Is it just me, or is this really creepy?

[Elok]

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!"?

Presumptively goal x is chosen with goal z in mind, goal z being that person's inculcated beliefs about what's generally most valuable in life. Now, how was goal z chosen? From life experiences, from friends and family, from other goals. And where did those other goals come from? Still other goals/priorities, and it's turtles all the way down. Possibly, if you really dig into it, goal z winds up justifying goal z to some extent. But even if you take the time to precisely order your whole philosophy of life so that everything from the person you marry to the shoes you wear ultimately fits into one single end goal...how is that end goal "rationally" chosen?

[Aeson]

No. One acts in a way that is opposed to his goals due to a chemical dependency.

No. He chooses based on the strongest motivation(s) at the time of the choice, like everyone else does. Later on he may regret the choice, like the person eating chips regrets it, but at the time of the decision he's doing exactly what he wants (well, within his ability).

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.

I have actually been diagnosed as schizophrenic at one point. I've been on some pretty hard drugs (prescription only) in hospitals. One of them likely the reason for the diagnosis of schizophrenia in fact, since I changed noticeably when put on it and when taken off it. I had hives for a month when I quit it, I had vertigo for a few months, it was hard as hell. If I would have gone back on it and the treatments, I only could have done so if that was what I wanted to do. Part of me did want to go back, but it wasn't a strong enough desire for it to override the part of me that wanted to be done with the whole psychiatric "field of study".

I can tell you at no time did I ever choose against my strongest motivations. It's a logical impossibility. (To choose against it requires a stronger motivation.)

The drug definitely influenced my motivations, but then again, so does chocolate, sunlight, a pretty girl... ect ect ect. My motivations are an amalgam of these influences. Chemical addiction is just a pretty powerful influence. It doesn't mean it's not what the person wants at the time of the choice ... it dictates what the person wants at the time of the choice.

[giblets]

Presumptively goal x is chosen with goal z in mind, goal z being that person's inculcated beliefs about what's generally most valuable in life. Now, how was goal z chosen? From life experiences, from friends and family, from other goals. And where did those other goals come from? Still other goals/priorities, and it's turtles all the way down. Possibly, if you really dig into it, goal z winds up justifying goal z to some extent. But even if you take the time to precisely order your whole philosophy of life so that everything from the person you marry to the shoes you wear ultimately fits into one single end goal...how is that end goal "rationally" chosen?

I don't see how you could rationally pick an "end goal". When it comes to intermediate goals that are a means to whatever your end goals are you can definitely pick them rationally, and I think physical fitness or eating a donut are intermediate goals, not end goals. And if someone tries to go on a diet, they are showing that physical fitness better suits their end goals than eating a donut. If they eat the donut anyway they have behaved irrationally.

[Elok]

Well, yes, but going on a diet and then breaking it is stating goal X and then doing an activity against it, ie contradictory, ie exactly what Loin called irrational...right? He said it's not irrational to have different priorities, depending one what one values most.

[giblets]

I guess, but my example made Loin think that I think people are robots so it must not be exactly what Loin was talking about.

[giblets]

People have a tendency to pursue immediate gratification, and this is usually against their interests. For example for a Catholic priest it's irrational to rape boys because God probably doesn't approve and it will make the church look bad and they'll end up in prison but they give into their urges anyway. It's BS to call raping a boy and all those other things "competing goals" and then say that you're imposing you own assumptions on him when you say his behavior was irrational.

[Elok]

I don't know what Loin would say about that, but I would say that you can't always find the choice that will lead to the greatest happiness, even given perfect information about the results of one's choices. Probably you don't disagree. Still, just to be clear, take the somewhat tired example of the post-feminism woman's dilemma: a career or children? Maybe she really likes her job, but she also really wants kids. Choosing both will mean less time with the young ones and less progress in the career, so no matter what she does she's sacrificing something. Nor can you really compare the two types of happiness, since they're so drastically different in kind. It boils down to different priorities, and in that sense there are a number of different, equally rational choices she can make.

[Uncle Sparky]

He just sounds like he's getting misty-eyed about the day when we could potentially keep people from making wrong decisions by pre-emptively making their decisions for them. Or something to that effect. Maybe he wasn't even thinking about the moral dimension of such an idea--but if so, that raises serious questions about the health of his "modules."

What woud Jesus do? Oh wait, organized religion "keep(s) people from making wrong decisions by pre-emptively making their decisions for them", n'est–ce pas?

[Elok]

I'm going to just assume that's a troll...

[Lorizael]

I'm really not sure it can be argued that humans are largely rational creatures. There are entire fields of science (psychology, neuroscience, experimental philosophy) dedicated to compiling a list of our cognitive biases.

[Sava]

I reject any policy that does not directly lead to more tits in my face