If this is what you want your future to be like...

[One-Eye]

Again, you're not using the word properly. If you're hungry, you eat. If you're tired, you sleep. Rational, yes?

That's acting in self-interest. Any action you take that is deliberately self-destructive is irrational. To be rational, or reasonable, you must be trying to stay alive. Sawing off your arm is not rational.

Self-interest is entirely rational. If you disagree, prove it.

I do disagree. First off, self-destructive actions are not inherently irrational. Again, you've misdefined the word to mean "anything that benefits the individual", but for the moment, I'll go along with that definition. You and your daughter are in a boat, and the boat begins to sink. There is one lifejacket and neither of you can swim. If you save yourself, that's in your best interest. But if you save your daughter, it is ALSO in your best interest, because she carries your genes and allows them to survive. If you are past reproductive age and she is your only child, it makes MORE sense to save her and sacrifice yourself.

Of course, there are less extreme examples. Humans, unlike other animals, have the capacity for logic, reason, and foresight. This is important. Because when we are hungry, it is NOT always rational to eat. What if the only food we have happens to be infected with botulism? This knowledge makes it more rational to avoid eating it. When we are horny, it's NOT always rational to have sex. What if there's a virulent STD going around, and you can't be sure whether your partner has it or not? These are but two examples out of many in which "eat" does NOT logically follow hunger, and "sex" does NOT logically follow horniness.

Therefore, self-destructive actions are NOT always irrational. Sometimes they are merely the less-self-destructive of the options before you.

IN THE SAME WAY, government is in your best interest. If that is how you define rationalism, then government is entirely rational. People can not do everything themselves - we cannot purify water, police our property, test out new drugs, build roads, yadda yadda yadda, ourselves. So we pay somebody else to do them so that we can live as we see fit in our own self-interest. Rational.

Now, before you say that "private companies could do all those things too!", yes this is true. The difference would be, instead of paying taxes every year, you'd pay a turnpike on every road you chose to drive on, you'd pay the policing company to find the guy who murdered your wife, you'd pay each time you used a drinking fountain, and so on. This may or may not be considered a better option - that's a personal choice. BOTH are equally rational.

However, that's not the way it is. To simplify some history for you, a long time ago, a bunch of people got together and said, "How about if we form a system that takes care of public affairs and protects the people? If you want to live in this system, you'll have to agree to pay for the services and to be subject to the laws we form." Everyone thought this was a good idea, so they formed a country, fought for some land, and set up shop. A few hundred years later, you were born in such a country. The law still stands: if you live on the land the country has staked out, claimed, fought for, protected, and policed, you agree to follow the rules of that society. They DO own the land. If someone dropped a bomb on your house, who will go after them? The government. If another person tried to claim your house, who would protect your right to live there? The government. You own your land, but you do not preside over it. The government does. Therefore, they have every right to use force to make you follow their rules - JUST as you have the right to make the rules when it concerns your own property.

Just because you were born in the country doesn't mean you own any part of it. The land is not yours. It is theirs. If you tried to secede from the country and rule over your own land, this would make you a thief (and a treasonist), and the government would do its best to get its land back. If you succeeded in fending them off and getting them to recognize your yard's status as independent, THEN you could go around calling it your land and saying nobody has a right to tell you what to do on it. Until that happens, this behavior is irrational.

If you feel I am wrong or illogical in this reasoning, prove it.

Again, for a rule to be logical/rational it must apply in all circumstances.

Quite right. Self-interest doesn't apply in all circumstances (see above). Therefore, self interest cannot be defined as logical. Try again.

Therefore, taking ANYTHING into account besides the action itself is not rational.

This statement is incorrect. In order for a rule to work, it has to work in all circumstances, otherwise it's not a rule. Therefore, all rules MUST take into account everything in the environment (including the actions of others) that could affect the action.

For instance: "One plus one equals two" is a rule. In all circumstances, it is true.

But "Force is illogical" is NOT a rule, because you yourself have admitted there are plenty of times when you would be willing to use force against someone else (e.g. if they break into your home).

"Private companies could do just as well in 'governmental' roles as the government" is also NOT a rule. The word "well" is subjective. Irrational.

Moral of the tirade: rules must reflect reality in ALL circumstances.

keep in mind that the interests of others and the rights of others are different things.

You claim it is your right to act in your best interest. This may or may not be the case, but if you postulate that, must you not also postulate that others have the right to act in their interest?

circumstance to disprove a logical rule doesn't work. What if he's not a member of any gang? Then i win. Now your supposed logic has a fatal contradiction.

Logical fallacy. In order to prove something true, you must prove it in all cases, in all circumstances. This is why it's so difficult to make rules that work (see above). However, in order to prove something false, you must only show one circumstance in which it doesn't work. My ONE example completely disproves your assertion that it is always best to act in your self interest. In the case I suggested, it wasn't. Therefore, your "rule" is illogical.

Moving on.

Ultimately, the only action we can take to suspend the power of others to act logically is the use of force. If you don't like the results of my choices, don't hang around with me. That's your right. I can only take it from you by force.

And if you don't like the government, don't hang around in a governed country. That's your right. And none of us are forcing you to stay where you are.

Before you whine that "but everywhere in the world is governed!", that's untrue. There are plenty of tiny islands out there with no ruling body. Go nuts.

That may be true, but that doesn't make it rational. Again, circumstances. What if in reality everyone did act rationally? again your logic now has a contradiction.

Nope. Again, you are misunderstanding the tenets of logic:

Proof by example:

You say people always wash their hands after peeing. I say they don't.

To prove you wrong, all I have to do is show you ONE person not washing after peeing.

To prove me wrong, you must somehow show me ALL people after EVERY time they've ever peed, washing their hands EACH time.

In the same way, you posited that acting in one's self-interest is ALWAYS rational. I showed you one example in which it isn't rational. Therefore, I proved you wrong.

In order for your rebuttal to have made any sense, I would have had to have posited that acting selfishly is NEVER rational. I did no such thing.

As such, your "logic" isn't logic at all. Perhaps you need to read up on it more?

How can you say that cirucmstances that only apply today and may not apply tommorow somehow invalidate that theory?

Because I just did. Anarchy isn't always rational. Therefore, it isn't a rule. Therefore, it isn't rational to follow it.

Government isn't always rational either. Therefore, it isn't a rule. Therefore, it isn't rational to follow that either.

So logically, we're at an impasse. Whatever we choose to follow from here on in is no longer based on logic. It's emotion. I don't mind being governed. You do mind it. No logic involved, only opinion.

So we should stop trying to logically prove the other theory wrong. They are equally wrong. And equally right. Whatever we support is a personal choice.

you can't! circumstance is not a logical proof. self-government is rational, rule by the majority is not.

