From: Owleye 


{snipped}

"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

{snipped - see 017a}

>
> GIVEN that one chooses to be rational (and remember, in my theory
> this is not always wise, in that one can become too rational for
> one's own good), and GIVEN that my proposed theory of rationality
> is "true", then one "ought" to be good.

I agree that humans are moral because they have the freedom to select from a set of
alternative actions (well, this is how Kant might have said it -- I rather think its more a
matter of vetoing an action we think is wrong.).  Choosig to be rational, however, I don't
know what this means?  I'd rather think we have certain dispositions to being rational.

So that I can make sure I understand the various relationships you are speaking of let me make
the following statements asking whether they are consistent or not with your theory?

Being rational is not the same thing as being good.

Being emotional is not the same thing as being good.  (Subject to it being akin to refined
beauty -- a la Hume or Bentham or Mill)

Being natural does not include being rational.

Being rational involves some sort of  (yet to be fully explained) "seeing."

Being good means being (yet to be understood) "valuatively objective" and is capable of being
"seen."

owleye