Inherent irrationality

[Harrison Danneskjold]

In another thread http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=22606&page=1 several people questioned the very possibility of a voluntarily-funded government, with such statements as:

Whether moochers will be a greater or lesser issue in some future society is hardly the point: they will exist insofar as mankind possesses the faculty of volition. . .

The undeniable nature of Man says that we have volition, and even if "most" follow the right path, it's impossible that all will follow the right path. . . So insofar as humans maintain the faculty of volition, there will be freeloaders. . .

I don't know why I'm even answering this, but here goes: crime exists insofar as Men have freewill. Protection from crime is necessary in order to live freely in a society. . .

The commonality being that 'Volition excludes full rationality'; a concept best summarized here:

 

To suggest a Utopian Objectivist Society where all men are rational even as a possibility is to suggest a fantasy world.

And also by Ayn Rand:

 

But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government..

-The Nature of Government, by Ayn Rand

Which means that men will never be responsible enough to objectively settle their own disputes.  It's a thinly-veiled variation of the exact same assertion found here:

 

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. . . Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or bymalice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

 -The Nature of Government, by Ayn Rand

 Which means exactly what it says.

 

The common premise throughout all of these, implicitly and explicitly, is that no society could ever be fully rational- or alternatively, that societies are necessarily irrational.

How does this relate to individuals?  Well, in conjunction with this:

The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone.

-The Soul of an Individualist, by Ayn Rand

 

If society is necessarily irrational, and a society is only a group of men who do nothing arbitrarily, then each man is necessarily irrational.

If each man is necessarily irrational to some degree or another (and must necessarily be so, forever) then those who propose such are necessarily irrational.

Since reason is the logical integration of available facts, necessary irrationality would be some minimum amount of evasion which cannot be avoided.

"Nobody could be fully rational" entails "I cannot help my irrationality."

 

Now, I don't mean that everyone who says such things means it as an intellectual excuse (although I'm certain some have).  And I certainly don't mean to imply that miss Rand was one of those people.  Rather, I think she should've taken her own advice:

“It’s only human,” you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept “human” mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward. . . as if “to feel” were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not. . .

In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads.

-Galt's Speech

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The concept of inherent irrationality amounts to a variation of the original sin argument which is frequently used to exempt people from full and self-consistent altruism.  Except, of course, that it's an excuse from full and self-consistent rational selfishness.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'd concede that a fully rational society is possible in America, in my lifetime at the very least- because most Americans today aren't rational.  Many couldn't even become rational, short of some catastrophically life-changing event.

But to apply the same conclusion to each individual, and all unborn generations yet to come, is nothing short of a total denial of volition.  And even less valid when based on the exact attribute it denies.

[thenelli01]

The common premise throughout all of these, implicitly and explicitly, is that no society could ever be fully rational- or alternatively, that societies are necessarily irrational.

 

No. The alternative to fully rational isn't "necessarily irrational". If someone isn't fully rational, that doesn't mean they are necessarily irrational. They aren't contradictory statements in the logical sense (i.e. if A is true, B is necessarily false). Most people are part rational, part irrational and to different degrees.

 

A rational society usually means a society guided by rational principles. Not that every individual will be rational in every moment of their life.

 

The latter point is silly and hard to address seriously. Rationality isn't something inherent in us - it is something learned over a long period of time, and to master and apply consistently is an enormous achievement. It requires constant focus and choice. I have yet to see one man who is fully rational, let alone 300+ million of them.

Edited November 15, 2013 by thenelli01

[Eiuol]

In another thread http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=22606&page=1 several people questioned the very possibility of a voluntarily-funded government, with such statements as:

The commonality being that 'Volition excludes full rationality'; a concept best summarized here:

 

No, it's more that for ALL people in a society, it is virtually impossible that ALL people will be rational. It just... doesn't make sense. I don't know what would indicate that it's possible for ALL people in any given society (future or otherwise) will be rational. Statistically speaking, you'll find some irrational people, because for whatever reason, some people choose that. Basically, since all people have volition, some people will choose irrationality. That's all Crow was saying.  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since it is possible to be rational by nature of being human, it is possible that all people can be rational. Well, sure, but it's wishful thinking - that's not how people are in reality. You can be rational if you want, but not everyone will make that same choice.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Most people are honest and good most of the time. Some aren't. We craft a society (and thus a government) accordingly.