Oh! But I just did. Circumstance may not be a logical proof, but it is a perfectly viable logical disproof. Ergo, neither viewpoint is rational, because neither works in all circumstances. Like it or not, we're treading on emotional territory here.

[Narbus]

right, and all that works for you. you want the third party, right? but the thing is, i don't. i don't want them. for government to have more resources then you, it has to get them from somebody. in this case, it's me. how come your wants override mine? is there a logical reason for it?

agreed. i could accept a libertarian government.

Well that solves that.

Here's the problem: For me to be safe, I need a safe neighborhood. If I live next to a crack house, then I am not safe.
Of course, under a government that acts only to ensure the safety of its citizens, even if you aren't a citizen, so long as you don't endanger anyone, you're fine. No harm, no foul.

Here's the next problem. Let's say I live next door to a crack house, which is next door to you. I am not safe with this place next to me, so the government, acting to protect my life, comes and calms things down in some way. Maybe they just say please, I dunno, but things are better.
You, also being next door to the crack house, clearly benefited from the service. In fact, for ME to benefit, you have to benefit. Yet I pay taxes, and you don't. Fair?

However, that system is flawed, logically, because the individual who makes up the minority is not represented. his views are no less valid then the views of the majority. is there a logical reason that he cannot live according to his own values? no.

society is not based on force. government is. i can only give you one example, and it's from fiction. I submit John Galt's Gulch. Can anybody give me one good reason that John Galt's gulch wouldn't work?

Because eventually the nasty little bunny would come along and exorcise the spirt of Ayn Rand from the ferret. [/obscure reference]

Anyway. Galt's Gulch is the utopian, hidden society in the mountains, where the creative and intellectual elite of the world run away to in order to escape the barbarism and control of the rest of the world. Lacking these individuals, the rest of the world descends further and further, while those in the Gulch prosper without government rule, acting only for the best interests of the individual.
(I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, though it sits on my shelf, this is what I've picked up from various sources.)

The obvious "why it wouldn't work" is the existance of the moron. We would have to physically hide the place from the world, and be damn careful with educating the youth so they don't turn out to be assholes, and be elitists about who gets in.
Given that you dislike the way our government considers certain people to be better than others, this elitist stance does seem to run contrary to your mission.

and they argue about things that are important to them, not you. Aerin keeps saying "we live in the real world", and i say that in the real world, the honest truth is that 90% of politicians don't give a shit about you and are trying to advance their own agenda.

See my libertarian leanings.

well, you see, i didn't steal the land from the natives. why should i be the one who suffers?

And they didn't ask to have their land stolen. Why should they be the ones to suffer?

it's time to put an end to this. Selfish means "concerned chiefly or only with oneself". There's nothing illogical about that. But the motivation does not justify the action, if you kill me out of selfishness, the murder is still irrational.

(emphasis mine)

Ah, justice. What an emotional concept.

for lots of things appealing to emotion. for things appealing to logic, i do not.

Society is based upon emotion. Logically, I could also do without people. I can grow a garden, store for the winter, or move to more temperate climates.
Socially, however, I need people. That's always been my point. You can logic all you want, but at the end of the day it the other people that make it all worthwhile, so isn't it worth it to be nice, even if it isn't always logical?

i face the concequences of my actions. if you mean a disgruntled employee who was laid off for incompetance coming to my house and shooting me, that is not a concequence of my firing him but more a concequence of him being irrational, and a total fucking psycho.

Oh, and he's all like "NO, I was a good employee, and a hard worker!!" And then you're like "Bob. You ate 16 contracts and took a dump on the VP's car. You're insane." And then he's all "NO. THAT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED." And you're like "Bob. We're in the parking garage. I can see the dump." Bob's such a jerk.

Sometimes I like to just type and see what happens. Anyway.

A scenario: You start dating a girl from india. She likes to belly dance. Upon meeting your parents, your mother decides that belly dancing is interesting, and decides to take it up.
She then makes it on Letterman's Stupid Human Tricks, and does her belly dance, complete with native dress. Then thanks her "Adorable little son Doug, who's just swell."
Logically, nothing wrong happened here.
Emotionally, don't you kinda wish your mom would just put on a fucking robe already?

These would be the repurcussions. The ones that have emotional impacts count too.

i see both sides too. but i think one of them is always wrong. i'm never going to argue for the wrong side.

you should try www.self-gov.org and see how much of what they say appeals to you.

the last paragraph of your post sounds libertarian leaning to me.

I have had enough occurances where I start arguing against myself, and realize old myself was a complete idiot, and current myself is actually on the right path that I no longer assume which side is right and which is wrong.

According to self-gov.org, I am a rather strong libertarian, with 90% personal, and 80% economic. (I'm still undecided on drug laws for the personal, and unsure about the idea of "user fees" and haven't read up enough on free trade for the economic, if you're wondering.)

[One-Eye]

A scenario: You start dating a girl from india. She likes to belly dance. Upon meeting your parents, your mother decides that belly dancing is interesting, and decides to take it up.
She then makes it on Letterman's Stupid Human Tricks, and does her belly dance, complete with native dress. Then thanks her "Adorable little son Doug, who's just swell."
Logically, nothing wrong happened here.
Emotionally, don't you kinda wish your mom would just put on a fucking robe already?

That is the funniest, and most random, thing I've read all day.

[mosaik]

I do disagree. First off, self-destructive actions are not inherently irrational. Again, you've misdefined the word to mean "anything that benefits the individual", but for the moment, I'll go along with that definition. You and your daughter are in a boat, and the boat begins to sink. There is one lifejacket and neither of you can swim. If you save yourself, that's in your best interest. But if you save your daughter, it is ALSO in your best interest, because she carries your genes and allows them to survive. If you are past reproductive age and she is your only child, it makes MORE sense to save her and sacrifice yourself.

Self destructive actions are inherently irrational. Anything you do that takes away from the advance of your life is irrational, it is rational to want to advance your life, therefore it cannot be rational to wish to harm yourself.

On to your example. Suicide is irrational. You cannot benefit from your own death, it is impossible – why?

….. because you’re dead. It doesn’t make MORE sense to save her, at least not to me, because I’m dead. What do I care if my genes are spread – I’m dead.

And again, this is circumstance. You have still not shown me why the idea that “rationally doing what is necessary to stay alive”, or acting in self-interest, is somehow irrational. You have shown me that in certain situations there will be unintended consequences like with your robber/gang member example but you have not proven that acting in your own self-interest while remaining true to the tenets and boundaries of logic is irrational.

