Rationality. The tool of philosophers and mathematicians, the mother of Renaissance and Enlightenment, the cradle of advanced civilization, and the reason why they no longer behead you for insulting a deity.
No doubt rationality is generally way better than the lack of it. We can imagine a society where complete rationality prevails (well, sort of) , but we can't even begin to imagine a society where reason and logic are completely absent. Such a society would most likely not even be formed in the first place, and if it did, it wouldn't go far. Hence that modern western cultures give so much importance in it, that it is almost an insult to accuse someone of being irrational -sort of calling them nonsensical or plain dumb.
We often disregard a (political, philosophical, professional, etc) opponent's views or suggestions by associating them with feelings, conspiracy theories, guesses, matters of taste, and in any case irrationality. A form of anathema for quickly dismissing something -since if something is or seems irrational, then according to the implicit assumption of our culture, it is not even worth discussing.
Yet the last few years we tend to overdo it with being rational, and it actually starts to seem a little bit overrated. Treating rationality as the only compass towards the better has more profound ethical, political, economical, legal, and social implications than one initially thinks. And after a certain point, it doesn't really make much sense.
Justice and dignity are fundamentally irrational
You are waiting at the bus stop. A guy randomly walks up to you, insults your family, and punches you in the face for no reason. He is at least as big and strong as you are. No one saw you, so there is no reputation at stake, and no witnesses in case you want to sue him.
If you are completely rational, you will realize that hitting back will not undo his punch and insult. You will also calculate that there is a probability of you ending up severely beaten up if you hit back, and that even if you successfully beat him up, some witness may come from around the corner and perceive you as the attacker, so you'll end up sued by him instead. The completely reasonable choice here, is to let the person walk away without any consequence.
But would you do it? Would you be proud of yourself if you chose to act so? Would you be happy with your daughter marrying someone who chose to let such an offender walk away? If the answer to any of these questions is no, well, congratulations! You are irrational, and your irrationality is nothing to be ashamed of.
The example above rings two bells: dignity and justice (perhaps even manliness, but that is another story). Both are fundamentally irrational. You can't really put down in words why it would be shameful for you to let the offender go away, and if you attempt to do so, you'll realize that your explanations are completely irrational and made-up. No one ever gave you a lecture on how it would be shameful to the person randomly punching you at the bus stop to go away; it just feels so.
Why it feels so depends on our sense of dignity, and that in turn depends on a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences, both of which are irrational and flawed too.
Justice is irrational as well. Can you even define justice? Why is it fair to hit back a person that hit you? This sounds like a eye-for-an-eye justice, and according to many if not most rationality fanboys, it is wrong! In fact, if we want to be completely rational, we should leave a murderer unpunished if we know for sure that he will never harm another person again, and just ignore the cries of the victim's relatives. We only care about logic, not about feelings, don't we?
I perceive it as self-evident that justice and dignity are irrational, just like our everyday behavior, or even altruism. No one really disagrees that these forms of irrationality have even positive aspects. Even rationalism hools like Steven Pinker recognize that the irrationality of our social behavior has good aspects as well (e.g. running in a building on fire to help a stranger). But! When it comes to politics, the economy, and the law, rationality is the only way to go! Right?
Well, I doubt it.
Do we really want a completely rational economy and legal system?
Imagine an economist giving a lecture. He is a highly intelligent and academically successful technocrat, with years of experience in finance, and working experience in banks, off-shores, universities, and ministries. As you expect, our economist is extremely rational and mathematical, and has come up with a plan for powering up our economy.
"By legalizing child prostitution, we will bring billions to the state! Pedophiles from all around the world will travel to our country for its' services, and this will propel up tourism as well. Thousands of new jobs will be created, and criminality will be reduced too, since no one will have to abduct a child and rape her! We will drug the children to prevent the psychological impact, and this will increase the profitability of pharma-corporations too!"
How does it sound? Rational, ain't it? Our economist described an actual method of growing the economy, -so why not follow it? Since it makes us richer, reduces criminality (for some definition of it), and provides a way to avoid the psychological impact to the children, what are your objections then? That it is not "right"? Says who? Elaborate. Give our economist a rational argumentation. He and his friends can always come up with rational counter-arguments.
Legalizing child prostitution is wrong mainly because our gut feeling says it is. The gut feeling in turn depends on a combination of cultural and evolutionary influences. The argumentation to justify our gut feeling is made up after contemplation, and only when explicitly asked for it. The example above is far-fetched, yet makes the point quite clear: square rationality disregarding feelings and instincts may not be the proper path towards a better tomorrow.
We would end up with monstrously inhumane economic and legal systems if we were to use pure rational reason to build them. Hospitals would deny treating you for being too old, and the cost of the treatment exceeds the benefit. Even killing non-productive people (e.g. persons with disabilities) might be an option now, since there often is no actual benefit in helping them.
The root of the problem is that much of what we take for granted in the Law and the Economy is irrational in the first place. Human rights, for instance, are not only a very recent social construction, but an irrational one: if we take all human rights one by one, there is no path of purely logical reasoning leading to them. Most of them actually just sound (and are) good.
One might claim that they are like axioms in mathematics, but mathematical axioms derive from facts (e.g. you can actually draw a euclidean line from any point A to any point B on paper), whereas cultural "axioms" such a human rights and the value of human life... well, they are more related to feelings than mathematical axioms. And there is nothing inherently wrong about that.
Our imaginary economist is not wrong about his "method" boosting economy. He is wrong for not taking cultural tamboos and human rights in the equation. Being rational is generally a good thing, but being too rational can make you weird, disgusting, or monstrous.
Where can we draw the line?
So, what is the case then? How logical should we be to avoid becoming weird? Is there a magic percentage of irrationality allowed in argumentation on politics, economics, and the law? Or should we just advocate opinions based solely on "because that's how I feel"-a soft-sounding alternative to "because I said so"?
Finding a magic percentage of irrationality allowed in is out of scope for this post. To be honest, I wouldn't bet my $5 it even exists. But we should sit back and think a second time before rejecting an opinion altogether because it seemingly lacks clear, reasonable justification. Complete rationality is unsuitable not only for our everyday behavior (helping a stranger is irrational too), but even in political and legal debate.
Our opinions are based on a combination of logical reasoning and gut feeling, and nothing is inherently wrong about that. It only becomes wrong when the illogical opinions of a minority make the life of the majority harder, but this can only be solved with more (actual) democracy, and not more rationality. Otherwise we will end up doing meaningless, never-ending debates, seemingly trying to find out who has the most arguments, but actually trying to sound smarter.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου