think it makes sense to say that you can live your life solely according to reason. Reason is the process of crunching out conclusions from premises. Saying you can live solely according to reason is like saying you can live solely according to culture. Well, which culture? Likewise: which set of assumptions or premises and values direct our reasoning?

Totalitarian socialism had a certain rationality to it, after all.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think there's a good reason why reason isn't included in the "big three" metaethical systems

Isn't included? What do you mean by that?

Phronesis is central to Aristotelian virtue ethics, and phronesis is a form of rationality -- rationality applied to the practical particulars of life. Some philosophers translate that as "practical intelligence".

This is because, I think, reason by itself doesn't give us any direction.

I'm not sure what reason "by itself" is supposed to be. Reason is always applied to issues, even if one is "reasoning about reasoning".

Plus, even if one reasons in unexpected ways, there can certainly be a direction to this. If someone creates a new philosophy, the process of reason will create new directions, such as new values, or old values understood in a new way.

IOW, I don't think it makes sense to say that you can live your life solely according to reason.

I wonder if anyone actually means what you personally mean by "solely according to reason". I suspect that they are making a different distinction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC "Raitonality: beliefs, actions (and maybe even desires) are said to be rational when they are guided by proper reasoning." - A - Z of Epistemology R Baergen

I think that what is ethical is what is appropriate (ie proper) insofar as we can live a good life, as this is what we ought to do (being the better option) and its morlaly apt to do what is better.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Totalitarian socialism had a certain rationality to it, after all.

Perhaps it worked better than democracy (which doesn't work),
but is that good ?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps it worked better than democracy (which doesn't work),
but is that good ?

Better than democracy? Far, far worse.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
-- Winston Churchill


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

One needs to be careful to differentiate between Reason and Rationality.

Something is Rational when it conforms to your reason, but Reason depends on logical validity and derivation from reasonable precepts. Reason can be sound or unsound, like for instance if a child sees his father exchanging a lost tooth for money, it is equally reasonable to conclude his father is the tooth fairy as to conclude the tooth fairy is made up, based on the knowledge given to him.
If the precepts from which you derive your results are invalid, it becomes irrational as well, but it is difficult to ascertain validity sometimes. To decide if an argument is Rational, it needs to be followed back to its most basic axioms and if any axiom or intervening steps are irrational, the entire structure is. Few follow arguments down to this level though.

Another problem is Inductive versus Deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning can be made based on unknown quantities of unknown validity, it indicates a logical support for the conclusion but do not ensure the conclusion is valid. It is a conclusion supported by premises.
Deductive is supposed to be derived from the premises necessarily and thus must follow from it. Deductive reasoning is often confused with abductive reasoning though in which the conclusion is derived from the initial premises but not necessarily true.

As Hume showed with his Fork, we cannot trust Induction yet are forced to rely on it for much of our knowledge. Even Hume acknowledged this fact, which is why he tempered his scepticism somewhat. The premises do not secure the conclusion.
Deductive reasoning is burdened by the fact that it may be valid but not sound. The argument can follow logically, but remain untrue, like the child deciding her father was the tooth fairy based on seeing him taking her tooth and being told frequently of the tooth fairy's existence, while the Tooth fairy actually doesn't exist.
Abductive reasoning by its very nature only creates a valid possible outcome, not necessarily a sound one. So if we build a moral system on this, we build it on shifting sands which can be reinterpreted as we see fit, to fit our preferred outcomes.

So how can we 'Reason' a morality? All forms of Reasoning have inherent flaws which makes our ability to absolutely determine the correctness of our conclusion very difficult indeed. A moral code based on this can easily unravel as it can be valid but not sound, irrational while appearing rational and can seem to follow the reasoning without the conclusion being necessarily true.
We can thus reason ourselves into devils quite easily as history has clearly shown to often be the case. We approach the problem of Raskolnikov's axe, of willing our own morality which will of course mirror what we desire, not a universally applicable system of Right.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Isn't included? What do you mean by that?

Phronesis is central to Aristotelian virtue ethics, and phronesis is a form of rationality -- rationality applied to the practical particulars of life. Some philosophers translate that as "practical intelligence".