[Grames]

The common premise throughout all of these, implicitly and explicitly, is that no society could ever be fully rational- or alternatively, that societies are necessarily irrational.

 

What does it mean to you to be rational?  Having finite knowledge and being fallible are two epistemological problems that are unavoidable, and neither one prevents being fully rational.  One can be wrong about something and still be counted as among the rational so long as the error was not a moral failure.

[thenelli01]

What does it mean to be 'fully' rational? 

[thenelli01]

Rationality (or irrationality) is a choice. Neither is "inherent" in man. Man has a rational faculty, which means that he has the ability to be rational if he chooses. Some will choose to be rational, some will choose to be irrational. A society where everyone is perfect isn't going to happen. 

Edited November 15, 2013 by thenelli01

[CrowEpistemologist]

Here's a good backgrounder on this subject as well:

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

 

"Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."

 

So Man has freewill, and insofar as he has freewill, this means he has no "tendency" of either good or evil, rational or irrational. If he had any sort of tendency, it wouldn't be free will, it would just be a (weakly programmed) robot.

[StrictlyLogical]

 

If society is necessarily irrational, and a society is only a group of men who do nothing arbitrarily, then each man is necessarily irrational.

If each man is necessarily irrational to some degree or another (and must necessarily be so, forever) then those who propose such are necessarily irrational.

Since reason is the logical integration of available facts, necessary irrationality would be some minimum amount of evasion which cannot be avoided.

"Nobody could be fully rational" entails "I cannot help my irrationality."

 

I cannot begin to analyse every error here.

 

1.  Society cannot be rational or irrational... what is the definition of an irrational society ?  Does harboring 1 irrational man out of 1 million count?

 

2.  Society is not simply a group of men, although a group of men can form a society... a society is a specific kind of relationship amongst and by a group of men

 

3.  "Men who do nothing arbitrarily" seems mythical to me ... some men do behave on whim and make arbitrary decisions.

 

4.  Each man is necessarily irrational:  this conclusion requires a specific relationship between the purported property "irrationality" of a society and how it is related to the irrationality of individual or groups of men.  I do not see how this is arrived at from your premises.. .which unfortunately are ill defined/flawed.  If you define an irrational society as one in which every man is irrational then it is by definition true, but if it admits of any one rational man being a member this conclusion is impossible.

 

 

You then go on to argue that "all men are irrational" is actually an impossible conclusion.

 

 

What are you trying to say exactly?

 

 

 

I would submit that society will comprise members who are rational, and other members who are not.  The fact that some members can be brought up rationally or can discover it, means that it is possible (but not probable) that at one time or another every one of society's members will be rational.  This unfortunately will be very rare given that irrationality is also due to nature in some specific cases (genetic mental defects) which will at some rate appear in the population by chance.  It's safe to say that on average there will always be some population of irrational people which the rational people need to address in one way or another.

Edited November 15, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[New Buddha]

What does it mean to you to be rational?  Having finite knowledge and being fallible are two epistemological problems that are unavoidable, and neither one prevents being fully rational.  One can be wrong about something and still be counted as among the rational so long as the error was not a moral failure.

 

This is very well stated and should answer the OP's question.

[whYNOT]

I think that the most distinctive aspect of people of mixed premises is -not- that they are unaware of reason and reality, but that they believe that both can 'take a break' whenever they like. Put another way, they assume both as implicitly given or self-evident, but resist acknowledging them as consciously explicit, committed-to, and constant. Maybe the greatest distinguishing factor between those part-rational and the fully rational, is that - commitment.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Most people are honest and good most of the time. Some aren't. We craft a society (and thus a government) accordingly.

Crow, I just wanted to pull this out first to mention that's completely rational and true.  Thank you.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

No. The alternative to fully rational isn't "necessarily irrational".

The alternative to "could be fully rational" IS necessarily irrational.

It's not about what people are like today; it's about what they could be like.  Either someone could be fully rational or they couldn't.  The latter contention is what I'm referring to because it's implicit all over the political spectrum.

 

No, it's more that for ALL people in a society, it is virtually impossible that ALL people will be rational.

