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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reason gets no respect from Berman
Message-ID: <1919@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 20:35:43 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1919
Posted: Sun Dec  8 20:35:43 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 06:35:12 EST
References: <1538@hound.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 81

> 
> 			The Degradation of Reason
> 
> Piotr Berman and others hold a vastly different concept of reason from mine.
> They claim that being a mugger is reasonable.  Apparently, as long as someone
> uses his mental faculty to arrive at a decision, they call it rational--no
> matter what knowledge the actor evaded and no matter what the
> long range consequences.  I think that reason requires a lot more effort
> and a much better result.
> 
> In the case of deciding to be a mugger, there is an abundance of evidence
> that he would be better off by living productively......................
> 
I am not arguing that one should be a mugger, or that becoming a mugger may
be a reasonable did.  I am claiming though that "co-rationality", as
defined by Wasilewsky, may exists, and that application of force, under
some circumstances, may be a rational thing.

Example: you are a citizen of an European state, and a neighbor of 
a large hostile contry with a vast army.  Is it rational to vote for
a conscription, as the only way of a having sufficiently large army?
(put Israel as an example, if you wish).  Consription means that for
at least one year you may be forced to engage in activities not of
your liking. 
Next example: the hostile country attacks.  Is it rational to make
a mobilization, i.e. to force 20% of the population to participate 
in the defence?
Was it rational for European powers to create colonies?
In many cases (like Holland, Britain), colonies were undoubtfully
a source of wealth, or a place for settlement of large segments
of the population (and, consequently, a source of wealth for the
settlers).  From some point of view, it was a collossal mugging.
Still, this was the way this country was created, and the fact that
it was created is not viewed as bad by many (irrational ones?).
> 
> An ethical principle is a guide to action.  Man needs principles to guide his
> actions because he does not have time to perform a detailed analysis in every
> instance nor does he know automatically what to do.  But to recognize that
> fact and to choose to live by it is reasonable; to do otherwise is irrational.
> 
> I assume (as each of you implicitly does when you post) that there is
> one ethical principle I share with each of you:  the value of reason; but I am
> amazed at the number among you who are potential muggers.  As long as you
> treat reason as a floating abstraction, you are in danger of sacrificing it
> to some momentary desire.
> 
> When someone confesses "to me it is clear that the final judgments cannot
> be justified by reason alone," how will he deal with me when his final judgment
> conflicts with mine?
> 
> FORCE IS THE OPPOSITE OF REASON.
> -- 
> Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846

1.  Ethical principles should have a limited lifespan from the
    historical perspective, but they should be almost invariant
    during a life of a person, the conflict between the need for
    "some fixed rules" and the need to adapt is only apparent.

2.  Reason is of tremendous help in formulating ethics, but 
    feelings are needed to.  Since reason cannot explain 
    everything without additional "first principles", those first 
    principles must be based somewhere.  For example, forcing 
    others to do things they do not want may be viewed with 
    disgust, this may lead to your principle that force is bad.  
    Accidently, it is more efficient to communicate feelings than 
    reasonings, without any doubt this was the reason that you 
    use the mugger metaphore.  One must admit that appealing to 
    feeling is not without its dangers.  However, I claim that you 
    hide the subjective source of your first principles behind the 
    smoke screen of "objective reasoning".  

3.  How shall I deal with others when my final judgment conflicts 
    with theirs?
    Some of the ethical principles must deal with the resolution
    of conflicts.  While in few cases the only solution is the
    destruction of the adversary (self-defence),  usually there
    are better options, like tolerating each other and seeking
    common values. 

    Piotr Berman