Of course, there are less extreme examples. Humans, unlike other animals, have the capacity for logic, reason, and foresight. This is important. Because when we are hungry, it is NOT always rational to eat. What if the only food we have happens to be infected with botulism? This knowledge makes it more rational to avoid eating it. When we are horny, it's NOT always rational to have sex. What if there's a virulent STD going around, and you can't be sure whether your partner has it or not? These are but two examples out of many in which "eat" does NOT logically follow hunger, and "sex" does NOT logically follow horniness.

Therefore, self-destructive actions are NOT always irrational. Sometimes they are merely the less-self-destructive of the options before you.

Are you attempting to prove the action of “eating” to be illogical? And if so, why are you using a set of circumstances to do so? let me break it down for you: Problem: body needs fuels to continue functioning. Logical solution: eat.

This rule always applies. Always. Even if the food in front of you has botulism, the above statement is no less true. If the food in front of you is unsafe, obviously you don’t eat it. However, in order to continue LIVING you still need to EAT. Understand?

Problem: The human race is facing extinction if more humans are not created. Solution: Reproduce.

Again, always applies. IF the person you are having sex with reveals that they have and STD, to stop sleeping with them would be rational. Does that mean that the above rule is invalid?

NO. That’s LOGIC. There is no such thing as “circumstantial logic”. Either you’re being logical or you’re NOT.

IN THE SAME WAY, government is in your best interest. If that is how you define rationalism, then government is entirely rational. People can not do everything themselves - we cannot purify water, police our property, test out new drugs, build roads, yadda yadda yadda, ourselves. So we pay somebody else to do them so that we can live as we see fit in our own self-interest. Rational.

Now, before you say that "private companies could do all those things too!", yes this is true. The difference would be, instead of paying taxes every year, you'd pay a turnpike on every road you chose to drive on, you'd pay the policing company to find the guy who murdered your wife, you'd pay each time you used a drinking fountain, and so on. This may or may not be considered a better option - that's a personal choice. BOTH are equally rational.

No, both are not. One involves the use of coercive force, the other involves the use of choice. Must I explain again why coercive force is irrational?

However, that's not the way it is. To simplify some history for you, a long time ago, a bunch of people got together and said, "How about if we form a system that takes care of public affairs and protects the people? If you want to live in this system, you'll have to agree to pay for the services and to be subject to the laws we form." Everyone thought this was a good idea, so they formed a country, fought for some land, and set up shop.

Everyone did not. I have posted articles confirming that, in fact, VERY FEW people were consulted when the government of the usa was founded, in fact the better % of the populace didn’t even know there WAS a federal government until later on. Canada was founded as a colony, nobody was given a CHOICE about whether or not they condoned the government.

A few hundred years later, you were born in such a country. The law still stands: if you live on the land the country has staked out, claimed, fought for, protected, and policed, you agree to follow the rules of that society. They DO own the land. If someone dropped a bomb on your house, who will go after them? The government. If another person tried to claim your house, who would protect your right to live there? The government. You own your land, but you do not preside over it. The government does. Therefore, they have every right to use force to make you follow their rules - JUST as you have the right to make the rules when it concerns your own property.

The government does not protect my home. If a man breaks into my house and I want to wait for the cops, the bad guy will very likely get away before the cops arrive – if I even get a chance to alert the police to the villains presence. If I take matters into my own hands, well “If I find you here tonight, you will be found here tomorrow” applies.

Just because you were born in the country doesn't mean you own any part of it. The land is not yours. It is theirs.

I disagree. Show me rationally why you’re right and I’m not.

If you tried to secede from the country and rule over your own land, this would make you a thief (and a treasonist), and the government would do its best to get its land back.

I disagree. I would be taking property that I rightfully earned. Whats your rational objection to that statement?

If you succeeded in fending them off and getting them to recognize your yard's status as independent, THEN you could go around calling it your land and saying nobody has a right to tell you what to do on it. Until that happens, this behavior is irrational.

Sorry, I fail to see where you proved that.

If you feel I am wrong or illogical in this reasoning, prove it.

Alright. I’m an able man. I go to work in the mornings and do a job, where I do my best to excel at it. As a result I am paid a reasonable wage by my employer. With this money I choose to purchase a lot, build a home, and furnish it. I own all the materials that are used to build the home, and I lease the tools and skills of competent contractors to assist me. Logically, I own that home. The government did not assist me in it’s financing, it’s construction or it’s furnishing. What claim to they have to it where I can’t make a better one?

Quite right. Self-interest doesn't apply in all circumstances (see above). Therefore, self interest cannot be defined as logical. Try again.

Your above example was illogical, and based on circumstance. It fails.

This statement is incorrect. In order for a rule to work, it has to work in all circumstances, otherwise it's not a rule. Therefore, all rules MUST take into account everything in the environment (including the actions of others) that could affect the action.

No, that statement is incorrect. Logic does not take circumstance into account, and I’ll tell you why – because you can never fully know what another person will do in ANY given circumstance. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to do anything logically because I could never fully know ALL the affecting factors. If we go by your perception, nothing is logical and nobody ever is. That’s NOT in line with Aristotles idea. You can’t use “logic” to prove that logic doesn’t exist!

For instance: "One plus one equals two" is a rule. In all circumstances, it is true.

That’s wrong. There are all kinds of weird answers to the problem 1 + 1 = x that I honestly don’t understand, but mathematicians are getting 3, 10, a million, I don’t know. The only time that the idea of 1 + 1 = 2 is true is when you’re using it to identify objects in the physical world, IE, how many apples do I have?

But "Force is illogical" is NOT a rule, because you yourself have admitted there are plenty of times when you would be willing to use force against someone else (e.g. if they break into your home).

You’re right. Allow me to modify my statement: Coercive force, or pre-emptive force, is illogical.

"Private companies could do just as well in 'governmental' roles as the government" is also NOT a rule. The word "well" is subjective. Irrational.

It’s an opinion, that’s all. It’s not usable in a logical debate. Agreed. However, the statement would very likely turn out to be true.

Moral of the tirade: rules must reflect reality in ALL circumstances.

But how can a man ever know what ALL the circumstances will be? He can’t, unless he is a mind reader, it is IMPOSSIBLE. To say “In order to be logical you must be able to do THE IMPOSSIBLE” is not logical.

You claim it is your right to act in your best interest. This may or may not be the case, but if you postulate that, must you not also postulate that others have the right to act in their interest?

Others do have that same right. I have never claimed anything else.

Logical fallacy. In order to prove something true, you must prove it in all cases, in all circumstances. This is why it's so difficult to make rules that work (see above). However, in order to prove something false, you must only show one circumstance in which it doesn't work. My ONE example completely disproves your assertion that it is always best to act in your self interest. In the case I suggested, it wasn't. Therefore, your "rule" is illogical.

