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

[elson] Well, now your position is clear to me.  You apply the
utility-maximization notion of rationality to everyone (and I
thought you were simply accusing me of it!).

We have no more to discuss, because I utterly reject this
concept/definition of rationality -- as if everyone is equally
rational because they pursue their own interests!
Nonsense!

> > > [Hutchinson] 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.
> >
> > [elson] 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.
>
>
> [hutchinson]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.
>
>
> >
> > [elson] 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.
>
>
> [hutchinson] 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.
>
>
> >
> >[elson]  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.
>
>
> [hutchinson] And it makes the capitalists rational to exploit
them!
>
>
> >
> > [elson] 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.
> >
> > > [Hutchinson] 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.
> >
> > [elson] 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.
>
> [Hutchinson] 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