Originally posted by Eggs
The way you can think of the relationship between rational and moral is that there is a big circle that encompasses all that is rational. Inside that circle there is another smaller circle that is moral. So something can be rational and not be moral. However, something that is moral then fits inside rationality. Except a small little gray area that extends outside the border of rational. For instance:
I'm walking down the street and I see an infant out in the road. A car is coming, and to save the child I'll get hit by the car. However, I decide to save the child at the potential cost of my own life. Does this is any way benifit me? No. Is it rational for me to give up my own life for that of the child? No. As an athiest you'd have to agree, because being that you believe that this is our only shot, I should try my best to preserve my life any way I know how because once it is over my interaction with life is over. In this way, the moral is not necessarily the rational.
To this you could say that it is not immoral to stand there and watch the child die. And I would respond that if indeed your watched a person stand by idly and that it was your child that died you would not have the same opinion.
I don't agree with this (BTW I'm not an atheist).
Morality and rationality are interwoven; there isn't one without the other. The nature of morality is to contemplate the question: "What is right to do (in situation X)?" I don't believe that there is any 'right' or 'wrong' in the strict sense, but there is certainly 'better' and 'worse'. Given several possible courses of action, if we have a reliable probabilistic assesment of the outcomes, I think it certainly plausible to suggest that 'right' and 'wrong', in the moral sense, can be objectively defined in terms of choosing the best possible course of action from among the known options and corresponding value assessments.
For instance, lets examine your example. If a child was laying in the street and the car was block away, the possibility that saving the child will result in bodily harm is extremely low. At that point, if you were to not act you might as well pull up a lawn chair and scope the action, as there is plenty of time to do so. OTOH some people naturally freeze up in some situations, and I don't think it rational to hold it against such a person for not acting. The difference between the two is dependant upon the possibility for a better outcome; if a person is mentally unable to act in the situation, there is no possibility at all; if a person
could act - but instead says "sweet, this is going to be awesome!" - then he is forsaking social obligation. If the situation were to change - say, you were to notice the child when the car was 5 feet away from him - I don't think we would say that it is rational to dive in front of the car. Indeed, I think such an action would be the essence of irrationality.
Despite cynicism present in that, it is to a degree true. When one becomes a part of society it is for the mutual benifit of all. Which is for instance why the first towns and cities came to be, it made this harsh existence a bit more tolerable. I'm still not quite sure whats so harsh about it, but thats besides the point. Human kind came together to facilitate an easier existence, a more palatable one. As Dante mentioned, one of the primary reasons of civilization is progress. To further our ability to create the world anew in our likeness. That isnt the only reason though. Humans have a need to interact with others. There are more than likely other reasons, but I need to get going to the gym and you're at least as capable as I of thinking of them.
So whether we agree with it or not, this baggage that we deal with daily is an inherent component of civilization. I preferably would rather pull them off the teat so they can mature and be self reliant though. Really it is in their own best interest to do so anyways.
My original point is that as sad as it is, society does need to figure out ways to keep most people safe from themselves. Responsibility is not a highly apparent trait in most humans, and until it is we have to keep the training wheels on their bicycles.
And how do you get the training wheels off the bicycle? You remove one wheel and let the child adapt, and when ready you take off the last wheel. You would not tell a kid
not to get on a bike at all, on the basis that he does not know how to ride it. Nor would you leave both wheels on and expect him to develop the balance and coordination that is necessary to ride without them as if by magic.
Society is not inherently utilitarian. It never has been, and hopefully it never will be (although present socio-political disposition seems to suggest the opposite). Is human nature social? I think not. Organized society did not develop so that we could have Oprah's Book Club. Socialization facilitates the necessary exchange of ideas between aspirant individuals. Society is advantageous
as long as every individual strives to ascend themselves intellectually and spiritually. Do I enjoy conversation? Certainly...but most people still think that I'm anti-social. Why? Because I find things like The Real World and team sports absolutely mind-numbing. I have no desire to socialize with people whose lives revolve around who's plotting what against so-and-so, or what team is going to the Super Bowl this year. OTOH I greatly enjoy conversation with people who actually like to think, because it clarifies and expands my own understanding in the process - I am made better for it.
The problem we currently face, is that we
encourage irresponsible behavior, simply by professing that it is our moral
obligation to help anyone who fucks themselves over. I think that such thinking is entirely irrational, and is probably dually the result of absolutist religious morality and the fact that the invalid constituency of this nation seems to grow exponentially every year. People feel the need to think in this manner, because they are scared to hell that they could just as easily be doing something just as stupid a year from now, a month from now, or a week from now. The "Land of Opportunity" is coming to mean "the Land of 'Pick Up Your 'We Pity You' Check at the next Window."
Eventually, one of the training wheels has to come off. Personal responsibility will not materialize in some rabbit-out-of-a-hat manner, and the problem will continue to get worse for as long as we continue to expect it to. We have to start somewhere.
That said, they are still more intelligent than half the population.