First of all, in your example I ended up DEAD. That’s hardly the BEST outcome for me. It is my personal opinion that acting in my own interest will always yield the best result for me. I did not say that EVERYONE will agree. I simply asserted that MY beliefs are rational. You have not disproved this as of yet – you need to asses the following idea: Problem:I want to excel in life. Solution: I act in my own self-interest while remaining bound by the boundaries of logic.

If that’s illogical, show me how. Watch me do it: Problem: I want to go to school. Solution: I go to a school funded by government taxes.

Is that logical? I’m afraid not. Why? It doesn’t hold true if you get rid of government. You see? Self-interest does not depend on a circumstance, but the example I just provided depended on the government.

And if you don't like the government, don't hang around in a governed country. That's your right. And none of us are forcing you to stay where you are.

Again, refer to chris’ example about the man who breaks into your home and cooks you dinner. In that example, is it your responsibility to leave?

Before you whine that "but everywhere in the world is governed!", that's untrue. There are plenty of tiny islands out there with no ruling body. Go nuts.

I’m not whining. But everywhere in the world is governed. If that’s not true, name one of these so-called tiny islands.

Nope. Again, you are misunderstanding the tenets of logic:

Proof by example:

You say people always wash their hands after peeing. I say they don't.

To prove you wrong, all I have to do is show you ONE person not washing after peeing.

To prove me wrong, you must somehow show me ALL people after EVERY time they've ever peed, washing their hands EACH time.

In the same way, you posited that acting in one's self-interest is ALWAYS rational. I showed you one example in which it isn't rational. Therefore, I proved you wrong.

People always wash their hands is not a logical statement. A person who believes in logic as I do would never say that. However, saying people always wash their hands is not comparable to saying self interest is rational. Saying people always wash their hands presumes that you have some way of KNOWING what a man will do, as we already discussed, that’s impossible, and therefore illogical. Acting in self-interest only requires knowledge of one’s own actions. Not to mention, you didn’t prove me wrong yet. See above.

In order for your rebuttal to have made any sense, I would have had to have posited that acting selfishly is NEVER rational. I did no such thing.

Aha! But you DID. According to Rand/Aristotle and the process of LOGIC… dun da da dun… there ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS!! Therefore, if something is not rational it MUST be irrational! Otherwise you have a contradiction!

And I’m the one who doesn’t understand logic?

Because I just did. Anarchy isn't always rational. Therefore, it isn't a rule. Therefore, it isn't rational to follow it.

and when was THIS proved? Self-government is the most rational way to live, as there is no force involved, and you make your own mind up. Therefore you always have choice and you always have the option to make the RATIONAL choice.

Government isn't always rational either. Therefore, it isn't a rule. Therefore, it isn't rational to follow that either.

Agreed.

So logically, we're at an impasse. Whatever we choose to follow from here on in is no longer based on logic. It's emotion. I don't mind being governed. You do mind it. No logic involved, only opinion.

you think my opinion of government is based on my emotion?

So we should stop trying to logically prove the other theory wrong. They are equally wrong. And equally right. Whatever we support is a personal choice.

You’re right that it’s a personal choice, but they can’t both be wrong… contradiction! One is logical, the other isn’t.

Oh! But I just did. Circumstance may not be a logical proof, but it is a perfectly viable logical disproof. Ergo, neither viewpoint is rational, because neither works in all circumstances. Like it or not, we're treading on emotional territory here.

again, things don’t NEED to “work” in all circumstances to be logical. They just need to be LOGICAL. You’re saying eating is illogical because some food has botulism, and I’m saying bottom line is that the problem + solution = no problem holds true in the case of Body Needs Fuel + Fuel fed to body by Eating = Survival.

Logic is not circumstantial.

[mosaik]

Here's the problem: For me to be safe, I need a safe neighborhood. If I live next to a crack house, then I am not safe.
Of course, under a government that acts only to ensure the safety of its citizens, even if you aren't a citizen, so long as you don't endanger anyone, you're fine. No harm, no foul.

Why does the crack house endanger your safety? If they're just smoking crack and screwing the crack whores in their, as filthy as that is, they're not putting you in any danger?

Here's the next problem. Let's say I live next door to a crack house, which is next door to you. I am not safe with this place next to me, so the government, acting to protect my life, comes and calms things down in some way. Maybe they just say please, I dunno, but things are better.
You, also being next door to the crack house, clearly benefited from the service. In fact, for ME to benefit, you have to benefit. Yet I pay taxes, and you don't. Fair?

Yes. Did you benefity any less? You wanted the crack house gone, and it's gone. You were prepared to pay a certain fee in order to see that the crack house was removed. I have nothing against the crack house, i'm not interested in paying the fee.

Anyway. Galt's Gulch is the utopian, hidden society in the mountains, where the creative and intellectual elite of the world run away to in order to escape the barbarism and control of the rest of the world. Lacking these individuals, the rest of the world descends further and further, while those in the Gulch prosper without government rule, acting only for the best interests of the individual.
(I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, though it sits on my shelf, this is what I've picked up from various sources.)

The obvious "why it wouldn't work" is the existance of the moron. We would have to physically hide the place from the world, and be damn careful with educating the youth so they don't turn out to be assholes, and be elitists about who gets in.
Given that you dislike the way our government considers certain people to be better than others, this elitist stance does seem to run contrary to your mission.

But the people who lived in the gulch lived rationally and therefore avoided any major problems. I'm saying that their society could be duplicated with ease providing that the individuals living there were rational.

I have no problem not allowing the irrational access to my rational society. It's not that i think i'm better, it's just that i have a rational right to to object to irrational behavoirs.

And they didn't ask to have their land stolen. Why should they be the ones to suffer?

They shouldn't. They should blame the state, like i do.

Ah, justice. What an emotional concept.

I disagree. I think justice is a result of logical tenants, that is, man commits crime so man must be punished. A follows B.

Society is based upon emotion. Logically, I could also do without people. I can grow a garden, store for the winter, or move to more temperate climates.

Absolutely right.

Socially, however, I need people. That's always been my point. You can logic all you want, but at the end of the day it the other people that make it all worthwhile, so isn't it worth it to be nice, even if it isn't always logical?

Yes. But in a round about way, being nice IS logical as it leads to increased overall happiness for me.

Oh, and he's all like "NO, I was a good employee, and a hard worker!!" And then you're like "Bob. You ate 16 contracts and took a dump on the VP's car. You're insane." And then he's all "NO. THAT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED." And you're like "Bob. We're in the parking garage. I can see the dump." Bob's such a jerk.

Sometimes I like to just type and see what happens. Anyway.

That's why I fired Bob. Couldn't handle his outbursts. What's Bob's problem, anyway?

