A "Rational Society"

[Brian Smith 0]

When we here are involved in discussions about proper human behavior and proper human social systems, most of us - myself included - will, at one point or another, begin a statement with a phrase something like: "In a rational society...". Now, as I consider such statements, I wonder what exactly is a valid identification for the term "rational society"? And, beyond that, I was wondering what minimum conditions would have to exist for one to accurately claim one is living in a "rational society"?

Any ideas?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

When we here are involved in discussions about proper human behavior and proper human social systems, most of us - myself included - will, at one point or another, begin a statement with a phrase something like: "In a rational society...".  Now, as I consider such statements, I wonder what exactly is a valid identification for the term "rational society"? And, beyond that, I was wondering what minimum conditions would have to exist for one to accurately claim one is living in a "rational society"?

Generally speaking, invoking "a rational society" is to posit a society that overall reflects rational values in some context. More particularly, in Objectivist writings, the term is most often used in the political context, meaning a society based upon the protection of individual rights. In that context, I would say for the minimum to claim a rational society one would need the freedom associated with laissez-faire capitalism and objective laws.

[Myrhaf 0]

I've used the term "rational society" myself in political discussions, but now that you bring it up, I have questions. Does the term "rational society" mean laissez-faire capitalism or does it mean something broader than politics, such as a good culture? My image of a rational society is one in which the Van Damme Academy is the standard of education, beautiful art is the norm and people have higher standards of etiquette and dress, as they did before the New Leftist cultural revolution. If you're just talking politics, would it be clearer to say a "free country"?

A side issue: if you were talking to Christians or socialists, you would have to take care to explain what you mean by a "rational society." They might think it means a society full of robotic Spock types, rule by philosopher-kings or even a planned economy!

[Janet_Busch 0]

It depends on how you are defining society.

Perhaps this is one of those chicken and egg questions.... When I think about a rational society, I assume that the individuals who make up that society are free to be rational; i.e., I assume Capitalist politics as defined by Objectivism.

If "society" is defined as a group of individuals who share an ethical and cultural commonality, THE FORUM is a rational society, as is ARI. When I use the term

"rational society", I think more in terms of the quality of the culture that surrounds me; i.e. how things could be if the Objectivist ethics were the norm, instead of altruism.

You might come at it differently, however, if you define the commonality of a group of individuals in strictly political terms. Since politics is the result of ethics practiced within a social setting, however, doesn't the "rational" have come before the politics?

Do politics define a culture? A culture a society?

[Brian Smith 0]

I too would say the concept 'rational society' would encompass more than just those attributes included in the concept 'rational political system' or 'rational social system'. That is why I asked my question.

Since the fundamentals of a proper political system or a proper social system have already been identified by AR, identifying whether one's political or social system enacted these principles would be a fairly straight-forward task. However I do not think there has been an identification of what qualifies as a 'rational society'. Now obviously such a concept would include a proper social system (which itself includes a proper political system), but given that the concept 'society,' in this context, encompasses more than just a social system, I would think the concept 'rational society' would also have to encompass more as well. Yet I am not certain I know what else one would necessarily have to take into account to identify a particular society as 'rational'.

For instance, taking a page from Janet's book, would a rational ethic - an ethic of egoism - have to be the norm for a society to be considered rational? And of what part of the population would it have to be a norm? The population in general? Or just the norm among the intellectuals of the society? And if it had to be the population in general, would they have to explicitly accept such a norm? Or could a society be considered rational if the general population implicitly acted according to a rational ethic, but not necessarily identified it explicitly? Would a rational sense of life, combined with a rational social system, be enough to qualify a society as rational?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

For instance, taking a page from Janet's book, would a rational ethic - an ethic of egoism - have to be the norm for a society to be considered rational?  And of what part of the population would it have to be a norm?  The population in general?  Or just the norm among the intellectuals of the society?  And if it had to be the population in general, would they have to explicitly accept such a norm?  Or could a society be considered rational if the general population implicitly acted according to a rational ethic, but not necessarily identified it explicitly?  Would a rational sense of life, combined with a rational social system, be enough to qualify a society as rational?

←

Questions like that arise in a context and trying to answer them without a context can only result in no answers or truly floating abstractions.

