Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame
Take Darfur for example. If the Western World made a rational and scientific decision they wouldn't get involved.
It's not a economic market. There is no brownie points for us as they likely don't appreciate us being involved. We risk our lives to gain what thinking purely rationally and scientifically?
|
Well, I think we need to decide how we want to define rationality. I think that values and beliefs
are fundamental in every rational, scientific argument; therefore, you can't make a rational argument without making underlying value statements. For example, in Darfur, to get involved is to say that the value of human life outweighs economic possibilities and brownie points. We can even make a scientific argument as to why human life is important to us - why it's logical to value it highly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame
The reasoning is logical. These people aren't our problem. We have our own security problems with these religions if we get involved....
|
The reasoning is logical in a sense, but an argument like that is nevertheless based on values. We would be saying that, in that particular case, we value our own security and economic interests more than we value the costs in terms of human life. We would need an awfully good rational argument to justify that tradeoff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame
That will be a logical and scientifically based decision.
|
Again, I would say that would be a shift in values, not a shift towards more rationality.