I'm not sure what reason "by itself" is supposed to be. Reason is always applied to issues, even if one is "reasoning about reasoning".

Plus, even if one reasons in unexpected ways, there can certainly be a direction to this. If someone creates a new philosophy, the process of reason will create new directions, such as new values, or old values understood in a new way.



I wonder if anyone actually means what you personally mean by "solely according to reason". I suspect that they are making a different distinction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I wouldn't necessarily call Phronesis a form of rationality, as Peripatetic philosophy worked from facts to a universal with Phronesis thus being a result not a process, but this is just a little unnecessary nitpicking.

 

[variant]

I think there's a good reason why reason isn't included in the "big three" metaethical systems:

Reasoning is completely inescapable for systems that guide judgement and action. Your meta-ethical systems are ways of sorting which premises you should use to guide your reasoning.

They are each a rational on what system produces the best resulting ethical framework.

 

[Received]

Isn't included? What do you mean by that?

Phronesis is central to Aristotelian virtue ethics, and phronesis is a form of rationality -- rationality applied to the practical particulars of life. Some philosophers translate that as "practical intelligence".

Sorry, I meant reason as what basically constitutes a metaethical theory. Reason -- best captured by Aquinas who created the virtue of prudence, i.e., fusion of reason and circumstance -- is definitely a central part of VE, and also deontology and consequentialism for that matter.

I'm not sure what reason "by itself" is supposed to be. Reason is always applied to issues, even if one is "reasoning about reasoning".

Yes, exactly. There are people out there who think reason functions by itself, though, and that's what I'm arguing against.

Plus, even if one reasons in unexpected ways, there can certainly be a direction to this. If someone creates a new philosophy, the process of reason will create new directions, such as new values, or old values understood in a new way.

Yes, but it's the values that determine direction even if reason is involved in uncovering these values. Reason is at most a very useful tool for unveiling values, but by itself can do nothing; it needs values and other related premises to have a sort of being.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So whats the status of the axiom "if theres a better option it ought to be chosen" which if part of axiological logic?

Or "x is bad if not-x is preferable to x" (iirc thats also regarded as fundamental)?

Recieved, I am not sure how reason merely uncovers values here and does nothing more. Rather reasoning tools like this are yes a response to values, and relate to their structure or what might be called an eidos (essence, idea). So far youre good.

Just like we can say that x is heavier than y if such and such holds etc,. Please, not the fallacy here tho, all properties must be merely physical (and therefore non moral) properties, like weight. Thats an enlightenlment style hasty generalisation - "we have science, therefore all properties must be equivalent to scientific ones".

theres something about moral properties, theyre also something like "directives" or "signs". If something is better it ought to be chosen. Its part of the essence of being better.

So also the above logical tools, which "map" this reality...they can be practically applied, or at least help with a sense of direction and active OR-ientaiton.

If its better that you eat healthily, for instance, then its bad if you cant. And you ought to eat healthily if you can - because its better for you.

So, no eating dirt please, thats not my style.

Children can "get" this, just like they "get" gravity, its just a tricky maze for philosophy to get to grips with in a formalised sense. A child falls and eats dirt. There are a whole host of mechanisms meant to prevent this.

 

[quatona]

I think there's a good reason why reason isn't included in the "big three" metaethical systems: deontology (duty, rules), consequentialism (morality is determined by its consequences, utilitarianism, which utilizes pleasure and pain along these lines, being the major form), and virtue ethics (virtue is central to ascertaining happiness as eudaimonia, or a flourishing life, i.e., well-being of the self).

This is because, I think, reason by itself doesn't give us any direction. Arguing for a life that is lived according to what's most rational doesn't give us starting points (premises) with which to reason, nor does it give us values which might be incommensurate with one another in this reasoning process, causing some people to adopt certain ethical stances relative to the values they hold (a manly man will have values that create premises leading to rational conclusions that are vastly different than the average egalitarian softy).