So highly improbable (given the limited scope of our current knowledge) but still possible.  Absolutely.

 

Statistically speaking, you'll find some irrational people, because for whatever reason, some people choose that.

Choice is not chance.

 

Basically, since all people have volition, some people will choose irrationality. That's all Crow was saying.

That's exactly what Crow was saying.  Did you read the OP?

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since it is possible to be rational by nature of being human, it is possible that all people can be rational.

Yes!

And yes, to expect many people to achieve this anytime within our lifetimes would be wishful thinking, but it's not some inherent part of human nature! 

 

What does it mean to you to be rational?

Thank you Grames; I was just thinking this might need clarification.

Reason is the logical integration of available knowledge, with the self-evident as the standard of truth.  'Full rationality' would be consistently and fautlessly doing so, within the confines of available time, energy and knowledge.

 

I think that the most distinctive aspect of people of mixed premises is -not- that they are unaware of reason and reality, but that they believe that both can 'take a break' whenever they like. Put another way, they assume both as implicitly given or self-evident, but resist acknowledging them as consciously explicit, committed-to, and constant. Maybe the greatest distinguishing factor between those part-rational and the fully rational, is that - commitment.

Exactly.

I would consider someone mainly rational, even if they weren't very logical and even if it were very difficult for them to consistently apply that, so long as they recognized its importance and were committed to being as rational as was possible to them.

 

Essentially:  the trait of rationality is the acceptance of non-contradictory identification, of correspondence to the self-evident, as the standard of truth (as opposed to correspondence to one's own emotions, etc).

Full rationality would be to hold that exclusively as the standard of truth consistently, all day, every day.

 

One can be wrong about something and still be counted as among the rational so long as the error was not a moral failure.

Absolutely.  And errors of ignorance will always occur, so long as man is human.

But notice what happens to certain political theories if they're applied to men whose only errors are such.  For one thing, the need for compulsory taxation immediately goes right out the window.

 

So Man has freewill, and insofar as he has freewill, this means he has no "tendency" of either good or evil, rational or irrational. If he had any sort of tendency, it wouldn't be free will, it would just be a (weakly programmed) robot.

Remove the normative element to "reason" and imagine what a fully irrational society would look like.

To be sure, many people can and do live somewhere inbetween for long periods of time (and in this sense, either is equally possible).  But I think that in the long run, natural selection favors rationality.  Just a little bit.

[thenelli01]

The alternative to "could be fully rational" IS necessarily irrational.

It's not about what people are like today; it's about what they could be like.  Either someone could be fully rational or they couldn't.  The latter contention is what I'm referring to because it's implicit all over the political spectrum.

 

I think we are talking past each other. When I hear someone call someone rational, I think fully rational (or rational in a certain context). When I hear someone call someone irrational, I think fully irrational (or irrational in a certain context).

 

 

Absolutely.  And errors of ignorance will always occur, so long as man is human.

 

Why? Can't humans choose to not be ignorant? Can't they choose to learn all the relevant facts and then make decisions? Are you saying that humans are inherently ignorant?

Edited November 18, 2013 by thenelli01

[CrowEpistemologist]

[...]

 

But I think that in the long run, natural selection favors rationality.  Just a little bit.

While I sure hope that's true, there's certainly evidence to the contrary. Smart people don't tend to breed as much (they make wise life decisions to have fewer children). There are whole nations dying off right now (the USA being one of them if you remove immigration) and population growth is happening in all of the wrong places.

 

I wouldn't want to predict the future either way, but an Idiocracy is not out of the question :-)...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Rationality (or irrationality) is a choice. Neither is "inherent" in man. Man has a rational faculty, which means that he has the ability to be rational if he chooses.

Yes.

 

Some will choose to be rational, some will choose to be irrational.

That's one Hell of a prediction.

Which ones will choose what, and why?  Even if we're only discussing the very next generation to inhabit the Earth (which you'd probably be right about) that statement includes more than seven billion individuals.

 

A society where everyone is perfect isn't going to happen. 

Based on what?

 

 

2.  Society is not simply a group of men, although a group of men can form a society... a society is a specific kind of relationship amongst and by a group of men

Yes.  See how it relates to volition?

 

3.  "Men who do nothing arbitrarily" seems mythical to me ... some men do behave on whim and make arbitrary decisions.

