Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

At what point are we able to be rational?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

At what point is a growing human considered rational? (what age)

What is the criteria to be considered rational?

Do any other species exibit enough reasoning to be considered rational? (e.g. dolphins, dogs, other primates)

Thanks for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rationality involves a conceptual faculty...

When a human infant moves past the perceptual level and into the conceptual, it may then be considered to be rational. Note that it is a rational being at birth, since it already has the conceptual faculty then.

No other species has a conceptual faculty, so no other species is considered rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point is a growing human considered rational? (what age)

Ayn Rand believed that rationality, in the cognitive sense of developing a conceptual faculty, is begun around the age of three, and by seven years of age the child has formed his basic method of utilizing his mind. So, by the age of seven a child has developed the capacity to expand his conceptual faculty for an ever-increasing state of knowledge and intelligence.

What is the criteria to be considered rational?
A commitment to reason, the proper use of one's mind.

Do any other species exibit enough reasoning to be considered rational? (e.g. dolphins, dogs, other primates)

Other than for man, no credible evidence of reasoning in animals has ever been presented.

Thanks for your help!

You're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Rationality, in the cognitive sense of developing a conceptual faculty, is begun around the age of three,

>and by seven years of age the child has formed his basic method of utilizing his mind.

>But it is a rational being at birth, since it already has the conceptual faculty then.

?No other species has a conceptual faculty, so no other species is considered rational.

>Other than for man, no credible evidence of reasoning in animals has ever been presented.

Some followup questions for clarification:

Do people who are severly mentally retarded to the point of needing others to care for them have human rights?

Do children have rights at birth because they are now independent (not part of another being)? Is being independent a requirement of having rights?

What evidence would be considered credible that another species can reason?

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some followup questions for clarification:

Do people who are severly mentally retarded to the point of needing others to care for them have human rights?

Do children have rights at birth because they are now independent (not part of another being)? Is being independent a requirement of having rights?

An infant possesses all rights due to man from the time of its birth. Since infants (and children, and those severely impaired) are simply unable to exercise those rights, another acts for them in guardianship of their rights.

What evidence would be considered credible that another species can reason?

I do not mean to be flippant, but pretty much the same sort evidence that we apply to man. Conceptualization would be the primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may belong in the abortion section, but why exactly do children gain their rights at birth. If children do not conceptualize until about 3, birth is an arbitrary time to give them rights.

If a person cannot, and will never be able to, conceptualize (brain damage) why do they have rights?

What attributes are required for someone (or something) to have rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand believed that rationality, in the cognitive sense of developing a conceptual faculty, is begun around the age of three, and by seven years of age the child has formed his basic method of utilizing his mind. So, by the age of seven a child has developed the capacity to expand his conceptual faculty for an ever-increasing state of knowledge and intelligence.

This is all correct, but I think a little clarification is in order. An infant has a conceptual faculty at birth, but it is not until later that he learns to use it. Notice that Stephen says, "...developing a conceptual faculty..." and not "obtaining a conceptual faculty."

I think that may help answer your question, Bob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may belong in the abortion section, but why exactly do children gain their rights at birth.  If children do not conceptualize until about 3, birth is an arbitrary time to give them rights. 

I do not consider the existence of an independent human being to be an arbitrary criterion. Before birth we have a fetus which has the potential for independent existence. The fetus is, literally, a physical part of the woman. After birth we have a physically independent human being. We recognize the infant's rights because that is what is demanded by virtue of being a human being. See the entire corpus on Objectivist ethics as to why man's nature is the source of rights.

If a person cannot, and will never be able to, conceptualize (brain damage) why do they have rights?
They have rights by virtue of being a human being. If they are unable to exercise their rights, as in this case you mention, then someone acts as a guardian for their rights. The right to life implies the right to end one's life if the quality of life is such that life is not worth living. It would be proper in a severe-enough case for the guardian to act to end the life of this severely brain-damaged person.

What attributes are required for someone (or something) to have rights?

That they be an independent human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input.

I am now wondering why the "independent" is so important. A human immediately after birth is dependent on the mother to nearly the same extent as a human immediately before birth. As technology advances, humans will be able to survive and mature outside the womb at earlier and earlier ages.

