Is an aptitute for logic necessary to be a moral person?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

How would anyone make a rational decision about what moral course of action to take unless he first considered what choices are available, and then he considered the probable consequences of each choice? And how could he do this without employing logic? Logic, of course, cannot tell us, at the end of thinking about it, which choice to make, but it is a necessary condition of rational decision. Isn't it?

When you see people acting morally it is not out of reason because morality demands sacrifice always, and risk often... I risked my life to pull a black man out of the river... Was it reasonable??? Reason argued against the act until I reached a point defensible only by emotion, that the man was clearly a human, and so my brother... It was hope, and love that made me do the deed, but if risk had not attended it, where would be the honor, or the morality???Reason presented a choice, and I might have still been standing on that dock long after the man had died if I had been rational... To risk life one must be irrational, as people usually are...But morality is what people do because moral is what people are...It is not abstract, and there is no way to reach the goal of a moral society by abstraction... People feel connected and react according to their feelings...

[Reconstructo]

Fido makes a good point. Logic is a means. The ends themselves are irrational. Why live in the first place? What logical purpose does it serve? Logic is just Ideal Rhetoric.

We say what we say to get what we want. We persuade ourselves and others. We are persuaded by ourselves in others. And effective persuasion appeals to man's irrational motives in a clear and persuasive ("logical") way.

Logic is to persuasion what chess is to real war. It's an aesthetically pleasing reduction. Logic is bite size rhetoric in church clothes.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Fido makes a good point. Logic is a means. The ends themselves are irrational. Why live in the first place? What logical purpose does it serve? Logic is just Ideal Rhetoric.

We say what we say to get what we want. We persuade ourselves and others. We are persuaded by ourselves in others. And effective persuasion appeals to man's irrational motives in a clear and persuasive ("logical") way.

Logic is to persuasion what chess is to real war. It's an aesthetically pleasing reduction. Logic is bite size rhetoric in church clothes.

Hume said that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". What he meant is that after reason has told us which choices there are, what the consequences of each choice are likely to be, and what means we have to take, after that, we still have to make the choice, and that choice is not one of reason, but one of passion. What choice we make after reason has done it work, is not one of reason. Not that it is irrational, as you say, because choice is neither rational nor irrational. It is non-rational.

[Reconstructo]

"Non-rational" works just fine for me. But the definition of "irrational" works just fine as well. The point is our motives themselves are not rational. Man is a cunning linguist, who trades marks and noises for various purposes. He uses them for practical information, of course, but also religious and aesthetic reasons.

By means of these marks and noises (words), he assembles complex mental models of his environment (including the minds of other humans) and also of that which creates these same mental models. The mind has a mental model of itself. Before long, man is using his marks and noises to re-describe the ways these marks and noises work. He thinks about thinking. He creates logic, epistemology, depth-psychology, etc.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

"Non-rational" works just fine for me. But the definition of "irrational" works just fine as well. The point is our motives themselves are not rational. Man is a cunning linguist, who trades marks and noises for various purposes. He uses them for practical information, of course, but also religious and aesthetic reasons.

By means of these marks and noises (words), he assembles complex mental models of his environment (including the minds of other humans) and also of that which creates these same mental models. The mind has a mental model of itself. Before long, man is using his marks and noises to re-describe the ways these marks and noises work. He thinks about thinking. He creates logic, epistemology, depth-psychology, etc.

"Irrational" means contrary to reason. Non-rational means independent of reason. People do not ordinarily make choices that they deem contrary to reason. Hume's point is that making a choice is finally a decision of feeling, not reason, although reason can give you the information you need to make the choice. Aristotle expressed the same sentiment when he wrote that "thought alone moves nothing". At the end, you have to want to do what you do. Otherwise, you don't do it.

[Reconstructo]

Main Entry: 1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: \i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, ˌi(r)-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
Date: 14th century
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears> c Greek & Latin prosody (1) of a syllable : having a quantity other than that required by the meter (2) of a foot : containing such a syllable d (1) : being an irrational number <an irrational root of an equation> (2) : having a numerical value that is an irrational number <a length that is irrational>

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 02:39 AM ----------

We should distinguish between reason and formal logic. If by reason we mean the brain as possibility -machine, testing the various outcomes of various possible choices, this is quite different from formal logic.

I personally think that man's emotional motives are tied up in his metaphors and concepts. He is a symbolic animal. He will die for honor. He is capable of suicide.

He will also persuade himself and others that his desires are justified. Or he will persuade his slaves that such slavery is natural. He will persuade someone that the Earth is round, not flat. He will persuade someone that he is not persuading but merely demonstrating objective truth. He is an inventive little predator, homo sapien. And the metaphor is arguably his best weapon.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Main Entry: 1ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: \i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, ˌi(r)-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
Date: 14th century
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears> c Greek & Latin prosody (1) of a syllable : having a quantity other than that required by the meter (2) of a foot : containing such a syllable d (1) : being an irrational number <an irrational root of an equation> (2) : having a numerical value that is an irrational number <a length that is irrational>

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 02:39 AM ----------

Yes, exactly. That is why I used "non-rational" rather than "irrational". "Not rational" can be used for either.

[Reconstructo]

You said "contrary to reason." But it's not that important. I don't want to harass you over a slight misuse. But I looked it up before I used it, expecting you to prefer "nonrational." Isn't that strange?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

You said "contrary to reason." But it's not that important. I don't want to harass you over a slight misuse. But I looked it up before I used it, expecting you to prefer "nonrational." Isn't that strange?

Sorry. I don't understand your point.

[Reconstructo]

Well, Data, it's like this. Irrational means not endowed with reason. But I felt that you would dislike the word "irrational" anyway, and question its appropriateness. So I looked it up, confirmed what I thought, and used it. Your motive for questioning the word was itself irrational. So I guess I should not call you Data.

Don't be offended at the Star Trek reference. I've grown accustomed to your constant disagreement. It's almost like hearing the ocean at night.