 

My, what an arbitrary assertion!

 

What are you trying to say exactly?

Suppose people do not actually behave arbitrarily.

Now, if they act in certain ways for certain specific reasons (regardless of whether those reasons are rational and good, or not), then to say that no group of men could ever be fully rational is to say that no man may ever be fully rational.

The exact number of irrational people is irrelevant unless there's an element of chance to volition.  If anyone could be fully rational then a society of such people is possible.

 

But could men behave randomly?

There isn't any empirical basis for it and no logical necessity- it's an explicit negation of such necessity- and so by definition there's no way any supporting evidence could ever be produced for it.

And so I'm going to continue to suppose not.

---

 

What I'm saying is that there's this concept, which I've termed inherent irrationality, which a lot of people assume to be true and yet is self-refuting.  I suppose some distinction should be made between that and arbitrary volition but neither could be true.

 

 

The fact that some members can be brought up rationally or can discover it, means that it is possible (but not probable) that at one time or another every one of society's members will be rational.  This unfortunately will be very rare given that irrationality is also due to nature in some specific cases (genetic mental defects) which will at some rate appear in the population by chance.  It's safe to say that on average there will always be some population of irrational people which the rational people need to address in one way or another.

And see, if by "probable" you were referring to something metaphysically determined then I would completely agree.  That's another topic, though.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Why? Can't humans choose to not be ignorant? Can't they choose to learn all the relevant facts and then make decisions? Are you saying that humans are inherently ignorant?

Ignorant of some things, and not others, yes.

Simply choosing not to be ignorant would be omniscience and, if that's possible, I want to know [!] how to get some. 

 

While I sure hope that's true, there's certainly evidence to the contrary.

I'm not talking about intelligence or mild irrationality; there's plenty of evidence of that.

What would happen if some individual chose, not to ignore a little bit of reality here or there, but to ignore the whole thing altogether?  Just take logic and their own senses and pretend that neither existed?

 

If we're talking about full rationality and full irrationality, natural selection is actually on our side. 

Edited November 19, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[StrictlyLogical]

I cannot overemphasize people differ greatly in mental and emotional capacity and potential for maturity.

 

Just because you cannot see the structures of the mind does not mean they no not differ as much as faces skin eye and hair color do.

 

HD

 

I would grant your argument much more weight if what you were talking about was a population of identical entities.  Even if men were never "arbitrary", men are not identical, they never have been. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

No, men are not identical.  And I see exactly what you're saying- because everyone is an individual, nothing can universally apply to everyone's mind.  Is that about right?

That our DIFFERENCES automatically exclude any such generalizations?

 

"Man is blind because he has eyes" (and doomed because he has choice)!

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It amazes me that as the resident "strict determinist" I'm the one having to defend human potential.

[tadmjones]

I think the only route to the rational utopia you envision is a deterministic one.

[thenelli01]

I just want to make the point that this topic is complete rationalism.

 

It takes an isolated abstraction: "Man has free will" and uses that as the base in which to deduce. So since man has free will by his nature, then it is possible to have a society or a world in which every man is rational.

 

That is a concrete example of "thinking in a vaccuum". It completely ignores the fact that men, for whatever reason, choose not to think rationally.

 

It's the equivalent of saying: "Since man has free will, then it is possible that everyone in Connecticut will decide to come to my school and bring me a cookie."

Edited March 3, 2014 by thenelli01

[howardofski]

Since mind reading is not possible, it is not possible to decide whether an individual is being irrational or dishonest. My own hunch is that there is very little irrationality regarding practical issues and that much of the remaining irrationality is the result of verbal confusion rather than a failure of logic. Even young children seem to have excellent reasoning abilities.

So I come to the conclusion that much of what is labeled "irrational" is probably just dishonest attempts to trick or fool others.

For purposes of designing a political system, all one has to do is assume the possibility of dishonesty in all individuals and design accordingly. The first rule (law), then, needs to be that all rules apply to all individuals - aka equal rights under the law. That first rule acts to prevent most subsequent bad laws.

That first law (legal equality) has never been tried and the results of legal inequality are all around us. Those results aren't the result of irrationality, but of a ruling elite making rules for others that they themselves do not need to obey.