Always Irrational
by Joseph Rowlands
Emotionalism is a policy of making decisions based on your feelings, and not on your rational judgment. Some people may choose it intentionally, thinking their emotions are some secret insight to the truth. Others may do it because they just don't want to resist their emotional responses. Like all irrational moral policies, nobody really practices it consistently. At times, they may think hard about their decisions, and go with their best rational judgment. Does this mean they're rational part of the time, and irrational part of the time?
This is a complex issue. When someone is committed to following their emotions, or just does whenever they feel strongly enough, it corrupts their rationality. Sure, there are times when they use their minds. But this only happens when they've already run the decision by their emotions. They don't act rationally because they recognize the need to do so. They do it because at times their emotions don't provide them the answers. In this way, even when they seem to be acting rationally, the process is already corrupt. Their rationality is always trumped by their emotional responses. The emotions rule, and reason is only used as a backup.
How does this compare to the virtue of rationality? Rationality puts reason first. It aims at a proper identification or reality, and choices based on that identification. It is a consistent policy of understanding the world. It is not "trumped" by any other factor, such as your emotions or any other concern. Emotionalism, by contrast, allows emotions to always trump reason. The highest purpose is no longer a commitment to recognizing reality. Even when you do resort to reason, it is never out of a commitment to understanding reality. It's just for lack of a preferred option.
There are other examples that are similar in nature. Take the idea that humans are fallible, so we can't really be sure about any particular idea. This gets used to argue for whatever irrational case someone wants. It's an instant trump card to doubt any conclusion, or to brush away any counter-evidence. Again, rationality is trumped. When the idea is accepted as a rational principle, it is an open invitation to believe whatever you want. Just like Emotionalism, this premise provides a filter to ignore the results of reason and choose based on your feelings.
Or take the premise that we can't really understand reality. Again, the results of reason only manifest when there is no desire to think otherwise. It again acts as a filter, which may or may not allow reason to win in the end.
In all of these cases, the appearance of reason is misleading. If reason is a process of identifying reality, but these processes entirely hinge on a person's desires and irrational premises, then is it even fair to call it reason? Certainly there may be some elements of reason involved in the process, but those are all entirely trumped by the irrational reasons. The fundamental method is irrational.
I think it is fair to say that when someone adopts a fundamentally irrational policy, where reason can always be trumped when there's a desire, that we're dealing with someone who is always irrational. We can contrast this with someone who is sometimes irrational. The occasionally irrational person recognizes reason as the correct standard, and doesn't believe that there is something that can trump it. Even knowing this, they may at some point act irrationally.
Why describe someone as always irrational? Is there an important difference? Or is this just another means for Objectivists to denounce one another on even stronger terms?
The difference is that the occasionally irrational person can be reached and can accept that they are wrong. Communication and persuasion is still possible, because they still understand and accept the standards. It may take some very convincing arguments, and it might not be simple, but at least there is agreement on the standards.
The always irrational person is the one who believes there is always a trump on reason. There is always an excuse to dismiss the most compelling rational arguments or evidence. If they agree with you, it's simply because they wanted to, not because they are in any way committed to the truth. The always irrational person is not someone that can be persuaded. An argument with them is no more than a game, and not a means of trying to get to the truth.
Discuss this Article (8 messages)
|
