If all men act purposefully, is it possible for a man to act irrationally? My gut says no.
its impossible to act unpurposfully and without recourse to some kind of reasoning. people have their own pet definitions of rationality and irrationality, so this question will come down to analysing and understanding who you are talking to.
Well for example what ways could a killer claim to have gone “insane” as a defense in court. Assuming insanity and irrationality are sort of the same thing.
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_40_gen_defences/01_insanity.htm
Means physical nature and consequences, not moral quality, of the act
R v Codere (1916) cutting his wife’s throat thinking it was a loaf of bread.
Lord Reading CJ said that the test is whether the act is right or wrong according to the standard accepted by reasonable men.
‘‘He did not know what he was doing’’ would apply if the accused was unconscious or, as in an example by Lord Denning in another context, that D thought he was throwing a log rather than the baby on the fire. The accused would have a defence of automatism or lack of mens rea.
So from that I gather insanity in the courts definition involves a lack of information, not irrationality.
In law there are many facets as you can see if you read through the link, but I posted that asection as it struck me that those are cases of delusion. people are ‘crazy’ for thinking baby’s are logs. but its perfectly reasonable to throw logs on the fire.
lol. i think im at my limit of what i can contribute here
It is absolutly impossible for a man to knowingly make an act in an irrational manor. I like to think of it like this:
IPPC-IPNC=A
Immiediatly percieved positive consequences, opposed to, immiediatly percieved negative consequences, is responsible for the action taken. If somone does somthing that is say, stupid, such as hitting themselves in order to prevent themselves from being hit, then this is merley because of imperfect information or judgment that takes place. So for instance in this scenario, which is the epidimy of “irrational action” the equation is as follows
Immiediatly percieved postive consequences= Not being hit
Immiiediatly percieved negative consequences= Slight energy that it takes to move fist quikly into contact with the body (this cannot be percieved as resulting in one hitting oneself)
Then suddenly this results in the action of hitting oneself because the percieved benefits of not being hit overcomes the percieved negative benefits of hitting oneself, but the information of what one is doing is not seen as such. Action is all down to two things, the subjective value preferences of the individual, the percieved consequences of action, and information dealing with this action, in the above scenario the consequences of the action are flawed, and the information of exactly what “hitting” is, is extremly imperfect.
However, if one looks at the information as is percieved, the individual in question does not want to be hit, and the action in question will prevent him from being hit, then this would make perfect sense under the situation.
From what I gather, this is more of an issue of physchology. Different psyches will produce different rationales for acting. If someone believes that jumping off a cliff will make them rich, and they wish to be rich to remove some kind of uneasiness, they are acting based on a rationale. That is how all conscious action is rational. Of course, what that person is doing is crazy. But that’s for the psychologists to figure out, IMO.
I’m really surprised to see you say that.
Your gut is being irrational telling you that.
You are being irrational relying on your gut for anything about the outside world [except for what you really feel about something or someone].
And let’s not forget that people can be brainwashed. For example to believe “Death before dishonor.” Very irrational.
Also there is the very common phenomenon known as “losing it”, where a person’s emotions get so strong they overpower his rational capacities. He feels it more important to indulge a fleeting disastrous impulse than take the long view.
There is projection, where a person believes all kinds of things about others and acts upon them with no basis in fact. This includes racism. Not rational at all.
“Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so”: Bertrand Russell. Can’t get more irrational than that.
All of the above people act purposefully. For example the guy who loses it purposefully punches his boss in the face. But it is irrational, because now he will be homeless.
and to be rational is to have a home…
see… ‘pet theories’ [:P]
nirgraham, I presume you are commenting on my punch the boss in the face example.
It’s a ‘pet theory’ to assume it’s irrational to exchange punching someone once in the face for a lifetime of living in the cold under a bridge, naked and starving?
You think anyone would do it in a calm state of mind? Would you? Would not the very same guy who did it regret it later?
I dunno, I must be missing something.
look, i wouldnt do it. your point exposes the conversational, mundane meaning embedded in phrases like ‘thats crazy’ ‘he must have been mad to do that’ etc. but that is not the same as a defensible philosophical or scientific position.
lets make it something not unlibertarian, calling the boss a bad name instead of punching him. maybe with what you know of thymology and psychology and culture and people you’ve met gives you confidence to judge these kind of things, but you seem to be elevating this confidence to undoubtable faith, and it is simply unwarranted to make that jump.
there is the subjectivity of value. or maybe you think you know exactly how every individual in their circumstance should value things?
I’m just saying…
maybe some people do things that others expect them to regret, and they never do, they are happy with their actions… what then? they are persistant in their ‘irrationality’?
and does having regret imply a lack of prior rationality?
suffice it to say that when people behave in an apparently ‘mindless’ manner, they still have minds…
suffice it to say that when people behave in an apparently ‘mindless’ manner, they still have minds…
They still have minds, but they don’t use them. It’s like having a radio turned down low [the rational mind] which one cannot hear when the traffic outside is too loud [an insistent shout from the emotions].
Are you saying this never happens? I think it happens millions of times every day.
Exorcism is a deliberate purposeful action based on a world view which most of our contemporaries condemn as superstitious and therefore as inappropriate. But the concept of action does not imply that the action is guided by a correct theory and a technology promising success and that it attains the end aimed at. It only implies that the performer of the action believes that the means applied will produce the desired effect. [p. 38]
@ Smiling Dave
No, one cannot act irrationally. In the case of the death before dishonor example, that is merley a case where the person in question prefers death over dishoner, wheras you don’t. All this means is that thier subjective value preferences rely more upon honor, or less upon life than yours do. I might take a candybar over ice cream and you may do the opposite. Is this because I am irrational? No, this merley means that I have different preferences than you.
The mind is merley a model builder for action, nothing more. Therefore is somone does X to achieve Y, but X has no possibility of achieving Y then that merley means that this person’s model is not an accurate model of reality in whatever respect, or that this person didn’t fully consider or consult his model before taking action.
Whereas with somone doing Z to Achieve A and Z has a very high liklyhood of, and does indeed achieve A, then this person’s model was more accurate in that respect than the previous person in the respect of area X and Y, you are no more “rational” in the word’s simplest sense than any other sane person on earth.
This is stupid. You are irrational.
an interesting pet theory [;)]
Mmm… I like the rationality put forth, please extend upon your statment.
Or we can use any non-“Human Action” definition for what is or isn’t rational.
That only means Mises was wrong.
Praying for survival while refusing blood transfusion when you are dying of blood loss is stupid.