2 ms·
IMHO you missed the point of the article... it says that rationality on itself only can lead to progress in the light of virtues (rules of what is 'right'). Wit
by nuancebydefault 4y ago
IMHO you missed the point of the article... it says that rationality on itself only can lead to progress in the light of virtues (rules of what is 'right'). Without those as a starting point, there can be no reasoning. Hence reasoning/rationalizing depends on the irrational, ie. subjective virtues, dogmas as it were.
- pjscott 4y agoI think what we have here is a terminological mix-up -- it sounds like you're conflating virtues [1], rules [2], dogma (in the non-Catholic sense), and consequentialist [3] utility functions [4]. The post you're replying to is well aware of the is/ought distinction that the article is talking about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
- nuancebydefault 4y agoThanks for this more profound insight! I still do not understand parent comment... I think if the utility function (based on credits based on "a" type of ethic) is ill described, rationality will not bring you far, it stays on the phylosophical level.