Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Co-rationality is Nonsense
Message-ID: <1912@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Dec-85 12:37:46 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1912
Posted: Wed Dec  4 12:37:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 01:54:55 EST
References: <1519@hound.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 81

> 		Force is the Opposite of Reason
> 
> With respect to an example where someone uses force to get a victim 
> do his bidding, Jan Wasilewsky writes:
>                 "... the threatener may have a reason for his wish;
> *to him* it is not a whim, but based on reality. But he does  not
> give  his reasons to the victim. To the latter, the former's wish
> is a whim, and also a piece of primary reality on which to act -
> again, rationally. Thus, each has his own  reality  to  which  he
> adapts;  but  it  is not the same. So, they are each rational but
> not *co-rational*. Does that make any sense to you ?"
> 
> No.  There is only one reality.  If there were multiple realities,
> reason would be impotent.  Which reality would my sense organs be
> aware of?  Which reality would we point to when we try to communicate
> with each other?  The first premise necessary for any thought or
> human discourse is that there is only one reality.
>................................... 
> Now let's broaden the context.  Jan asks why can't man be a rational
> predator--treating other people as a natural resource?  Why is he less
> rational than a herder or hunter because his prey is human?
> In other words, even if force is the opposite of reason in the narrow sense
> used above (dealing with other humans), why do I hold that you are
> irrational (that is violate the correct application of reason) if
> you weigh all the alternatives and choose to treat people as if they were
> not human?
> 
> The answer is in the nature of the human consciousness.  The aspect I
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> am focusing on here is that you need to think in terms of principles
> to keep your mind in order and to act on principles to keep your life
> in order.
> 
> I would hope that anyone who was serious about defending liberty would not
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hold that it is rational for men to attempt to survive on the principle that
> "might makes right."
> -- 
> Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846

Bob states that there is only one reality, and co-rationality (coexisting,
rational, contradicting conclusions) is nonsence.

However, in his rebuttal of Jan's example he applies

   " human consciousness of anyone who is serious about defending liberty ".

This however has nothing to do with objective facts, but with subjective
values.  There are many systems of values which people profess.  To state 
that only my value system is "rational" is nothing else but saying to all
others with differing systems of values

   " you are wrong because I am right and you differ ".

The favorite example of Bob is robbing a person with a gun.  However, he
appeals to a value system which is based on clearly subjective statements
like "freedom is an ultimate good".  In another system, the common good
and individual freedom are connected in a min-max game: maximizing common
good with minimal constraints on individuals.  In the latter, the minimal
constraint are diferent than none.  Bob's value system says "me first, if
no one else is there already".  A more common value system says "no man
is an island".  

Although I have a strong feeling that Bob's system is wrong, I can see
a logical arguments behind it.  I also see logical arguments behind my
system.  However, to argue that one can build a value system by pure
application of logical reasoning to the observed facts of reality, 
without any additional axioms (value judgments) is a delusion.  

To formulate a system of values, or, equivalently, an ethical system,
one has to define such notions like "good", "happy" etc.  To do it, 
we aggregate individual observations, with judgments of the kind 
"this fact points to a general rule, that fact is an exception".  
Judgments on exceptions cannot be purely rational: one may argue that
one exception is enough to defeat a generalization, the other may
choose to tolerate some set of exceptions, still other one may view
a different "small" set of facts as exceptions.  Only the first
approach is truly logical, but it allows only to deduce laws of
physics, and not ethics.

Piotr Berman