A scenario: You start dating a girl from india. She likes to belly dance. Upon meeting your parents, your mother decides that belly dancing is interesting, and decides to take it up.
She then makes it on Letterman's Stupid Human Tricks, and does her belly dance, complete with native dress. Then thanks her "Adorable little son Doug, who's just swell."
Logically, nothing wrong happened here.
Emotionally, don't you kinda wish your mom would just put on a fucking robe already?

Yes. But on the other hand, the fact that her actions were logical will prevent me from forcing her to quit.

Good on you for getting high marks on the quiz.

[Narbus]

Why does the crack house endanger your safety? If they're just smoking crack and screwing the crack whores in their, as filthy as that is, they're not putting you in any danger?

That would be a pimp's joint. This is a crack house. Guns make the difference.

Yes. Did you benefity any less? You wanted the crack house gone, and it's gone. You were prepared to pay a certain fee in order to see that the crack house was removed. I have nothing against the crack house, i'm not interested in paying the fee.

See the guns.

But the people who lived in the gulch lived rationally and therefore avoided any major problems. I'm saying that their society could be duplicated with ease providing that the individuals living there were rational.

I have no problem not allowing the irrational access to my rational society. It's not that i think i'm better, it's just that i have a rational right to to object to irrational behavoirs.

But, as Aerin pointed out, what seems rational to one person may not be rational to all people.
Plus, what about the moron children?

They shouldn't. They should blame the state, like i do.

And what will that do? Either they continue living in squalor, which means they are still screwed, or the state gives them back the land stolen from them, which means you are now screwed.
Or, you could take the rational first step, which is to refuse to benefit from the irrational use of force.

I disagree. I think justice is a result of logical tenants, that is, man commits crime so man must be punished. A follows B.

Punished how? Let's say that while you're out of town, a man breaks into your house and kills your wife. What is his punishment?

That's why I fired Bob. Couldn't handle his outbursts. What's Bob's problem, anyway?

I have no idea. I sent him to half a dozen shrinks, they came back with 7 different reports. I'm not sure how the math worked out like that, but I'm pretty sure it's Bob's fault.

Yes. But on the other hand, the fact that her actions were logical will prevent me from forcing her to quit.

Good on you for getting high marks on the quiz.

But now you also get to deal with the fallout. Enjoy work monday, when you're asked for tips on belly-dancing, and called "swell" so many times your head pops.

Again, logically they aren't doing anything wrong. Emotionally, you are a different person. This experience has changed you, and affected your life. So don't you have some logical right to comment on it to your mother?

[mosaik]

That would be a pimp's joint. This is a crack house. Guns make the difference.

even with the guns, if they're not threatening to shoot you they're not putting you in danger.

See the guns.

I'm saying simply owning a weapon hardly makes them threatening.

But, as Aerin pointed out, what seems rational to one person may not be rational to all people.

Plus, what about the moron children?

But, as I pointed out to Aerin, she'd be wrong to say that. Rational isn't like right and wrong, rationalism/logic are definied philosophical ideas. They're not subjective, and they're not open to/affected by perception.

what about the moron children? i wouldn't bar them from living in galts gulch unless they started making irrational demands on the residents, ie pay for my food because i am too stupid to pay for it myself.

And what will that do? Either they continue living in squalor, which means they are still screwed, or the state gives them back the land stolen from them, which means you are now screwed.
Or, you could take the rational first step, which is to refuse to benefit from the irrational use of force.

Well for starters, i don't see what stops the natives living in canada from, ahem, going out and getting jobs.

As for my land, i'm not really benefiting from anybody using force. i paid dollars for the property i own. i don't care who i'm buying it from. if it's the natives by right, they should sue the government. (and they have been for years)

point is, i paid for the land and i'm going to live there.

Punished how? Let's say that while you're out of town, a man breaks into your house and kills your wife. What is his punishment?

ohhh i'm going to kill him when i find him.

I have no idea. I sent him to half a dozen shrinks, they came back with 7 different reports. I'm not sure how the math worked out like that, but I'm pretty sure it's Bob's fault.

Bob's confusing that way.

But now you also get to deal with the fallout. Enjoy work monday, when you're asked for tips on belly-dancing, and called "swell" so many times your head pops.

Again, logically they aren't doing anything wrong. Emotionally, you are a different person. This experience has changed you, and affected your life. So don't you have some logical right to comment on it to your mother?

Sure i might have some objections, logically, based on the results of her public display. but that doesn't mean she was acting irrationaly by doing the dance.

[Narbus]

A warning: I'm a computer engineer. I know logic.

Self destructive actions are inherently irrational. Anything you do that takes away from the advance of your life is irrational, it is rational to want to advance your life, therefore it cannot be rational to wish to harm yourself.

On to your example. Suicide is irrational. You cannot benefit from your own death, it is impossible – why?

….. because you’re dead. It doesn’t make MORE sense to save her, at least not to me, because I’m dead. What do I care if my genes are spread – I’m dead.

Rationally, no. EMOTIONALLY, however, you can. You can save your child, whom you love, and therefore be happy. Dead, but happy. As you said, in a roundabout way it is rational here to sacrifice yourself, since it increases your overall happiness, albeit for a rather short time.

And again, this is circumstance. You have still not shown me why the idea that “rationally doing what is necessary to stay alive”, or acting in self-interest, is somehow irrational. You have shown me that in certain situations there will be unintended consequences like with your robber/gang member example but you have not proven that acting in your own self-interest while remaining true to the tenets and boundaries of logic is irrational.

By your own statement above, "Anything you do that takes away from the advance of your life is irrational," we can set up any number of situations where acting logically in the short term is irrational in the long term.
Given your later statement that something is either irrational or rational, and never both, then we must default that it is irrational to act logically in the short term at the expense of the long term.

Example: You live on a small island, alone, so you have complete and total isolation for the purposes of the example.
You are cold. Short term solution is to cut down every tree on the island, and start a fire. You are now warm.
Long term effects: The trees grew the fruit you eat. You now starve to death.

The logical short term solution (if cold then make fire) provided irrational long term effects. Therefore, the action is irrational.

Are you attempting to prove the action of “eating” to be illogical? And if so, why are you using a set of circumstances to do so? let me break it down for you: Problem: body needs fuels to continue functioning. Logical solution: eat.

This rule always applies. Always. Even if the food in front of you has botulism, the above statement is no less true. If the food in front of you is unsafe, obviously you don’t eat it. However, in order to continue LIVING you still need to EAT. Understand?

Problem: The human race is facing extinction if more humans are not created. Solution: Reproduce.

Again, always applies. IF the person you are having sex with reveals that they have and STD, to stop sleeping with them would be rational. Does that mean that the above rule is invalid?