IOW, I don't think it makes sense to say that you can live your life solely according to reason. Reason is the process of crunching out conclusions from premises. Saying you can live solely according to reason is like saying you can live solely according to culture. Well, which culture? Likewise: which set of assumptions or premises and values direct our reasoning?

Totalitarian socialism had a certain rationality to it, after all.

I consider reason a tool, not an end in itself. It´s not the only tool in my tool box, even though it probably has a prominent place in it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was thinking of the better life paradox. Its said by a psychologist we ought not compare too much, to keep up with the Jones' and better them. More phones, more cars, more love affairs or whatever. Rather a focus on absolute happiness, non comparative being like in mindfulness meditaton - thats what works better. If you want a better life than others, forgat abot them. Focus on your own good.

 

[Received]

I consider reason a tool, not an end in itself. It´s not the only tool in my tool box, even though it probably has a prominent place in it.

Yep.

 

[Received]

So whats the status of the axiom "if theres a better option it ought to be chosen" which if part of axiological logic?

Or "x is bad if not-x is preferable to x" (iirc thats also regarded as fundamental)?

Recieved, I am not sure how reason merely uncovers values here and does nothing more. Rather reasoning tools like this are yes a response to values, and relate to their structure or what might be called an eidos (essence, idea). So far youre good.

Just like we can say that x is heavier than y if such and such holds etc,. Please, not the fallacy here tho, all properties must be merely physical (and therefore non moral) properties, like weight. Thats an enlightenlment style hasty generalisation - "we have science, therefore all properties must be equivalent to scientific ones".

theres something about moral properties, theyre also something like "directives" or "signs". If something is better it ought to be chosen. Its part of the essence of being better.

So also the above logical tools, which "map" this reality...they can be practically applied, or at least help with a sense of direction and active OR-ientaiton.

If its better that you eat healthily, for instance, then its bad if you cant. And you ought to eat healthily if you can - because its better for you.

So, no eating dirt please, thats not my style.

Children can "get" this, just like they "get" gravity, its just a tricky maze for philosophy to get to grips with in a formalised sense. A child falls and eats dirt. There are a whole host of mechanisms meant to prevent this.

I guess my contention could more easily be made, since you used the word I'll be using: values provide direction, reason the tool that clears away the brush to unveil values or argue from them. To say that "reason" is an end, or by itself is a value, is to argue that the path itself is the end and not where it leads.

 

[Received]

I was thinking of the better life paradox. Its said by a psychologist we ought not compare too much, to keep up with the Jones' and better them. More phones, more cars, more love affairs or whatever. Rather a focus on absolute happiness, non comparative being like in mindfulness meditaton - thats what works better. If you want a better life than others, forgat abot them. Focus on your own good.

Yes, but I don't think your own good is the absolute:

"This is my way; where is yours?" -- Thus I answered those who asked me "the way." For the way -- that does not exist. -- Nietzsche
​

The way here understood as a particular path for all people to follow. There can be a sort of ethical prototype to follow, such as Christ with Christians, but ethics provides generalities that can be hammered out in multifarious ways. And at the end of the day ethics (for Christians really virtue ethics) doesn't fill up your day with what you should be doing each moment. That's the realm of meaning, of personal calling. This is the stuff that really makes life worth living, that shouldn't be separated from virtue but is superior to virtue, and can be provided in a Christian context via (what you think to be [for my atheist friends]) the will of God.

Money, pleasure, power, etc., all minimize the full happiness potential for each person if he doesn't follow his particular path relative to (in secular terms) to his particular values or (in religious terms) his concrete, day-to-day calling. The comparison game is really a materialist comparison game -- what the forgotten economist Thorstein Veblen called "conspicuous consumption", showing off to others your victory perceived according to materialist categories, which is really just another example of an animal drive given the sheen of human behavior.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well my take is still rational attraction to being as the meaning of life. Its a way, and a mechanism, and an end. This doesnt have to be conscious or reflective though, but such awareness gives insight into out predicament. We attracted to being when we eat for instance, when we relax, every moment. And raitonality is our mode of attraction - its like glue to the universe.

If you like you can read the booklet I made, but its 20+ pages long in A4.

