Kevin Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 What exactly makes an act immoral, as opposed to simply being irrational? I think I'm right in saying that any immoral act must be irrational, but not all irrational acts are immoral, so what is the distinction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 What exactly makes an act immoral, as opposed to simply being irrational?"Moral" refers to a kind of choice, namely "chosing right" as opposed to the immoral which is "chosing wrong". You need a standard of evaluation for distinguishing right and wrong -- in Objectivist ethics, your life is the standard of evaluation. However, there is a potential ambiguity in understanding what the short phrase "chosing wrong" means; specifically, it means "making a choice which you know to be wrong". Thus taking poison would be immoral; but taking what you thought was medicine yet turned out to be poison is not immoral (though it is tragic). Honest mistakes are not a sign of immorality, they are a sign of ignorance. However, a willful decision to remain ignorant is a sign of immorality (to some degree). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Can you provide an example of an act that is irrational but not immoral? Immoral means that an act is contrary to morality, and since morality means acting in a way that promotes your life and your happiness, it basically means acting in a fashion that is contra-life. An act is irrational if it denies or flies in the face of reason. Your reason is your tool for promoting your life and happiness. So, to be irrational is to act against your only means of promoting your life and happiness. So, to be irrational necessarily means to be immoral. It may not be a HUGE immorality, but it's still the real deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Not sure if this is correct: Acting spontaneously without thought would be irrational but it still can turn out morally right. That means you don't know exactly what you are doing, but, looking at it from a different perspective, you are acting according to your morals. Another possibility would be if you (unknowingly) take a lie as a fact but you do not act on it. If you know that person X is a known swindler and you still trade with that person you act irrational. But if it turns out that all what you know of person X were lies then you have acted not immorrally but irrational... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 So why have two terms, irrationality and immorality, if they necessarily include one another? Both immoral and irrational acts involve a suspension of reason and a result that is anti-life, if sometimes only on a small scale. I'm still not sure I see the distinction. David calls immorality "choosing wrong", but isn't irrationality also choosing wrong? In answer to Megan's question, my thought was that morality necessarily involves suspending someone else's rights. So, for example, giving someone poison would be both irrational and immoral, whereas willingly taking poison yourself would simply be irrational. This may not be what Rand intended, but if not, then I don't see what other line can be drawn between the two. Perhaps you give give me an answer to your own question, Megan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Clawg, if what you meant was that you act on a range-of-the-moment impulse, then I wouldn't call that moral even if the results happened to be good. The method used to get to the end you arrived at is extremely important. It's not just about results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 David calls immorality "choosing wrong", but isn't irrationality also choosing wrong?This is a question of emphasis: I'm saying that an immoral choice is one that is irrational with respect to your knowledge and your purpose, namely your life. BTW, morality is not just about other people's rights, in fact morality is primarily about what is right for you, and rights is a concept that pertains to the amplification "with respect to others". So taking poison would be immoral, if your purpose if to live (if you purpose is to die, then it would be immoral to not take poison or the equivalent). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 So why have two terms, irrationality and immorality, if they necessarily include one another? We have many terms that denote nearly the same thing with emphasis on a particular facet of that thing. For instance, if you say to someone "You are immoral", you are condemning them for their behavior, no? However, if you tell them "you're being irrational", you're trying to draw attention to the flaws in their thinking and hopefully change their mind. If it's irrational for you to take poison, it is also immoral for you to do it. Rights-violations are acts that should be illegal in addition to being both irrational and immoral. It is not necessary to violate someone's rights to act in an immoral fashion; real morality begins with the self. It is just as immoral to hurt yourself as to hurt someone else, however it shouldn't be illegal to hurt yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Got it. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.