NO. That’s LOGIC. There is no such thing as “circumstantial logic”. Either you’re being logical or you’re NOT.

You are confusing logic and rational, which is making this discussion rather difficult to follow. Logic is a mathematical method of proving the truth or falseness of statements. Rational is something else, generally accepted to be "acting in one's best self-interest, while respecting the rights of others to do the same," for the purposes of this discussion.

Just because something is logical does not mean it is rational. See the above small island proof by counterexample.

Logic does not take circumstance into account,

No, it doesn't, and that's where the problem comes from. Logic takes into account only what you tell it to. I think that rationality is deciding what is important and what is not when producing a logical solution. Rational thought defines those oh-so-tricky givens when applying a logical solution to a problem.

Take the island example. Rationally, we should take food supply into account when making plans, otherwise logical thought will leave you dead.

even with the guns, if they're not threatening to shoot you they're not putting you in danger.

I'm saying simply owning a weapon hardly makes them threatening.

Okay, you're really thinking too hard here.
They're on crack. They're screaming about deals gone bad, and babies' daddies, and have guns, bad aim and short tempers. You live next door. See the problem now?
The point was, you're living near to irrational people who are putting your life in danger. I pay the money, your life is out of danger. Fair?

But, as I pointed out to Aerin, she'd be wrong to say that. Rational isn't like right and wrong, rationalism/logic are definied philosophical ideas. They're not subjective, and they're not open to/affected by perception.

Ideals put into effect by people are subject to the limitations of the person, including the natural issues with perception.

Well for starters, i don't see what stops the natives living in canada from, ahem, going out and getting jobs.

A desire to remain close to the roots of their culture, which they place great value on.

As for my land, i'm not really benefiting from anybody using force. i paid dollars for the property i own. i don't care who i'm buying it from. if it's the natives by right, they should sue the government. (and they have been for years)

point is, i paid for the land and i'm going to live there.

...
And what happens after they sue? They get the land back, and then you're still screwed.

ohhh i'm going to kill him when i find him.

Sorry, not rational. He did not commit the crime of murder against you. He commited it against your wife, so she's the only person in a position to demand his life in return. You could demand the life of his wife, since that's what you lost, but not his own life. Anything else isn't 'rational.'

Bob's confusing that way.

I'm so glad you fired him.

Sure i might have some objections, logically, based on the results of her public display. but that doesn't mean she was acting irrationaly by doing the dance.

I never said she was acting irrationally. But her rational actions have an impact on how your day goes.

[mosaik]

A warning: I'm a computer engineer. I know logic.

I'm a philosopher. I know aristotle.

Rationally, no. EMOTIONALLY, however, you can. You can save your child, whom you love, and therefore be happy. Dead, but happy. As you said, in a roundabout way it is rational here to sacrifice yourself, since it increases your overall happiness, albeit for a rather short time.

Emotionally, i'm still dead. I don't see the positive. Maybe with my dying breath i can smile and know that my daughter will live.

but that doesn't make me any less dead.

And, i'd be the happiest if we both could live. The fact that i'm going to die doesn't make happy at all. Not even a little.

By your own statement above, "Anything you do that takes away from the advance of your life is irrational," we can set up any number of situations where acting logically in the short term is irrational in the long term.
Given your later statement that something is either irrational or rational, and never both, then we must default that it is irrational to act logically in the short term at the expense of the long term.

Again, you're asking me to predict the future. I can't see the long term. I don't know what might happen as a result. That doesn't make my initial actions any less rational.

The action itself must be judged on it's own merit, and NOT unintended concequences that depend on circumstance. i'll use your example to back this up.

Example: You live on a small island, alone, so you have complete and total isolation for the purposes of the example.
You are cold. Short term solution is to cut down every tree on the island, and start a fire. You are now warm.
Long term effects: The trees grew the fruit you eat. You now starve to death.

The logical short term solution (if cold then make fire) provided irrational long term effects. Therefore, the action is irrational.

Now look at that same situation this way. I cut down the trees to make the fire. I am now warm. Long term effects: I find an alternate food source as my original source of food was burned down. I live.

The logical short term solution provided only rational long term effects. Therefore, my action was rational.

You see? Contradiction. There are no contradictions. If we assume that your definition of rational is right, we will always have contradictions. If we use aristotles, we will not.

If the problem is that you're cold, making a fire is a logical/rational solution to that problem. period. unintended concequences don't change that.

You are confusing logic and rational, which is making this discussion rather difficult to follow. Logic is a mathematical method of proving the truth or falseness of statements. Rational is something else, generally accepted to be "acting in one's best self-interest, while respecting the rights of others to do the same," for the purposes of this discussion.

Just because something is logical does not mean it is rational. See the above small island proof by counterexample.

They go hand in hand, as we've seen by way of SEVERAL dictionary definitions.

logic as it ties into philosohpy is used to understand why man does the things he does.

No, it doesn't, and that's where the problem comes from. Logic takes into account only what you tell it to. I think that rationality is deciding what is important and what is not when producing a logical solution. Rational thought defines those oh-so-tricky givens when applying a logical solution to a problem.

Correct.

Take the island example. Rationally, we should take food supply into account when making plans, otherwise logical thought will leave you dead.

Also correct. However, thinking rationally does not give you the power to see the future. There will always be mitigating circumstances you could have not predicted. They don't change the fact that you're still being rational, however.

Okay, you're really thinking too hard here.
They're on crack. They're screaming about deals gone bad, and babies' daddies, and have guns, bad aim and short tempers. You live next door. See the problem now?
The point was, you're living near to irrational people who are putting your life in danger. I pay the money, your life is out of danger. Fair?

I still don't feel threatened. I would not condone the use of force to remove these people. You felt threatened, you paid to have them removed, you benefit. That's fair. The fact that I also benefity is just a side-effect. It doesn't reduce the benefit to you.

The problem would arise if the police wanted to charge you the rate for saving my family as well. Then you would have to come and see me, and tell me what you were planning to do and why. If i sided with you that the crack house had to go, I'd pay up. If i didn't, I wouldn't. If I don't pay, you must either decide if having the crack house gone is worth double the original fee, or you have to convince the cops to only charge one fee. However, you can't bring the cops in, wipe out the crack house and then demand money from me.

Ideals put into effect by people are subject to the limitations of the person, including the natural issues with perception.

Objectivism ignores the concept of perceptive reality, as said concept is irrational.

A desire to remain close to the roots of their culture, which they place great value on.

That's a personal choice then. Not my problem.

...
And what happens after they sue? They get the land back, and then you're still screwed.

They don't get it from me unless they pay for it. I meant, sue the government for the fees i paid to obtain the land.

