Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3976 talk.philosophy.misc:4575 soc.men:23857 soc.women:30034
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!hrc!gtx!al
From: al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.philosophy.misc,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1399@gtx.com>
Date: 27 Nov 90 21:08:10 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Nov8.205905.1627@oracle.com> <16791@netcom.UUCP> <59261@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>
Reply-To: al@gtx.UUCP (Alan Filipski)
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix
Lines: 31

In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes:
>
>It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational
>behaviour is quite rare.  OF course there is a lot of behaviour that

Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with
respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's
sometimes hard to tell which is which.

If your goal is to live long and avoid injury, then skiing is probably
an irrational behavior with respect to that goal.

If your goal is to live a physically active, exciting life, then skiing is
probably rational behavior wrt that goal.

If your goal is the Darwinian one of contributing as many genes as
possible to the gene pool, celibacy would probably be irrational wrt
that goal.

If your goal is personal non-existence, then suicide is rational wrt that goal.

I don't see that you can classify the goals themselves as "rational" or
"irrational", though you might say "I agree with that goal" or "I
disagree with that one". Rationality applies to means, not ends.



  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al         (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~