Is the context political activism, education, the projection of an ideal society in fiction, psychological, theoretical, practical, historical, anthropological, global, personal, idealistic, comparative, or ???

Specify the context, and that's where you will find your answers.

[Brian Smith 0]

Specify the context, and that's where you will find your answers.

It was my understanding I had specified the context.

Is the context political activism, education, the projection of an ideal society in fiction, psychological, theoretical, practical, historical, anthropological, global, personal, idealistic, comparative, or ???

I asked how one would identify if the society one lived in was a rational one. Given that the question was asked in the context of this forum, I took it as read it would be understood as a rational society according to the standards of the Objectivist philosophy. Thus the context would not be historical or anthropological. Nor would it be comparative. No question of how one would achieve such a society was asked, meaning the question was not related to political activism. Nor was an ultimate end, such as a fictional representation of such a society (once the proper principles actually had been identified), suggested.

The question, in terms of fundamentals, was: what principles would have to be practiced by one's society in order to consider it to be rational.

Thus the context, as identified, was theoretical, for purposes of analyzing specific practice. Now, I will let you decide if that falls into your catagory of theoretical or practical. But the point is, a catagory which you claim needed to be identified in order to validly answer the question was in fact identified.

That is why the answers provided thus far - those concerning a proper social system as a component of a rational society - while incomplete, are neither non-answers nor floating abstractions, as you suggest.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The question, in terms of fundamentals, was: what principles would have to be practiced by one's  society in order to consider it to be rational. 

Thus the context, as identified, was theoretical, for purposes of analyzing specific practice. 

←

But what specific practice? What specifically is included in "society?" Why does someone want to know whether his society is considered rational or not? To what purpose? I have a hard time grasping the question because I don't know what the referents are and in what specific context the question arose.

Let me give you some possible contexts an Objectivist might have that would make the question answerable.

If a person wanted to praise America for its virtues, he might point out how rational American society is in various respects or compared to other cultures or historical civilizations.

If he were considering having a child, the issue of the rationality of society would be relevant in terms of education available, youth culture, etc.

If he were a polemical writer, he might look for those aspects of politics or culture most in need of improvement and criticism.

If he were a fiction writer, he might be concerned with the standards of the literary establishment.

If he were running for office, he would criticize the status quo but be grateful for freedom of speech and the press.

Do we live in a rational society? That depends on what is included in society (define!), what about it is being evaluated, by whom, and for what purpose. Until those matters are settled, I wouldn't know where to begin in answering the question.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I too would say the concept 'rational society' would encompass more than just those attributes included in the concept 'rational political system' or 'rational social system'.  That is why I asked my question. 

←

Maybe it would help me set the context if I had a clearer idea why you asked the question. What difference would it make to you if the answer were "rational" or "irrational?" What prompted the question? How would it help you to know the answer?

[Brian Smith 0]

But what specific practice?  What specifically is included in "society?"  Why does someone want to know whether his society is considered rational or not?  To what purpose?  I have a hard time grasping the question because I don't know what the referents are and in what specific context the question arose.

I am confused. If someone were to ask for the identification of the proper principles of a rational social system, would one claim it is impossible to provide any answer to that question without knowing why the individual asked the question? Would one be unable to identify the fundamental principles of a proper social system without first knowing why another person would want to know if his social system was rational or irrational? Or is it possible for a person to provide the fundamental principles of a rational social system to another person without understanding the particular motivations of that other person?

My understanding is that one can validly perform this last.

As such, I must then ask - what is it about the nature of the concept 'rational society' which distinguishes it so radically from the concept 'rational social system' that one must know the questioner's purpose in order to identify the principles of such a society, whereas one does not have to know this purpose in order to identify the principles of such a social system?

Put simply, I know the fundamental principles which serve to identify a rational social system. I know them without having to reference any particular application of those principles. In other words, I can identify the theory, without having to reference a particular practice. I can identify the abstraction, without having to reference to a specific concrete. (Though I can identify such practices and such concretes in order to validate the theory and the abstraction.) So what is it about the concept 'rational society' that makes it impossible to identify those fundamental principles without first knowing the application for which one is going to use those principles?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I am confused.  If someone were to ask for the identification of the proper principles of a rational social system, would one claim it is impossible to provide any answer to that question without knowing why the individual asked the question?  Would one be unable to identify the fundamental principles of a proper social system without first knowing why another person would want to know if his social system was rational or irrational? 