Sorry, not rational. He did not commit the crime of murder against you. He commited it against your wife, so she's the only person in a position to demand his life in return. You could demand the life of his wife, since that's what you lost, but not his own life. Anything else isn't 'rational.'

How do you figure? As a man living in a rational society, I do not have to tolerate irrational actors. If an individual chooses to commit a murder, i have a rational right to remove him from the rational soceity. Some would go as far as to say we have an obligation to remove the irrational actor.

I never said she was acting irrationally. But her rational actions have an impact on how your day goes.

They have an impact on the way i feel, but not the overall productivity of my day. Her actions in now way impede on my ability to do work.

[The Post Modern]

Semantic tail chasing........Oh this does bring back memories.

[Narbus]

I know you think that a lot of times I like to argue because you're you, but this is not one of them. This is actually quite interesting to me, and I'm really trying to figure out what I think on several issues by bouncing things off of you. So I'm not trying to be a pest, I'm trying to figure some things out, and here I think I've got it figured out, and you might be off a bit.


Logical and rational are two different things. Oftentimes they are used in conjuction, but that does not mean they are the same. Peanut butter is not jelly.

Logic is a mathematical way of looking at a problem. That's it. ~fin.

If A then B. That's math.

There are philosophical ramifications, but there are philosophical ramifications to everything, so that's not important.

Now, the trouble with logic is the programmer's mantra: Garbage in, garbage out. If you use worthless givens in a logical statement, your answer will be worthless. For example: Given A, A=A. But I want to know if B=C. So this given does nothing for me, and more importantly it does nothing to solve my problem. In fact, if I try and force this given to fit this problem, I could come up with a solution that actually hurts me more than if I didn't try and solve the problem at all.

Rationality is a means by which to provide those givens. Rationality is a means of looking at a situation and determining what is important in that situation. For example, on that desert island, it doesn't matter to you that Kathleen O'Connel of Columbus, Ohio just tore a nylon on the way home from work. That doesn't change the fact that she tore a nylon, nor does it change how she feels about it, but to you, it doesn't matter. Since rationality is based around the individual, you can disregard Mrs. O'Connel's nylon entirely.

Your perspective has decided what is important to you, rationally.

Logic is not dicatated by circumstances, it is dictated by the givens. Rationality, however, is dictated by circumstance. Given different circumstance, different things are rational.

For example, you walk down the street, pass a man in a yellow jacket, nothing happens. It is not rational to attack him here.
You walk down the street, pass a man in a yellow jacket, and he grabs you, slams you up against the wall, and demands your wallet. Here it would be considered acting in rational self-interest to attack him.

The change in circumstances dictated what was rational and what was not rational.

Another example, with the aid of Mrs. O'Connell again. We've already established that her nylon is unimportant to you on your island. Her nylon is torn, and it was the last one. She knows she needs to go to the grocery store, but they don't have her brand, so she has to leave early to make it to another store, then groceries, then pick up the kids from soccer. Nothing bad, nothing good, neither moral nor immoral, just events that happened. But since she likes her job, and knows she is expected to dress professionally, then it's in rational self interest to leave early and make it to the store on time.

But if circumstance had her with several nylons in a drawer upstairs, then rationally there's no reason to go to the other store, so she doesn't. The circumstances changed what was rational.


Now, as I said before, rational and logical are not the same. Let's prove this, logically.

Let's make a statement and test it's validity. "Rational action is the same as logical action."
I provide proof by counterexample:
Given: Rational means "acting in one's best self-interest, with respect to other people's right to do the same."

Given: I want a new television.
Note that I didn't put "we must act rationally while procuring this television," as a given, which meant it is LOGICAL for me to rob my neighbors. Logically, the television is all I care about. However, this is clearly not rational, by definition given. Therefore, it is not always the case that logical action is the same as rational action, which is something that I think you don't always realize.

In that island example, you are missing several givens, admittedly because I defined them poorly. Let's try again.
1 Given: Staying alive is good.
2 Given: You need heat to stay alive.
3 Given: You need food to stay alive.
4 Given: The trees on the island are the only source of fuel you have.
5 Given: The trees on the island are the only source of food that you have access to.

Now, given that you are cold, it is not logical here to cut down all the trees, as that would invalidate given 3, and therefore invalidate given 1.
Now if we choose to ignore givens 3 and 5 (but not remove them as givens, just say 'screw it,') then we reach my first scenario, where you starve to death because you wanted to be warm.

In your counterexample, you do not use 3 or 5 as givens. Yes, if your only problem is that you are cold, then burning everything is rational. But our only problem is NOT staying warm. Staying warm is only a means by which to meet our greater goal, which is staying alive, a goal which also requires food to meet.

What is rational in a situation is again determined by circumstance.

Now for the kicker. I do not see how it could be rational to purposely disregard any given that is important to the situation, even the ones with long term effects. If you know that in the future, your food supply will be destroyed and you will starve, then it is not acting in rational self-interest to burn all the trees.

I am not suggesting that we be psychics. I am suggesting that if useful information presents itself during the course of finding a solution to a problem, then it is irrational to disregard it. I am suggesting that new information may actually change the problem statement, invalidating information that you formerly considered of importance (rational).

I am suggesting that in order to be rational people, we must be more than simpy logical. We must learn how to define our problems in the proper way so that the logic provides the solution we are looking for.

[Narbus]

Semantic tail chasing........Oh this does bring back memories.

Lick me.

[One-Eye]

Oh my dear Doug, sometimes I feel like you aren't reading my arguments at all, just finding a way to weasel out of them to make yourself sound smart and me a fool. Well, read this one closely:

You say that something either IS logical or it ISN'T, no middle ground. I'll grant you that. But then you turn around and lay down absolutes: You seem to think that an action, such as "eating" is ALWAYS the logical response to a stimulus, "hunger". This is where you're wrong.

In a given SITUATION, there are certain logical responses and certian illogical responses. These DIFFER according to the SITUATION. You don't like situations? Too bad. Life isn't lived in pure, abstract terms. Thus, my botulism example. In that case, it is NOT logical to eat as a result of hunger, otherwise you'd end up DEAD, which is not your objective. Your problem is that you've become inhuman in your reasoning. You've ignored your ability to think and reason and instead have done what animals do. Animals, lacking the cerebral cortex to reason according to circumstance, have been equipped by nature with a form of your strict non-circumstantial "rationalism". When an animal is hungry, it eats, despite any mitigating circumstances. Because it lacks the foreknowledge (your friend says, "that food has botulism!") and reasoning capacity (what's that odd-colored odiferous matter in my food?), it is much less likely to survive than a human, who would be smart enough to wait until untainted food arrived. This is in part why humanity is the dominant species on the planet today.

