As regarding most things, this will revolve largely around particular circumstantial contexts and the particular [and often conflicting] manner in which individuals view them. But clearly some things are demonstratably more rational than others.
Take abortion, for example. Suppose someone says the most rational way to perform one is to go down through the nose with a plumber’s snake. That is clearly irrational. And if someone was intent on doing this I believe intervention would be rather pressing.
But suppose someone says that choosing to have an abortion that is performed rationally is still irrational morally. How would one go about demonstrating this?
Or take clitorectomies. Is this a rational behavior? Should it be declared an irrational behavior and stopped? Should we go so far as to invade foreign communities that practice this and put an end to it?
Or Burkas. Is it irrational for Muslim women to wear them? Should it be deemed illegal to wear them?
Or how about religious communities that refuse to take their children to doctors when they are sick because they predicate everything on “God’s Will”. Is that irrational? Should it be stopped?
Or even the parents who named their children after dead Nazis. The children were taken from them. Is this rational?
As with the Nazi parents, where this gets tricky is the part that revolves around children. Are there rational lines that can be drawn here regarding what we permit parents to teach their children—or to allow their children to do?
I think eventually we have to own up to the limitations of philosophy here. There are just some things that cannot be differentiated as either rational or irrational.
Instead, we have to fall back on moderation, negociation and comnpromise. On democracy and the rule of law.
Let me pose this question to you. Given your irrational atheistic beliefs, to what degree do I have a right to intervene in your life and save you from eternal damnation? That question was asked during the Dark Ages and by the Inquisition. The accepted answer now (at least locally) is that we do not have a right to force our beliefs onto others.
Excellent point. However, let’s pose a different version of that question–
Given an irrational belief in genocide, to what degree do I have a right to intervene in your life and save you from committing crimes against humanity?
We have a right to force our beliefs so long as we feel justified by consensus. Like Xunxian said, it is a matter of circumstances and context. There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer.
Fine with me personally, even if they were personal family.
My means of measure would just call this eccentric since they are still quite functional.
Let me put it this way.
A boy is born and has a very normal life, having received a standard education and had very little trauma in his life. At the age of 18, he decides with no real evidence that a pile of dirt contains the potential for free energy. There is nothing special about the dirt; he picks it up at random. But he believes it is possible to derive free energy from dirt alone by adding nothing but milk to it. He is an independent and affable individual whenever he encounters others, pays his way and keeps himself healthy. However, in his spare time he talks constantly about his free energy machine, wherever he can possibly find a function to discuss it at. Furthermoe, he devotes ALL his spare time to finding free energy from dirt and milk after he has done any necessary deeds for the day (i.e. eating, work). He doesn’t direstly harm any others but is essentially what one might describe as a very insular man.
I mean…really; there’s little difference between your rock-boy and John Hutchison
That’s Hutchison’s house; it is void of nearly every piece of furniture to make room for any random piece of heavy electronics that he can find, preferably post military, in search for the answers to electromagnetic…everything; free energy, levitation, and probably even more if you stand with him long enough to hear more.
Hell, honestly, Newton (by all accounts) would be today classed as a reclusive obsessive compulsive.
A fair point; is it hypocritical to pick on singular cases and not deal with the question in general? The point that the ‘line can never be drawn’ is precisely the point of this thread really, exposing the way we let some beliefs go and intervene on others, whether it be through good old fashioned rhetoric or actual medical intervention.
I’m not sur this point makes sense to me though, whilst it it true that you ‘can’t stop kittens from being kittens’ (this is a perfectly palatable idea), it doesn’t it an arbitrary line to draww in the society that we live in. I mean, we have entire parliments dedicated to it! If you are in fact speaking about the nature of rationality in general in a philosophical sense, as I said at the start of the thread - I don’t want it to get bogged down with this sort of discussion too much. But carry on anyway.
Well, this is good, but pretty much all of these examples include one harming another, which I think generally we all agree ends up in the conclusion that there should be intervention at a certain point, depending on how harmful it is.
Indeed. But we have to try, because behaviour in general exists! We have to for the sake of society.
I think that is easily covered by laws which prevent people from physically harming themselves and others. In terms of intervening when no physical harm is being done, I don’t think we have a ‘right’ to do that.
Now using that standard consider Iambiguous’ point of clitoridectomies (or circumcision). It appears to be physical harm but has a long cultural tradition. I don’t know what the correct answer concerning intervention might be.
