I would still draw a distinction between the illogical and the foolish or unwise. Being illogical is generally foolish, but the converse is not necessarily the case. The example I have given before is of a person who wants to jump off the top of a tall building, either because (a) he thinks he is superman and will be able to fly or (b) he is reckless or suicidal. In both cases the course of action is unwise, and we should try to stop him, but in (a) he is delusional while in (b) he is not. It isn't just of academic interest, either, because the approach to stopping him from doing it again is quite different in each case. Similarly with the example of the economist, the approach to stopping him will be different depending on whether he is trying to ruin the economy because he wants to or because he is incompetent or making decisions on false information.
Stathis Papaioannou

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:15:34 +0900
Subject: Re: 'reason' and ethics; was computer pain

And yet I persist ... [the hiatus of familial duties and seasonal excesses now 
draws to a close [Oh yeah, Happy New Year Folks!]
SP: 'If we are talking about a system designed to destroy the economy of a 
country in order to soften it up for invasion, for example, then an economist 
can apply all his skill and knowledge in a perfectly reasonable manner in order 
to achieve this.'
We should beware of conceding too much too soon. Something is reasonable only 
if it can truly be expected to fulfil the intentions of its designer. Otherwise 
it is at best logical but, in the kinds of context we are alluding to here, 
benighted and a manifestation of fundamentally diminished 'reason'. Something 
can only be 'reasonable' it its context. If a proposed course of action can be 
shown to be ultimately self defeating - in the sense of including its 
reasonably predictably final consequences, and yet it is still actively 
proposed, then the proposal is NOT reasonable, it is stupid. As far as I can 
see, that is the closest we can get to an objective definition of stupidity and 
I like it.
Put it this way: Is it 'reasonable' to promote policies and projects that 
ultimately are going to contribute to your own demise or the demise of those 
whom you hold dear or, if not obviously their demise then, the ultimate demise 
of all descendants of the aforementioned? I think academics, 'mandarins' and 
other high honchos should all now be thinking in these terms and asking 
themselves this question. The world we now live in is like no other before it. 
We now live in the Modern era, in which the application and fruits of the 
application of scientific method are putting ever greater forms of power into 
the hands of humans. This process is not going to stop, and nor should we want 
it to I think, but it entails the ever greater probability that the actions of 
any person on the planet have the potential to influence survival outcomes for 
huge numbers of others [if not the whole d*mned lot of us].
I think it has always been true that ethical decisions and judgements are based 
on facts to a greater extent than most people involved want to think about - 
usually because it's too hard and we don't think we have got the time and, oh 
yeah, 'it probably doesn't/won't matter' about the details of unforeseen 
consequences because its only gonna be lower class riff -raff who will be 
affected anyway or people of the future who will just have to make shift for 
themselves. NOW however we do not really have such an excuse; it is a cop-out 
to purport to ignore the ever growing interrelatedness of people around the 
planet. So it is NOT reasonable to treat other people as things. [I feel 
indebted to Terry Pratchett for pointing out, through the words of Granny 
Weatherwax I think it is, that there is only one sin, which is to treat another 
person as a thing.] I think a reasonable survey and analysis of history shows 
that, more than anything else, treating other people as things rather than 
equal others has been the fundamental cause and methodology for the spread of 
threats to life and well being.
You can see where I am going with this: in a similar way to that in which 
concepts of 'game theory' and probabilities of interaction outcomes give us an 
objective framework for assessing purportedly 'moral' precepts, the existence 
now of decidedly non-zero chances of recursive effects resulting from one's own 
actions brings a deeper meaning and increased rigour the realms of ethics and 
'reason'. I don't think this is 'airy-fairy', I think it represents a dimension 
of reasoning which has always existed but which has been denied, ignored or 
actively censored by the powerful and their 'pragmatic' apologists and spin 
doctors. To look at a particular context [I am an EX Christian], even though 
the Bible is shonk as history or any kind of principled xxxxxxological 
analysis, it is instructive to look at the careers of the prophets and see how 
each involved a seemingly conventional formative period and then periods or a 
whole life of very risky ministry AGAINST the establishment because being true 
to their mission involved the prophet denouncing exploitation, greed and 
So let me wave my imaginary staff and rail from the top of my imaginary 
'Sin is against reason! And that's a fact! So THERE! And don't you forget it, 
or you'll be sorry, or at least your children and their children will become 
so! Put that in your pipes all you armchair philosophers!'
Mark Peaty  CDES
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Mark Peaty writes:
Sorry to be so slow at responding here but life [domestic], the universe and 
