reason

[egb_hibs]

is it a good basis for government and social policy?

imho - emphatically yes.

should it be the sole basis? more tricky i think.

if we had a purely reason based society, discrimination for example, would be much more pervasive. would this be a good thing?

discrimination - and i mean in the sense it's used pejoratively - actually continues to be pervasive today, but only where it is softened by extra-rational concerns.

for example, to quote one fairly trivial but nevertheless illustrative example from a book i read on the retreat of reason from the public fora; it's quite acceptable for insurance companies to discriminate against male drivers, based on - quite literally - stereotyping individuals based on statistical probability.

however, the same remorseless actuarial logic should - strictly speaking - lead to, for example, black people being charged more for life assurance and various forms of insurance as, sadly, they are statistically more likely to meet an untimely end and be on the wrong end of other crimes such as theft etc.

now - i think we'd all intuitively agree that for once the insurance industry has got it right by it's selective use of discrimination / application of reason (delete as suits your prejudices). some people might argue that male drivers shouldn't be penalised as they are, but i'd hope noone would argue for the unflinching application of reason in the case of black people's life assurance / insurance.

but it's always easier to judge individual, and usually extreme examples. much harder to arrive at durable bases for overall policy approaches.

i for one feel we've generally tipped too far in indulging emotional responses, superstitions and ideologies.

i'm interested in the views of the panel as it were - on all the above points, and whatever else occurs.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is it a good basis for government and social policy?

imho - emphatically yes.

should it be the sole basis? more tricky i think.

if we had a purely reason based society, discrimination for example, would be much more pervasive. would this be a good thing?

discrimination - and i mean in the sense it's used pejoratively - actually continues to be pervasive today, but only where it is softened by extra-rational concerns.

for example, to quote one fairly trivial but nevertheless illustrative example from a book i read on the retreat of reason from the public fora; it's quite acceptable for insurance companies to discriminate against male drivers, based on - quite literally - stereotyping individuals based on statistical probability.

however, the same remorseless actuarial logic should - strictly speaking - lead to, for example, black people being charged more for life assurance and various forms of insurance as, sadly, they are statistically more likely to meet an untimely end and be on the wrong end of other crimes such as theft etc.

now - i think we'd all intuitively agree that for once the insurance industry has got it right by it's selective use of discrimination / application of reason (delete as suits your prejudices). some people might argue that male drivers shouldn't be penalised as they are, but i'd hope noone would argue for the unflinching application of reason in the case of black people's life assurance / insurance.

but it's always easier to judge individual, and usually extreme examples. much harder to arrive at durable bases for overall policy approaches.

i for one feel we've generally tipped too far in indulging emotional responses, superstitions and ideologies.

i'm interested in the views of the panel as it were - on all the above points, and whatever else occurs.

I reckon it depends what you mean by a "purely reason based society". It sounds like the sort of utopian scheme the post-Rousseau philosophes sometimes advocated, or even started up. I understand your point about justified discrimination, but a deeper belief in reason as sole rationale leads you down some pretty dark corridors. The utilitarian advocacy of a tyrrany of the majority, for example, which is really where western democracy is headed anyway.

I love reason, it is a wonderful arbiter, but there are limits. So I say yes it should feature in the functions of a just society, but only within reason.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I reckon it depends what you mean by a "purely reason based society". It sounds like the sort of utopian scheme the post-Rousseau philosophes sometimes advocated, or even started up. I understand your point about justified discrimination, but a deeper belief in reason as sole rationale leads you down some pretty dark corridors. The utilitarian advocacy of a tyrrany of the majority, for example, which is really where western democracy is headed anyway.

I love reason, it is a wonderful arbiter, but there are limits. So I say yes it should feature in the functions of a just society, but only within reason. :madhair:

i agree. i intended to suggest that, maybe i got the balance wrong.

as you will be aware; i am deeply sceptical of the fundamentalists of reason; dicky dawkins et al. i also think they're largely full of shit, cos they conspicuously don't walk the walk.

as an aside - you know that i'm an unread philistine, but didn't that cant Kant rip a shred of those preoccupied with 'pure' reason, back in the day?

but nevertheless, i do think that we have tipped the wrong way into a scenario where the likes of bliar et al, mount arguments based on 'passion' or 'knowing what's right' , and where much of our discourse seems founded on a priori convictions of the heart rather than the head.

[HibeeJibee]

Prudence is IMO often left out of thinking too often, in government and in society in general. We live in a 'can-do' society but this does not mean a 'will-do' society. Decisions should be taken on the basis of reason, but also on the basis of likelihood, balance of probabilities. It makes sense to build a weapon to destroy asteroids, under 'reason', because the outcome of the (very unlikely) reality of an asteroid strike would be devastating. However it would not be prudent - the money could be better spent elsewhere; and it would not be be worthwhile - because it is very unlikely (I hope!!!!).

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by HibeeJibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Prudence is IMO often left out of thinking too often, in government and in society in general. We live in a 'can-do' society but this does not mean a 'will-do' society. Decisions should be taken on the basis of reason, but also on the basis of likelihood, balance of probabilities. It makes sense to build a weapon to destroy asteroids, under 'reason', because the outcome of the (very unlikely) reality of an asteroid strike would be devastating. However it would not be prudent - the money could be better spent elsewhere; and it would not be be worthwhile - because it is very unlikely (I hope!!!!).

It would be very prudent indeed if a big fuck-off asteroid appeared. Any money spent elsewhere would be deeply regretted at that point.

[egb_hibs]

regarding the asteroid scenario, there is not a single reasoned / rational answer.

it's a classic risk management scenario where likeliehood of occurance is weighed against impact of manifestation.

here we have an extremely low / extremely high scenario. which, a reasonable govt would have to consider versus umpteen very high / very high scenarios as well as a huge amount of others of every possible permutation.

add to all this the chances of your risk mitigation strategy actually being viable, and it's by no means a foregone conclusion that spending dosh on it is a good idea.