Re: ANYT THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN PBS SERIES "THE PEOPLES CENTURY" ?(fwd)

List-

I didn't realize that this post did not go to the whole list.

So for those who have been following...

RH


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:48:50 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: masumi <masumi@azu-boles.net>
Subject: Re: ANYT THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN PBS SERIES "THE PEOPLES CENTURY" ?

Elson:

More on rationality:  see below...

RH


On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, masumi wrote:

> > Your reply confirms what I said in my last post -- you're using
> a very
> > idiosyncratic definition of rationality.  Given your
> definition, then yes,
> > of course the Iranian Shiites were more rational in
> overthrowing a
> > U.S.-backed regime than the U.S. Christian "Fundamentalists"
> were in
> > supporting it.  But given the standard utility-maximizing
> definition of
> > rationality, people who benefit from the oppression of others
> are also
> > acting rationally.
> 
> My whole point, which I thought was clear but should have made
> explict, is that I'm NOT using the "standard" (which contradicts
> your characterization of it as also idiosnycratic)
> utility-maximizing definition of rationality.  You are projecting
> this onto my argument.


How can a point be clear that is not explicit?  Are we presumed to be
telepathic?  I am only projecting onto your argument definitions of terms
as they are widely understood:  if you use a different one, of course it
must be made explicit. If you inhabit a small marxist bubble in
a large non-marxist sea, it seems solipsistic to think others think
precisely as you do.


> 
> Measuring who is an oppressor and who is oppressed, and thus
> judging which group is more rational among the two when they are
> struggling against each other, rests on scientific rationality
> (not utility maximization).  The religious fundamentalists , like
> the US moral majority, cannot/do not rationally judge the
> situation and realize that they are oppressors, largely because
> they are fanatics.


This makes no sense.  Scientifically, if a group benefits from the
exploitation of others, then, morality aside, it is rational for that
group to persist.


> 
> For example, Marx's volumes to demonstrate that workers are
> exploited becasue they provide surplus value to capitalists is
> based on scientific methods of analysis.  That the working class
> will struggle against this oppression makes them rational because
> the opression has been scientifically proven and recognized.


And it makes the capitalists rational to exploit them!


> 
> Deciding who is more moral is an entirely different issue.  The
> judgement that surplus value extraction is exploitation, that is,
> is WRONG, is a value judgement not based on scientific analysis,
> but rather, moral conviction.  Scientic rationality and moral
> judgements are different.
> 
> > I reject the tendentious self-serving definition which
> justifies your own
> > actions as rational and defines away the opposition as
> irrational.
> 
> Not defining them away, but based on scientific analysis, as just
> stated.
> 
> > A war criminal like Kissinger, for instance, acts in a highly
> rational
> > way, but that doesn't make it morally defensible.
> 
> Ah, but this proves my point.  Kissinger is a very rational
> person who uses scientific arguments to explain his actions and
> policies.  He also has a system of values by which he concludes
> that his actions are/were moral.  That is, he does not take a
> position based on religious dogma, as with the fundamentalist
> religious zealots.
> 
> 
> 

As I said above, Kissinger, and the Christian Coalition, and the Iranian
Islamists can all be characterized as rational in pursuit of their various
interests.

I seriously doubt than many will be persuaded to adopt your
Marxist-Elsonian definition of rationality.

RH