←

I think I see why I am having such a hard time with this question. I am taking the question and the terms used literally.

"Rationality" literally refers to the practice of dealing with reality without any deliberate attempt to ignore, negate, or avoid sensory awareness or logical conclusions (i.e., without evasion). It is a descriptive rather than a normative term. While rationality is the source and cause of virtue, it is not the same thing. "Rational" is not synonymous with "proper." If the question is "What is a proper society?" then the question can be answered.

"Rationality" is a term that literally only applies to the actions of individual human beings. It applies to societies only metaphorically, and by extension. A "society" is a "group of individuals that live in the same geographic area and deal with each other." When attempting to apply a term that only applies to individuals to a group of individuals, it is necessary to specify which group of individuals in what respect and to understand that any answer will only apply to some and not all of the individuals. Thus, you can't ask "Is society overweight?" and get a meaningful answer. You have to state whether you mean today or historically, America or the whole world, by what standard of measure, how many or what percent of the individuals, etc.

[Brian Smith 0]

"Rationality" literally refers to the practice of dealing with reality without any deliberate attempt to ignore, negate, or avoid sensory awareness or logical conclusions (i.e., without evasion).

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are trying to say there are no rational or irrational principles, only rational or irrational people.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are trying to say there are no rational or irrational principles, only rational or irrational people.

←

Rationality is fundamentally an attribute of individual human beings. When we speak of "rational principles" we are using the word "rational" in a derivative sense to mean "based on or derived from a rational thought process." The principles themselves are not literally rational, but the individual and thought processes that gave rise to them certainly can be.

[Brian Smith 0]

Rationality is fundamentally an attribute of individual human beings.  When we speak of "rational principles" we are using the word "rational" in a derivative sense to mean "based on or derived from a rational thought process."  The principles themselves are not literally rational, but the individual and thought processes that gave rise to them certainly can be.

And when we here speak of a 'proper' social system, are we not speaking of a social system based upon or derived from rational thought processes? Does not that mean a proper social system would be a rational social system - the same way a proper principle would also be a rational principle? Or does 'proper principle' in the context of Objectivism mean something different than a 'rational principle' as you have identified it? If so, what exactly is that difference?

Now if, contrary to your original statement that 'rational' is not synonymous with 'proper' in this context, there is no difference here, and since you say the question "What is a proper society" can be answered, then that would mean the question "What is a rational society" can also be answered.

Thus I would like to ask you two questions:

1. "What is a proper society?"

2. How is such a society, while validly identified as proper, not validly identified as rational (in the "derivative sense" you identified)?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

And when we here speak of a 'proper' social system, are we not speaking of a social system based upon or derived from rational thought processes?  Does not that mean a proper social system would be a rational social system - the same way a proper principle would also be a rational principle?

←

Yes, there is a close relationship, but they are not synonymous. It is also possible for a rational principle to be irrelevant (the principles of physics) or of small importance (the principles of ettiquette) to a proper social system.

"Rational" and "proper" are not even commensurable. "Rational" is descriptive and "proper" is normative. "Rational" is an identification and is judged by a binary is-or-is-not standard. Either someone deals with reality or deliberately avoids it. "Proper" is an evaluation, a teleological measurement, and is judged by an ordinal standard. ("Teleological measurement deals, not with cardinal, but with ordinal numbers—and the standard serves to establish a graded relationship of means to end." ItOE, p. 33)

Or does 'proper principle' in the context of Objectivism mean something different than a 'rational principle' as you have identified it?

Yes, it does. "Proper" in the Objectivist context, means conduct and behavior consistent with and furthering individual human life. A rational principle is one arrived at by a process of reason. While reason is necessary to define what is proper, it is not sufficient. A person can be rational, but mistaken, and arrive at principles which are not proper.

1.  "What is a proper society?"

One which bans the initiation of physical force. Such a society furthers the life of individuals by allowing them the benefits of social interaction (education and trade) while protecting their lives (and the liberty and property they need to live) from harm at the hands of other people.

