From: [email protected] (Robert ASF.)



NG cut

On Thu, 05 Jul Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:

snip

>Rather than assuming that 'being rational' (in valuative/strategic/practical
>affairs) is a matter of 'being efficient' (means/end theory) or of 
>'maximizing self-interest' (egoism), abandon the self-interest assumption
>and simply assume that 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being able 
>to "see" what is going on' or 'being objective'.  If such were the case,
>then you could justify a valuative version of the imperative, i.e., 'Love 
>your neighbor as you love yourself' by bringing the mountain to Mohammed 
>so to speak, in that 'being rational' would be equivalent to 'being 
>valuatively objective'.

        Your redefinition is at best an empircial version of Kant's CI and 
at worst mere altering the words without altering the content.

>The justification for the "theory" of rationality I am proposing here 
>would simply lie in its superior epistemic credentials, not only in its
>greater freedom from contradiction, but also in terms of its ability to
>"explain" several evolutioanry anomalies (the presence of morality and
>emotional instability in homo sapiens).

        You are going to have to fless this out a lot more for it to be 
anymore then mere supposition.

                Just Thought I Should Mention It