everything else right now is competing savagely with this interesting 
discussion. [But one must always think positive; 'Bah, Humbug!' is not 
appropriate, even though the temptation is great some times :-]
I am not entirely convinced when you say: 'And the psychopath is right: no-one 
can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic'
That would only be right if we allowed that his [psychopathy is mostly a male 
affliction I believe] use of words is easily as reasonable as yours or mine. 
However, where the said psycho. is purporting to make authoritative statements 
about the world, it is not OK for him to purport that what he describes is 
unquestionably factual and his reasoning from the facts as he sees them is 
necessarily authoritative for anyone else. This is because, qua psychopath, he 
is not able to make the fullest possible free decisions about what makes people 
tick or even about what is reality for the rest of us. He is, in a sense, 
mortally wounded, and forever impaired; condemned always to make only 'logical' 
decisions. :-)
The way I see it, roughly and readily, is that there are in fact certain 
statements/descriptions about the world and our place in it which are MUCH MORE 
REASONABLE than a whole lot of others. I think therefore that, even though you 
might be right from a 'purely logical' point of view when you say the 
following: 'In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact 
or logic, and if it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption 
in fact, from the point of view of practical living and the necessities of 
survival, the correct approach is to assert what amounts to a set of practical 
axioms, including:
 *   the mere fact of existence is the basis of value, that good and bad are 
expressed differently within - and between - different cultures and their 
sub-cultures but ultimately there is an objective, absolute basis for the 
concept of 'goodness', because in all normal circumstances it is better to 
exist than not to exist,
 *   related to this and arising out of it is the realisation that all normal, 
healthy humans understand what is meant by both 'harm' and 'suffering', 
certainly those who have reached adulthood,
 *   furthermore, insofar as it is clearly recognisable that continuing to 
exist as a human being requires access to and consumption of all manner of 
natural resources and human-made goods and services, it is in our interests to 
nurture and further the inclinations in ourselves and others to behave in ways 
supportive of cooperation for mutual and general benefit wherever this is 
reasonably possible, and certainly not to act destructively or disruptively 
unless it is clear that doing so will prevent a much greater harm from 
It ought to be clear to all reasonable persons not engaged in self deception 
that in this modern era each and everyone of us is dependent - always - on at 
least a thousand other people doing the right thing, or trying to anyway. Thus 
the idea of 'manly', rugged, individualism is a romantic nonsense unless it 
also incorporates a recognition of mutual interdependence and the need for real 
fairness in social dealings at every level. Unless compassion, democracy and 
ethics are recognised [along with scientific method] as fundamental 
prerequisites for OUR survival, policies and practices will pretty much 
inevitably become self-defeating and destructive, no matter how 
well-intentioned to start with.
In the interest of brevity I add the following quasi-axioms.
 *   the advent of scientific method on Earth between 400 and 500 years ago has 
irreversibly transformed the human species so that now we can reasonably assert 
that the human universe is always potentially infinite, so long as it exists 
and we believe it to be so
 *   to be fully human requires taking responsibility for one's actions and 
this means consciously choosing to do things or accepting that one has made a 
choice even if one cannot remember consciously choosing
 *   nobody knows the future, so all statements about the future are either 
guesswork or statements of desires. Furthermore our lack of knowledge of times 
to come is very deep, such that we have no truly reasonable basis for 
dismissing the right to survive of any persons on the planet - or other living 
species for that matter - unless it can be clearly shown that such killing or 
allowing to die, is necessary to prevent some far greater harm and the 
assertion of this is of course hampered precisely by our lack of knowledge of 
the future
This feels incomplete but it needs to be sent.
Mark Peaty  CDES
I agree with you as far as advice for how to live a good life goes, but I guess where I 
disagree is on the technical matter of what we call reasonable. Peter Jones said that a 
system of economics designed to create universal poverty is not reasonable. I would agree 
*given* that the purpose of an economic system is not to create poverty. If we are 
talking about a system designed to destroy the economy of a country in order to soften it 
up for invasion, for example, then an economist can apply all his skill and knowledge in 
a perfectly reasonable mannner in order to achieve this. The human values driving an 
economic system, although we can predict what they might be in the majority of cases, are 
subjective states and are beyond reason: this is what I want, this is what I like, and 
you can't tell me otherwise. This stands in contrast to empirical statements such as 
"the Earth is flat", which is true or false independently of what anyone thinks 
or wants.
Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.

Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to