So yes, you are mistaken. I did not and do not claim that eating is an irrational response to hunger; it is usually completely rational. However, to ignore the circumstances when eating would be an irrational response to hunger (because it'd kill you), is utterly foolhardy.

I'll address your other issues later.

[Narbus]

You too are confusing rational and logical. In a given situation, there are rational things that can be done. Logic doesn't fit a situation, it fits givens. You can take any situation, even one where we know that |B| + (|C|-D)/F = R, and state that Given A, A = A.

For example, that botulism thing. If all that we care about is hunger (Given: We must eat) then yes, it is logical to eat whatever is there. Eating is our only goal, so eat whatever.
However, if we are given that we must stay alive, and eating is only a means by which to do that (Given: We must live) then suddenly it is not logical to eat contaminated food, because the givens just changed.

[mosaik]

Logical and rational are two different things. Oftentimes they are used in conjuction, but that does not mean they are the same. Peanut butter is not jelly.

They're not the same. Agreed.

Logic is a mathematical way of looking at a problem. That's it. ~fin.

If A then B. That's math.

There are philosophical ramifications, but there are philosophical ramifications to everything, so that's not important.

Right. All I'm saying is If A then B is a thought process you can apply to real life. I hate to go back to this oft-mocked example, but if Hungry then Eat.

Now, the trouble with logic is the programmer's mantra: Garbage in, garbage out. If you use worthless givens in a logical statement, your answer will be worthless. For example: Given A, A=A. But I want to know if B=C. So this given does nothing for me, and more importantly it does nothing to solve my problem. In fact, if I try and force this given to fit this problem, I could come up with a solution that actually hurts me more than if I didn't try and solve the problem at all.

Rationality is a means by which to provide those givens. Rationality is a means of looking at a situation and determining what is important in that situation. For example, on that desert island, it doesn't matter to you that Kathleen O'Connel of Columbus, Ohio just tore a nylon on the way home from work. That doesn't change the fact that she tore a nylon, nor does it change how she feels about it, but to you, it doesn't matter. Since rationality is based around the individual, you can disregard Mrs. O'Connel's nylon entirely.

So far, I'm with you.

Your perspective has decided what is important to you, rationally.

I was always good at prioritizing. I hope i spelled that right.

Logic is not dicatated by circumstances, it is dictated by the givens. Rationality, however, is dictated by circumstance. Given different circumstance, different things are rational.

For example, you walk down the street, pass a man in a yellow jacket, nothing happens. It is not rational to attack him here.
You walk down the street, pass a man in a yellow jacket, and he grabs you, slams you up against the wall, and demands your wallet. Here it would be considered acting in rational self-interest to attack him.

The change in circumstances dictated what was rational and what was not rational.

Here is where we have to seperate some things. What you've described here is two completely different situations. Yes, punching the guy in the face was irrational in one and not in the other, but we don't have a contradiction because he was not doing the same thing both times.

Therefore, my assertion remains that action, if deemed rational, is always rational. We have established defending yourself to be a rational right/obligation. Therefore, in order to be logical, we must further say that self-defense is always rational, no matter the circumstances.

Another example, with the aid of Mrs. O'Connell again. We've already established that her nylon is unimportant to you on your island. Her nylon is torn, and it was the last one. She knows she needs to go to the grocery store, but they don't have her brand, so she has to leave early to make it to another store, then groceries, then pick up the kids from soccer. Nothing bad, nothing good, neither moral nor immoral, just events that happened. But since she likes her job, and knows she is expected to dress professionally, then it's in rational self interest to leave early and make it to the store on time.

But if circumstance had her with several nylons in a drawer upstairs, then rationally there's no reason to go to the other store, so she doesn't. The circumstances changed what was rational.

Again, two different things. And I would say that the circumstance of having nylons in the drawer upstairs does not change the rationality of her going to the store to purchase new ones. I would say further that this is more an issue of personal choice then it is an issue of rational/irrational.

Let's make a statement and test it's validity. "Rational action is the same as logical action."
I provide proof by counterexample:
Given: Rational means "acting in one's best self-interest, with respect to other people's right to do the same."

Given: I want a new television.
Note that I didn't put "we must act rationally while procuring this television," as a given, which meant it is LOGICAL for me to rob my neighbors. Logically, the television is all I care about. However, this is clearly not rational, by definition given. Therefore, it is not always the case that logical action is the same as rational action, which is something that I think you don't always realize.

Point made.

In that island example, you are missing several givens, admittedly because I defined them poorly. Let's try again.
1 Given: Staying alive is good.
2 Given: You need heat to stay alive.
3 Given: You need food to stay alive.
4 Given: The trees on the island are the only source of fuel you have.
5 Given: The trees on the island are the only source of food that you have access to.

Now, given that you are cold, it is not logical here to cut down all the trees, as that would invalidate given 3, and therefore invalidate given 1.
Now if we choose to ignore givens 3 and 5 (but not remove them as givens, just say 'screw it,') then we reach my first scenario, where you starve to death because you wanted to be warm.

In your counterexample, you do not use 3 or 5 as givens. Yes, if your only problem is that you are cold, then burning everything is rational. But our only problem is NOT staying warm. Staying warm is only a means by which to meet our greater goal, which is staying alive, a goal which also requires food to meet.

What is rational in a situation is again determined by circumstance.

I would modify that statement as follows: which rational actions are appropriate in a situation are determined by circumstance. Although I still waffle a little bit on declaring cutting down the trees to make fire a rational action. I would submit the more broad: staying warm when it's cold is rational.

Now for the kicker. I do not see how it could be rational to purposely disregard any given that is important to the situation, even the ones with long term effects. If you know that in the future, your food supply will be destroyed and you will starve, then it is not acting in rational self-interest to burn all the trees.

Aha. I was reading this great column.. learning more, you see, and i have come to accept a more fitting defition. To be human, and rational, is to have the capacity to override our impulses and use our powers of logic and reason and observation to collect data and take the BEST course of action. An animal would eat all it's food and then starve. A human being would identify that it's rational to eat, but it is MORE rational to plant more food so he doesn't starve. They're both good, but one is better. Only humans have the capacity to identify what the BEST answer is - so long as we remain within the boundaries of logic, reason, and rationality.

I am not suggesting that we be psychics. I am suggesting that if useful information presents itself during the course of finding a solution to a problem, then it is irrational to disregard it. I am suggesting that new information may actually change the problem statement, invalidating information that you formerly considered of importance (rational).

I am suggesting that in order to be rational people, we must be more than simpy logical. We must learn how to define our problems in the proper way so that the logic provides the solution we are looking for.

agreed. An animal, on some levels, is logical. but it's not rational.