Hypothetical:

one mother has a premature birth at 7 months. This baby is now an "independent human being" and therefore has rights

another mother has a baby within the womb at 8 months. This baby, while being more mature in every respect than the 7 month baby, is not independent, and has no rights.

This does not make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input.

I am now wondering why the "independent" is so important.

A human immediately after birth is dependent on the mother to nearly the same extent as a human immediately before birth.

A physically independent being, meaning one whose life functions are physically self-sufficient, not a physical part of another.

As technology advances, humans will be able to survive and mature outside the womb at earlier and earlier ages.
That would be fine. But, until the fetus is outside the womb, it remains a part of the woman.

Hypothetical:

one mother has a premature birth at 7 months. This baby is now an "independent human being" and therefore has rights

another mother has a baby within the womb at 8 months. This baby, while being more mature in every respect than the 7 month baby, is not independent, and has no rights.

This does not make sense to me.

A fetus is not a baby. Instead of focusing so much on the fetus, focus more on the woman. This physical thing inside her is part of her body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A physically independent being, meaning one whose life functions are physically self-sufficient, not a physical part of another.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that a mature unborn fetus is functioning self sufficiently, and is simply gaining its food through the umbilical cord. I would argue that this is similar to a baby breast-feeding, also processing the food independently, but gaining the food through the mother.

That would be fine. But, until the fetus is outside the womb, it remains a part of the woman.

Are you saying that in order to have rights, a human must be physically independent of other humans

If you are, do conjoined twins, people born with two heads (and brains able to conceptualize) on one body, have rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that a mature unborn fetus is functioning self sufficiently, and is simply gaining its food through the umbilical cord.  I would argue that this is similar to a baby breast-feeding, also processing the food independently, but gaining the food through the mother. 

You can argue whatever you like, but the fact remains that functionally speaking[*] the fetus is a parasite living within the body of another. If you are truly unable to distinguish that fact from a baby suckling at his mother's breast, then I cannot be of any further help.

[*] I am well-aware of the biological similarities and differences between a fetal parasite and other parasitic organisms, and I have no interest in debating the issue.

Are you saying that in order to have rights, a human must be physically independent of other humans

If you are, do conjoined twins, people born with two heads (and brains able to conceptualize) on one body, have rights?

Fortunately, for me, my principles are based on observation of the fundamental nature of entities, rather than focusing on aberrations of such. It is unquestionable to me that an independent human being possesses rights, as per his nature. In the case of a human hydra, I am perfectly content to let the medical and legal authorities sort out how rights and responsibilites are to be mediated among the various heads sharing the same body.

Perhaps I will revisit this penetrating problem in the future if it becomes commonplace to graft multiple heads onto a single body. In the meantime, I will just continue to plod ahead, holding onto my old-fashioned notion that a woman has the right to her own body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that in order to have rights, a human must be physically independent of other humans

It must be an independent entity.

If you are, do conjoined twins, people born with two heads (and brains able to conceptualize) on one body, have rights?

The set of conjoined twins or the organism with two heads, because the set or the organism is a human entity, would have rights which other human beings should not violate.

As to what happens when the twins or the two heads disagree with each other, I don't see this as being any different from what happens when you or I have ambivalent feelings or conflicting goals or motives. They would have to "put their heads together" and work it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than for man, no credible evidence of reasoning in animals has ever been presented.

The purpose for asking the question is that there seems to be credible evidence of dolphin language and cognition, though the number and variety of dolphin dialects may be as numerous as human dialects and therefore dolphin language will not transfer directly from one pod to another. This is actually further evidence that the language is cognitive semantics (i.e. reasoning) and not simply innate instinct.

Dolphin language, in fact, may be more purely Objectivist than human language. (See for example http://www.winwenger.com/dolphin.htm for a layman's description)

http://pinnipedlab.ucsc.edu/manuscripts/20...l%20chapter.pdf

Problem Solving and Memory in Marine Mammals

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~emiii/samediff.pdf

Two bottlenosed dolphins taught to classify pairs of three-dimensional objects as either same or different were tested with novel stimulus sets to determine how well their classification abilities would generalize. These data suggest that dolphins can use knowledge about similarity-based classification strategies gained from previous training to perform successfully in a variety of novel same–different classification tasks. Visual classificatory abilities of dolphins appear to be comparable to those that have been demonstrated in primates.

