Is it just me, or is this really creepy?

[giblets]

And if people never had conflicting goals, then your oversimplification of human behavior would mean something.

Of course people have conflicting goals, but those goals aren't equally valuable.

[Aeson]

How would you rather define it? Every would-be overarching definition of rationality I've ever encountered relies on some overarching assumption(s) about what it means to be rational (that is, what it means for a life goal to be worthy of consideration), e.g. "rational people prefer long-term happiness over short-term happiness" as gribbler seems to define it. Or you can use a Mills definition of rationality if you prefer, or a Kantian definition. It all amounts to you defining what constitutes a worthy goal or set of goals in life.

I'm fine with however you'd like to define it. I was just pointing out that everyone is always rational if you define it that specific way (since you had said there were exceptions).

I've met a fair number of drug addicts whose goal in life is to consume their drug of choice as frequently as possible, and who consume their drug of choice as frequently as possible. These people are behaving rationally. I've also met a fair number of drug addicts whose goal in life is to do something that their drug addiction is preventing them from doing, e.g. being a better husband/wife/father/mother/etc, and so when they consume their drug of choice they are behaving irrationally. Whether I consider the second groups' goals to be more noble than the first groups' goals is irrelevant to whether I consider the second groups' actions to be less rational than the first groups' actions. Rationality != morality.

Both drug addicts are rational in the same way. The second one just isn't honest (or being honestly portrayed) about what they really want at the time of the decision to do drugs. To use your rational from the earlier post about what is rational about spur of the moment choices:

"this person has dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of conflicting goals, and in this case has decided that the goal to eat potato chips has overridden the goal to be healthy. This is completely rational, even if you or I may place a higher value on health than on the consumption of potato chips."

compared with:

"this person has dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of conflicting goals, and in this case has decided that the goal to [use drugs] has overridden the goal to be [a better husband/wife/father/mother/etc]. This is completely rational, even if you or I may place a higher value on [a better husband/wife/father/mother/etc] than on the [use of drugs]."

I find it unfair to the fatass to portray them as rationally eating potato chips while the drug user making an analogous choice is given irrationality as a crutch.

[Al B. Sure!]

I was actually going to point out that he said "the last time x happened" which makes citing an example from over 2000 years before his example irrelevant, but thanks for pointing out another of your failures at reading comprehension.

He said the last time... but then said 'in history'. He was contradictory and misleading.

[RGBVideo]

I was actually going to point out that he said "the last time x happened" which makes citing an example from over 2000 years before his example irrelevant, but thanks for pointing out another of your failures at reading comprehension.

hey he just wants some credit for his knowledge of history and political theory of governing, cut him some slack

He said the last time... but then said 'in history'. He was contradictory and misleading.

well it's possible i'm having language issues here and if i've confused anyone i'm sorry.

I meant that the last time there was a nation in the world where this idea was applied in it's pure form was 1940s in Germany.

[loinburger]

Of course people have conflicting goals, but those goals aren't equally valuable.

Valuable according to which objective standard?

[giblets]

As an exceedingly simple example, hopefully one that's easy to grasp: I have a high level goal of saving money for retirement. I also have a median goal of adhering to my family's "fifty dollars or less" policy for gifts. I also had a short-term goal of purchasing some earrings for my mom that matched the necklace that I got for her twenty years ago. This short-term goal temporarily overrode two conflicting goals. Somebody who is a cretin would say that I behaved irrationally. Somebody who isn't a cretin would immediately recognize that people have multiple goals that are sometimes in conflict with each other.

If you actually thought the "fifty dollars or less" policy would give you more happiness than buying your mother earrings (or give your mother more happiness I guess) then yeah, you behaved irrationally.

[giblets]

He said the last time... but then said 'in history'. He was contradictory and misleading.

"in history" means "in the recorded past". "The last time in the recorded past it happened" basically means "the last time it happened". There is no contradiction. You are irrational.

[loinburger]

Both drug addicts are rational in the same way.

No. One acts in a way that is opposed to his goals due to a chemical dependency. Either you have no experience with chemical dependency (especially as it relates to schizophrenia, which I noted in my definition of rationality) or else you're purposefully misconstruing what I've said.

[loinburger]

If you actually thought the "fifty dollars or less" policy would give you more happiness than buying your mother earrings (or give your mother more happiness I guess) then yeah, you behaved irrationally.

So in other words, you view the world through the lens of a hard-core Utilitarian, and can't conceive of why anybody would do otherwise.

[loinburger]

loin: I had these multiple conflicting goals, which would have been easy to resolve through the lens of a simplistic Utilitarian.
Gribbler: Well, as a simplistic Utilitarian, I don't see what the problem is!

[giblets]

So in other words, you view the world through the lens of a hard-core Utilitarian, and can't conceive of why anybody would do otherwise.

What is your rational alternative? "I arbitrarily choose goal x over goal y, for no reason in particular, now don't call me irrational! If you think goal y might have been a better choice you don't understand what competing goals are!"?

[loinburger]

For the record, my mom felt guilty when she learned how much I spent on the earrings (which she did without my prompting her to - she's just like that). Of course, in the world of Gribbler, mothers don't do that sort of thing - the value of a gift is directly proportional to its monetary value. (I was able to convince my mom that the cost of the earrings was no big deal, just in case anybody was worried about her feelings.)

[loinburger]

What is your rational alternative? "I arbitrarily choose goal x over goal y, for no reason in particular, now don't call me irrational! If you think goal y might have been a better choice you don't understand what competing goals are!"?

YOu can't conceive of a philosophy other than Utilitarianism? Okay. I now know where to categorize you.

[giblets]

YOu can't conceive of a philosophy other than Utilitarianism? Okay. I now know where to categorize you.

"I am morally bound to pick x over y even though y would probably make me happier and this doesn't affect anyone else"?

[giblets]

For the record, my mom felt guilty when she learned how much I spent on the earrings (which she did without my prompting her to - she's just like that). Of course, in the world of Gribbler, mothers don't do that sort of thing - the value of a gift is directly proportional to its monetary value. (I was able to convince my mom that the cost of the earrings was no big deal, just in case anybody was worried about her feelings.)

So in a world you call "hard-core utilitarian" you believe mothers do not care about the well-being of their children and want them to not spend too much on gifts for them...?