If we didint do whats in our interests minimally, we'd be dead. And raitonality is the optimally pursuit of positive interests, beacuse those interests are "proper ends" (fitting, appropriate) to the human life form, and so ought to be chosen if available; unless a rational death is possible.

 

[Received]

Well my take is still rational attraction to being as the meaning of life. Its a way, and a mechanism, and an end. This doesnt have to be conscious or reflective though, but such awareness gives insight into out predicament. We attracted to being when we eat for instance, when we relax, every moment. And raitonality (doing what we ought to do, that which is "ethically proper" for and better for the life form which wills to live a worthwhile life) is our mode of attraction - its like glue to the universe.

If you like you can read the booklet I made, but its 20+ pages long in A4.

Yeah, but think about what it means to say that rationality is an end. It means it's a telos, a goal, something toward which all other means are directed in fulfilling. Imagine a society or culture where people did nothing but reason as an end in this way. You'd have a society of Swift's Laputans, who were so focused on reasoning and scientific thinking that they couldn't even function in the everyday world.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

maybe Id have to define rationality more clearly:

I have defiend rationality as a "+ to a +" positive psychology or behaviour to a positive external situation. That's optimal rationality. Or a "- to a -" negative one to a bad situation. That's rational but suboptimal.

Then theres "+ to a -" or a "- to a +" which are both irrational.

The first set actions are rational because they ought to be pursued.

They ought to be pursued because they produce ontologically preferable states/episodes/events etc of being (art, satisfaction, absence or poisonous snakes and other dangers, security, friendship etc). For instance it would in general be irrational to destroy beautiful art ("- to a +") but rational ("+ to a +") to create or enjoy it.

Because it is good (in proper context) to enjoy art, then it is subsumed under ("+ to a +") as a rational behaviour, worthy of pursuit, and therefore an ought or an end we can choose and in choosing so choose well.

In general , facing a vast and chaotic universe, were a blend of rational and irrational traits.

I think youre viewing rationality more as ratiocination http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ratiocination

I am taking more of an epistemological view, rationality as belief, action or even desire in accord with proper reasoning... but not just the reasoning itself! In fact sometimes switching off, Buddha style, is a preferable thing to do.

 

[quatona]

Well my take is still rational attraction to being as the meaning of life. Its a way, and a mechanism, and an end. This doesnt have to be conscious or reflective though, but such awareness gives insight into out predicament.

Then why the emphasis on "rational"?

And raitonality is our mode of attraction - its like glue to the universe.

That´s not at all my experience and observation. Where I come from, our mode of attraction and "glue to the universe" (nice and illustrative phrase, btw. !) is anything but rational. When our connection and attraction to life and the universe is lost or disturbed, there is no way to reason us (back) into it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

maybe Id have to define rationality more clearly:

I have defiend rationality as a "+ to a +" positive psychology or behaviour to a positive external situation. That's optimal rationality. Or a "- to a -" negative one to a bad situation. That's rational but suboptimal.

Then theres "+ to a -" or a "- to a +" which are both irrational.

The first set actions are rational because they ought to be pursued.

They ought to be pursued because they produce ontologically preferable states/episodes/events etc of being (art, satisfaction, absence or poisonous snakes and other dangers, security, friendship etc). For instance it would in general be irrational to destroy beautiful art ("- to a +") but rational ("+ to a +") to create or enjoy it.

Because it is good (in proper context) to enjoy art, then it is subsumed under ("+ to a +") as a rational behaviour, worthy of pursuit, and therefore an ought or an end we can choose and in choosing so choose well.

In general , facing a vast and chaotic universe, were a blend of rational and irrational traits.

I think youre viewing rationality more as ratiocination http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ratiocination

I am taking more of an epistemological view, rationality as belief, action or even desire in accord with proper reasoning... but not just the reasoning itself! In fact sometimes switching off, Buddha style, is a preferable thing to do.

You'll have to run that by me again, for I do not understand. There is no definition of rationality here, only a loose intimation that it somehow correlates to 'good' outcomes. Rationality already has a perfectly valid definition without any such implications, so I do not see why this follows?

This thread sounds a bit like a Monty Python sketch.