That is why I asked the question about what evidence we would need to see in another species to recognize that they had rights and force should not be used against them.

So far, on the Objectivist forum, I have the following description of who has rights:

Independent (i.e. born, not a fetus) humans .

This is hardly a unique set to apply rights to, and provides no laws against purposefully torturing higher mammals. While I am by no means an animal rights activist, I am convinced that certain higher mammals have cognitive abilities that approach (or in the case of dolphins rival) humans.

Dolphins, because of the environment in which they live, could not create enduring structures or create tools. Other land based higher mammals can create tools, but do not have the same higher reasoning capabilities as humans and dolphins. Several higher mammals share language capability.

Given the continuum, I would think that the more rational the creature, the more respect (yea even certain rights to pursue its own interests according to its nature) it is granted. I would suggest that dolphins may have capabilities to reason equal to that of man.

Is this position convincing? If not, what is the flaw in the reasoning? I suspect that most people are unfamiliar with the evidence of dolphin reasoning and therefore unconvinced. Which causes me to repeat my original question: What evidence of reasoning would be convincing?

Bear in mind that reasoning in dolphins is probably easier for them to recognize that reasoning in humans is for them to recognize, and reasoning in humans is probably easier for us to recognize because we are wired similarly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very familiar with the intelligence of dolphins. They have extremely advanced social practices and are certainly one of the most intelligent species on Earth (perhaps the most intelligent next to humans).

What makes the human mind unique, however, is not the ability to solve problems or communicate verbally, but our ability to abstract and form concepts; that is what it means to have a reasoning mind.

I do not have time to check out the links you posted (although I may later this evening), but I currently know of no evidence that supports abtraction/concept-formation in dolphins.

Stephen, perhaps you have some information on this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is hardly a unique set to apply rights to, and provides no laws against purposefully torturing higher mammals.

I know nothing about dolphin intelligence, but the "law" (reason) against torturing higher mammals (or anything) is that it is not in one's self interest to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, on the Objectivist forum, I have the following description of who has rights:

Independent (i.e. born, not a fetus) humans .

This is hardly a unique set to apply rights to, and provides no laws against purposefully torturing higher mammals.

Human beings are a "unique set," as far as we know. And, unless the animal is someone elses property, there is no legal justification to punish a torturer of animals. Not all immoralities are illegal.

I am convinced that certain higher mammals have cognitive abilities that approach (or in the case of dolphins rival) humans.
Claims such as this, for one animal or another, have been regularly made for decades. Upon serious scientific investigation, the claims are always refuted.

Which causes me to repeat my original question: What evidence of reasoning would be convincing?

The answer remains the same: evidence of the exercise of a conceptual faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have time to check out the links you posted (although I may later this evening), but I currently know of no evidence that supports abtraction/concept-formation in dolphins.

Stephen, perhaps you have some information on this...

There has never been any evidence of conceptualization in any animal other than man. Such claims have always been shown to be the result of researcher error. (At least, those claims which are made honestly. The field of "animal cognition" is notorious for the quacks who parade around as serious scientists.)

As far as the "links" are concerned: Hardly a day ever goes by that my mailbox does not contain another request to evaluate the "proof" of another theory of everything, a cancer cure, bizarre and contradictory laser systems, a short proof of Fermat's theorem, ... or a conceptual animal. At some point I have to decide to live my life, rather than debunk someone else's. Thanks for the invitation, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has never been any evidence of conceptualization in any animal other than man. Such claims have always been shown to be the result of researcher error. (At least, those claims which are made honestly. The field of "animal cognition" is notorious for the quacks who parade around as serious scientists.) 

"dondigitalia" may find it valuable to check out Ed Locke's lecture on animal cognition which is available from AynRandBookstore.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the continuum, I would think that the more rational the creature, the more respect (yea even certain rights to pursue its own interests according to its nature) it is granted.  I would suggest that dolphins may have capabilities to reason equal to that of man.

