vimothy
yurp
The notion of rationality is also very interesting. To most modern people, rationality is strictly a means and ends issue. Economics is like the reification of this belief, in many respects. In economic theory, a rational actor is one who can solve the model for himself. That is, a rational actor knows what the maximizer of the optimization problem is. The model is objective—there’s a right answer, and many wrong answers. The right answer is the solution. It maximizes some value: utility, welfare, intertemporal consumption, profit, or whatever, and so determines the particular behaviour that brings about the best outcome, according to objective criteria.
Obviously, I think there’s a lot of value to this approach, which is why I’m studying economics. But it’s also true that it leaves a lot out. What does it leave out? Well, it leaves out everything else. And this rule or convention whereby decisions are made according to means and ends judgements is not one whose primacy is necessarily taken for granted in other times and in other places. In fact I’d say that it’s pretty specific to the modern world view that we’ve all inherited.
Strict consequentialism isn’t the only way of doing things. People have in the past—and will continue to in the future—used different standards of behaviour to guide their actions: truth, beauty, God’s will, and so on. It’s not limited to crazy-ass backwards theocracies in the Middle East either. It also happens right here in our own societies.
When you rule out all these other standards as nonsensical by definition, it seems to me that you end up with quite a strained perspective on the world. And I think you can see that in this thread.
Obviously, I think there’s a lot of value to this approach, which is why I’m studying economics. But it’s also true that it leaves a lot out. What does it leave out? Well, it leaves out everything else. And this rule or convention whereby decisions are made according to means and ends judgements is not one whose primacy is necessarily taken for granted in other times and in other places. In fact I’d say that it’s pretty specific to the modern world view that we’ve all inherited.
Strict consequentialism isn’t the only way of doing things. People have in the past—and will continue to in the future—used different standards of behaviour to guide their actions: truth, beauty, God’s will, and so on. It’s not limited to crazy-ass backwards theocracies in the Middle East either. It also happens right here in our own societies.
When you rule out all these other standards as nonsensical by definition, it seems to me that you end up with quite a strained perspective on the world. And I think you can see that in this thread.