Praxeology doesn’t denote whether a value is is more or less valid than the other. It merely states that people have ends and employ means to fulfill those ends. Whether they chose one end or the other is determined by their subjective valuation. Would certain means be irrational to employ in comparison to others? No, since action only implies that acting man believes a certain means will result in his desired ends.
Ethics is the science of morality, and morality deals with interpersonal interactions as far as rights go. We all have the same rights as a base, so it’s not “individual” as meaning “relative”.
because i can analyse their actions in terms of necessary interpersonal norms (ethics), and when it comes to analysing peoples rationality of ultimate vales there is no such necessity and no basis for appraisal
What if he doesn’t get his desired ends? Or what if he gets the exact opposite, were his actions still rational?
it is not the case that man has a reasoning faculty and an unreasoning faculty, and after their act is concluded you discover which faculty they used.
What if my norms are different from your norms? What if people’s actions get them exactly the opposite of what they wanted, were they still behaving rationally? I mean no one bought a house during the housing boom hoping they would lose money or that housing values would collapse or because they thought the asset prices were a bubble. Was buying a house at the apex of the housing bubble rational?
In the economic sense, yes. In the epistemic sense, probably not.
But man is susceptible to groupthink right? Isn’t man susceptible to pressure from authority or group pressure?
you are all over the shop. if your ‘norms’ are different from the necessary interpersonal norms, then ‘your norms’ are contradictory and you fall into incoherence when arguing for them.
what kind of rationally are you referring to?
you think that people that make mistakes are insane?
I suppose you know what I’m going to ask next.
it is just data.
What if I end up in traffic jam, and the store closes before I get there? Were my actions irrational because they involved a risk due to uncertainty?
-
What if I can get more people to agree with my norms than your norms, you no longer have interpersonal agreement, does that make your norms invalid?
-
The rational behavior of praxeology apparently is any action a person chooses to get what they want. I’m asking if the action was still rational even if they don’t get what they want? Can people still be rational when making enormous mistakes that end up hurting them?
-
Not insane. Irrational. They didn’t properly understand what they were doing or what was going on. They didn’t understand the housing market or the risks involved in buying a house at that time. They were acting irrationally. Probably because of the groupthink going on at the time that “houses were going to hit a new high forever” it was the same idea before the stock bubble with the “dow 36,000” or whatever. It’s irrational groupthink and humans are enormously susceptible to it because of certain psychological weaknesses of man.
You ever heard of the Milgram experiment? He showed that perceived authority was such a powerful influence on behavior that people could be convinced to do awful things because of the fear of displeasing the authority. That’s not rational is it?
Something which shows how completely, utterly, and irretrievably you’re missing the point.
I dunno, I have to think about that one.
If ethics are the science of morality and morality is based on God, how can there be objective morality if there is no God? If there is no objective morality, how can ethics be objective?
“The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people’s aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented.”
But then how can we judge the effects of acting man’s choices? If it is not a man’s intent to lose money, but he buys into an asset class that has been blown up by a bubble because he fears that to not buy would be a greater risk than to buy and possibly lose, then was he acting rationally even if he loses money?
Is it rational to lose money when the goal was to not lose money? How can we just the outcomes of people’s choices if not by ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’?
“When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy of the procedure employed. The critic approves or disapproves of the method from the point of view of whether or not it is best suited to attain the end in question. It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable–although faulty–deliberation and an attempt–although an ineffectual attempt–to attain a definite goal.”
So are governments acting rationally when they try to end poverty by instituting the welfare state even if they don’t achieve the desired ends? Or do governments not count under this rule?
Because morality isn’t based on some magic space pixie. And please don’t confuse objective ontological with objective epistemic.
Seriously, this isn’t difficult. What is your hang-up?