I see a problem here in that something either IS rational or it is NOT rational. Dolphins may be able to communicate and to recognize and classify objects based on their characteristics but this is still not a conceptual faculty, as intelligent as it may be for an animal. There is no evidence that dolphins see a purpose to doing that sort of thing other than being rewarded with treats and whatnot. I remember seeing some sort of monkey use a sweet substance on the end of a stick to fish ants out of a hole- they grasp in that particular instance that if they use the stick, they'll get ants to eat but it shows no evidence that they can conceptualize this into the monkey equivalent of "Hmm, how can I do this more efficiently? how can I do everything I must do more efficiently?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a problem here in that something either IS rational or it is NOT rational. Dolphins may be able to communicate and to recognize and classify objects based on their characteristics but this is still not a conceptual faculty, as intelligent as it may be for an animal. There is no evidence that dolphins see a purpose to doing that sort of thing other than being rewarded with treats and whatnot. I remember seeing some sort of monkey use a sweet substance on the end of a stick to fish ants out of a hole- they grasp in that particular instance that if they use the stick, they'll get ants to eat but it shows no evidence that they can conceptualize this into the monkey equivalent of "Hmm, how can I do this more efficiently? how can I do everything I must do more efficiently?".

But Rationality *is* a continuum. Monkeys are more rational than lower life forms. Rationality is not a boolean state any more than locomotion is. Some life forms have locomotion, others don't. But among those that have it, some have more locomotion than others. Some have sensory abilities that others don't, and some species' sensory abilities are much more finely tuned. :D

That's what I don't understand. From everything that we can learn about the way in which other species think, we see reasoning, communication, toolmaking, and conceptualization. There is clearly evidence that dolphins do lots of things for purposes much more complex than treats and whatnot.

What I don't understand it what evidence we are waiting for that you would say, "Ah, now I see that I was wrong and there is another rational species." I understand the phrase "conceptual faculty." But what would evidence of that really look like? What would you *see* and say, "Yes, that qualifies." Is there a conceptual problem that they could solve or communication that they could engage in and you would recognize their reason for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Check out Jarvis's Violinist Example. Even if unborn humans are composing sonatas, abortion would not be unjust killing in the vast majority of cases. And you're right, this belongs in the abortion section.

Though I am by no means an expert in the field of prenatal neurology, I've heard it quoted often that a fetus starts having some sort of brain activity around 28 weeks after conception, and it is at that point that we can say that it has some sort of human consciousness. (It's likely closer to a lower animal than to an adult human at that early stage of development, but it's something, and it is human.) Since "rational capacity" is just that - a capacity - it is the potential that matters.

Before objecting, think of it this way: even willfully stupid people have rights. Because, if they choose to, they can think. (It may require years of training, but they have the tools, and that's what counts.)

Marotta,

Dolphins are damn smart - as animals go. Like chimps, and rats, and humans, they are pack predators, and they have developed intricate and powerful means of communicating. They work together, and they're ruthless. (Like every other mammalian pack predator.) Their survival depends upon being able to solve a wide variety of problems in a changing environment. They're magnificent creatures.

But they don't rival humans. Not by a long shot.

We can do calculus. We have countless different, distinct languages. We use tools to make tools to make tools that are only used for making millions of hammers at a time. We plan for our retirement when we're 25 (if we're smart!) As smart as dolphins are, they aren't anywhere near humans.

Animals don't have rights.

But I'd be suspicious of and repulsed by someone who beats a dog for fun.

All the really smart animals are vicious as hell. They may make allies, in fact they probably will, but the smarter they get, the meaner they are to everyone else. Humans provide many prime examples of this tendency. Observe an average 2-year old, and consider his level self-restraint and his utter raw determination to have his every whim satisfied, and you'll be glad that he's so small. If humans didn't find a way to get out of that stage before adulthood, we'd've killed ourselves off long ago.

That is the evolutionary advantage of civilized society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to a conceptual faculty, a person also needs self-awareness. This is necessary for taking responsibility for one's choices.

I don't think it's necessary to have a system of conscious convictions, just the power to form such convictions.

Maybe it's a matter of demonstrated potential?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...