Rationality

[Rodion Romanovich]

In Economics and Artificial intelligence, one way of defining rationality is: "in each situation when different actions can be chosen, you choose the action with highest expected utility". This means, in clear text, that the option which is most likely to achieve something good and least likely to achieve something bad should be chosen. Different versions of this definition exist. In some versions, safety (decreased probability of bad things happening) is emphasized to a greater degree than a possibility for greater profit if good luck strikes, whereas others are more comparing outcomes more evenly.

Questions about your view of rationality and closely related topics:
1. do you consider yourself rational according to this definition?

2. do you consider this a good definition of rationality?

3. if not, what is your definition of rationality?

4. how would you measure how good different outcomes in a social and political life scenario are (in a company scenario, the "value" of a particular scenario may for example be measured by "size of income for the company", but in life it's probably a lot more complex - or?)?

5. do you consider yourself result-oriented/consequence-ethics-oriented, or oriented towards rule-based ethics? Note that according to the definition of rationality, you can't be rational unless you have a goal, implicitly or explicitly defined.

For instance, you may have as your goal to "follow the rules of a particular ethical system/religion as much as possible", and still be rational, under certain circumstances, namely: assume there is a situation in which you can choose to follow the ethical rules of your system, or not. Assume that if you choose to follow the rules in that situation, you will not be able to follow them in the future, whereas if you don't follow them, your ability to follow them later will be improved. If you are rational, but have "rule ethics" as your goal, you would in that situation choose to not follow the rules. A person with true rule-ethics way of thinking would choose to follow the rules in that case.

6. in which cases do you consider the end to justify the means?

7. is rationality in your opinion a good thing? If yes, why? If no, what is preferable and why?

8. one weakness of the definition of rationality given above is that it's difficult if not impossible to accurately judge the likelihoods of different outcomes of actions. Do you think this is the main reason for disagreements between humans in debates, or do you think differences in the definition of rationalism is a more important reason?

[Bijo]

It's not really a matter of us thinking and defining what rationality is, but more what it is regardless of what we think. Obviously rationality is about reason / logic. About having a clear mind not bothered by its opposite irrationality.

[Husar]

Maybe I can post something useful here for a change...:clown: , well, bad start, but I'll try nonetheless.


1. do you consider yourself rational according to this definition?
If the goal of being as lazy and slow as possible while still maintaining some sort of normal life counts, then probably yes.
My goal in high school was to finish it without repeating any class, no matter the grades, my decisions led me to that goal...:sweatdrop:
On top of that, I can even study what I wanted, but lately my decisions are losing some rationality because my old system of "learn nothing, know enough" doesn't work anymore, on top of that I should have often decided to talk to people when I didn't(and I should get out more...).
Maybe I'm completely irrational at heart but try to look rational to others which effectively makes me feel bad and gets me nowhere, thus I'm working on changing that. Well, now I almost confused myself, it's really hard to say because there are a whole lot of factors and so many goals one can have for measurement. I'm usually trying to decide rational, but there are factors that can prevent me from making that rational decision.


2. do you consider this a good definition of rationality?
I'd say it's good enough.


3. if not, what is your definition of rationality?
Let me make my rational decision to acquire even more laziness and free time by leaving that to you.


4. how would you measure how good different outcomes in a social and political life scenario are (in a company scenario, the "value" of a particular scenario may for example be measured by "size of income for the company", but in life it's probably a lot more complex - or?)?
Yes, see above. Once feelings enter the stage, it's harder to say what is rational and what is not IMO.


5. do you consider yourself result-oriented/consequence-ethics-oriented, or oriented towards rule-based ethics? Note that according to the definition of rationality, you can't be rational unless you have a goal, implicitly or explicitly defined.
Somewhere in the middle I guess, sometimes I try to rationally decide which approach to take and sometimes I don't think at all, sometimes I put my thoughts on hold and sometimes I'm stone-cold rational, it depends on my mood and many other factors.
Now that I think about it, I think I'm often result oriented, though my goals or results may be a bit weird at times, for example when I watch a movie and want to feel good(my goal) and the movie is sad, I will rationally decide to override my feelings and make fun of it. There's no rational reason for me to choose that goal, but oh well.:sweatdrop:


6. in which cases do you consider the end to justify the means?
If we say that any end would justify any means, then never, if I want a soup and the means include killing the cook...
Well, I'd support it if noone is harmed in any way, so if you pay a clerk to get a newspaper and you actually get it, the end justifies the means, but I guess noone would disagree here.:laugh4:
I think in more serious cases, I decide that from case to case.



7. is rationality in your opinion a good thing? If yes, why? If no, what is preferable and why?
That depends entirely on the goals and the means which we had before. A dictator with the goal to rule alone who makes the rational decision to kill all opposition would be an example where rationality is a bad thing.
If someone is afraid of say, snakes, but rescues a kid out of a snakepit because he rationally decided that those snakes cannot harm him in his new snake-proof suit, then rationality is a good thing. And let me appologize in advance for that bad example.:sweatdrop:


8. one weakness of the definition of rationality given above is that it's difficult if not impossible to accurately judge the likelihoods of different outcomes of actions. Do you think this is the main reason for disagreements between humans in debates, or do you think differences in the definition of rationalism is a more important reason?
I think it's the first. Or it's their goals again. People who have the same goals will disagree because they see a different outcome for the different choices at hand, the unpredictability of the consequences often adds to that.
However people with different goals can obviously disagree on the same matter and both/all be rational concerning their own goals.

:bow:

PS: If anything doesn't make sense to you, it probably didn't to me either, but you may ask anyway, sometimes I need to rethink an issue to arrive at a much better/less confusing opinion.:clown:

[Husar]

About having a clear mind
In that case my last post lacks any sort of rationality.:laugh4:

It's quite warm here....:sweatdrop:

[rotorgun]

Without attempting to discuus the moral implications of using rationality to justify the means, I would say that being rational is doing that which allows one to arrive at a desirable outcome in the most logical way. This puts me in the goal oriented camp I suppose. Emotion must be left out of the eqaution if one is to make an objective decision. It is the same sort of process that a general must use when deciding if the cost in manpower and material is worth the expected military outcome. He cannot be swayed by his human desire of not wanting any of his soldiers to suffer, but must way the needs of the Mission/Army/Nation above the safety of the individual soldiers.

The same rationale is used by a Captain at sea who cannot turn his ship around in a storm to attempt the rescue of a sailor who has fallen overboard.

"The needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few, or the one" Spock-Star Trek II-Wrath of Kahn

[KafirChobee]

Anything can be rationalized.

Rationality is the ability to justify anything one wants to. Rationality has no other purpose than justifying any particular position concerning just about anything. Ranging from why a husband is late for dinner, to why one nation attacks another - to why a particular genecide is necessary. It is all a matter of rationality.

Logic on the other hand is a similar animal. It isn't an animal of justification as is rationality, but one that approves the latter by implying the necessity of the action taken. Had we not attacked them first, they would have attacked us first.

It is all a useless waste of time to contemplate it further.