Again, this example involves actual real harm to others so it would be pretty easy to say we should intervene I guess. Whereas a general innocuous belief such as my irrational ( ) beliefs that there is no god or equally somebody elses that there is does not harm if kept firmly as a belief (of course, it can come to harm if too rigorously imposed on others)
Phyllo -
If we put aside the question of whether there is even a spectrum of rationality/irrationality for the moment and just go with our instinct.
What about the lad who deifies his rock as I posted earlier? I’m just trying to incite good conversation here really, playing devils advocate I guess.
Crikey, for the record I didn’t know that guy existed. But yeah it is rather similar I guess. In Newton’s case, it clearly turned out for the better. But should we let every case go?
Do you ever feel sorry for people whom you consider to have what you consider to be irrational beliefs? If not then I see how you came to your conclusion. But I kinda do…and it sometimes makes me want to intervene regardless of whether it should be done or not.
Well, that’s not a fair question is it, because how do we know when something won’t turn out for the better?
Nicoli Tesla was another lunatic.
The man was talking about communicating with aliens, transmitting telephone calls through air itself, designing super electric blast wave weapons theoretically, was deeply afraid of pigeons, seriously…dangerously even…riddled with obsessive compulsive disorder (could not live but in one room number, places had to be in specific orders, I think it was napkins also freaked him out - but I could be wrong on that last one).
The problem is…you can’t tell who’s going to become Hitler and who’s going to become Newton.
There’s, thankfully, no means to do so yet.
All I do know is that some of histories most brilliant minds have also been among some of the most afflicted and obsessed.
I suppose that is the general direction I am going. I’m coming from the point of view of having 2 crazy people in a room and telling them both do discern which of them is the crazy one and why. A pointless exercise when you already know both to be crazy.
And while we do have governments established to essentially create a line between tolerable and intolerable, many of those government bodies are no longer tolerated to begin with. So the very institution that was created to keep things in check is now seen on the opposite side of the line that they worked to create.
I suppose I am in agreement with the majority of posts in this thread so far, you’d have to clearly define ‘rational’ before you could move forward, and I don’t think that is a possibility. 2 crazy people cannot sit down and decide which of the 2 is the actual crazy person.
Sorry if this is derailing to yoru discussion at all, I may have misunderstood the intention
I believe that there is a very thin line separating genius from lunacy. What is genius if not looking at the world in different and unique ways which happen to be ‘correct’ or successful as judged by society? Usually that judgment comes later after the benefit becomes clear.
Expand?
Two crazy people in a room: implies an external person judging them to be crazy.
Two people in a room cannot determine who is crazy or sane. Now with three people in a room, two people can agree to be sane and can label the third one crazy.
You’re right that we can’t determine it, but in relation to the original question, at which point do we intervene (if at all)? It could be argued that we need to sometimes (in the case of what is deemed to be mentally ill), otherwise we end up with a big fat Hitler.
Exactly. Our species lacks the outside observer to determine who is crazy or sane, so how can we decide what acts are rational and which are not? We can’t, we’re all in the room together and we’re all (at least in my opinion) pretty damn crazy. So determining when to intervene and when to let be is not a puzzle that seems solvable.
In regards to the government, here in my section of the US anytime Obama does anything it’s the worst thing that has ever happened since the last thing he did. Everything that Obama and his cronies enact is just a bunch of luny nonsense. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with these opinions, but rather that the person who was elected into this position by the people of my country is now the worst person for the job because of his actions. So even though we have an entire institution for directing the country in the right direction, and that institution is staffed by the people of our choosing, it’s still all wrong and needs to be changed. So in regards to the original statement (I believe made by Cheegster), having entire parliments in place dedicated to deciding what is rational or not is almost useless, since it seems to sway in the breeze of public opinion to begin with. And public opinion is just a lot of crazy people in a lot of rooms in an apartment building.
I would say the intervention is only really needed when harm is brought about in potential amongst others.
I dare not condone the idea of interpreting if their behavior is a threat unto their own self as really…so many people of “sane” minds partake in behaviors which are radically dangerous to themselves.
Alain Robert is foremost in my mind of such sane individuals that threaten their own safety.
) beliefs that there is no god or equally somebody elses that there is does not harm if kept firmly as a belief (of course, it can come to harm if too rigorously imposed on others)
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