2.  How is such a society, while validly identified as proper, not validly identified as rational (in the "derivative sense" you identified)?

What is rationally derived may be of value, but what is essential to a proper system is that it must further human life.

[Brian Smith 0]

And when we here speak of a 'proper' social system, are we not speaking of a social system based upon or derived from rational thought processes?  Does not that mean a proper social system would be a rational social system - the same way a proper principle would also be a rational principle?

Yes, there is a close relationship, but they are not synonymous. It is also possible for a rational principle to be irrelevant (the principles of physics) or of small importance (the principles of ettiquette) to a proper social system.

I think you misunderstood me here. I was not asking if all rational principles are relevant to a proper social system. I asked if a rational principle is to a proper principle what a rational social system is to a proper social system.

I think I have your answer in the quote below however.

While reason is necessary to define what is proper, it is not sufficient.  A person can be rational, but mistaken, and arrive at principles which are not proper.

In other words, you claim a "proper" principle, social system, society, etc is necessarily "rational". But a "rational" principle, social system, society, etc is not necessarily "proper."

If that is the case, then for a thing to be identified as "proper" it must necessarily have been "based on or derived from a rational thought process." But it must also meet some additional, thus far unspecified, requirement or requirements. So the question now becomes: what else is required in order to identify a thing as "proper" and not just "rational"?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Brian, what do you mean by "social system"? I know what a society is. I know what a political system is. But what is a social system?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If that is the case, then for a thing to be identified as "proper" it must necessarily have been "based on or derived from a rational thought process."  But it must also meet some additional, thus far unspecified, requirement or requirements.  So the question now becomes: what else is required in order to identify a thing as "proper" and not just "rational"?

←

As I said before, it must be normative -- i.e., evaluated by the standard of the requirements of human life. The ban on the initiation of force, as I mentioned, is proper by that standard.

On the other hand, while the principle of the Unit Economy is true and rationally derived, it isn't "proper" because it is descriptive rather than normative.

Also "proper" only pertains to the evaluation of human actions. We don't say the motions of the planets are "proper" because "proper" doesn't apply to the deterministic behavior of inanimate matter.

[Brian Smith 0]

Brian, what do you mean by "social system"? I know what a society is. I know what a political system is. But what is a social system?

←

In "What is Capitalism" (CUI, pg 18), AR identified a social system as "a set of moral-political-economic principles embodied in a society's laws, institutions, and government, which determine the relationships, the terms of association, among the men living in a geographical area."

[Free Capitalist 0]

If that is the case, then for a thing to be identified as "proper" it must necessarily have been "based on or derived from a rational thought process." But it must also meet some additional[/A, thus far unspecified, requirement or requirements. So the question now becomes: what else is required in order to identify a thing as "proper" and not just "rational"?

I think what Betsy is saying, and she can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is that those additional "unspecified" requirements are the values of the people involved. There is no such thing as proper society that is proper for all rational people. For example, one person may prefer a society where people eat full courses, with three forks and two knives, and think that sort of society and its lifestyle proper, while another person may prefer society where fast-food, or home-cooked food flourishes, and will call that society proper. In each case, both people are rational, and both societies are proper -- for each respective individual. That is the unspecified requirement here, nor can it be specified out of context of the particular people involved. That's why rationality is only a necessary, not a sufficient condition, and the sufficient conditions -- namely the values of the people involved -- cannot be specified without reference to those actual particular people, i.e. without context.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I think what Betsy is saying, and she can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is that those additional "unspecified" requirements are the values of the people involved. There is no such thing as proper society that is proper for all rational people.

←

That is not what I am saying.

You're right that "proper" is a normative term and, as such, requires a standard of value, but in an Objectivist context, that standard is not optional. The only proper standard is the life of man qua man. The way to promote that, in a social context, is to ban the initiation of force.

My point to Brian is that "rational" and "proper," though related, do not mean the same thing. "Proper" is the correct term to use when speaking of the way people ought to behave.

"Rational" describes to a particular method of cognitive functioning or the result of that process. It is not a one-size-fits-all label for anything right or good.

[Brian Smith 0]

Betsy - I'm not sure your post gets to the question I was trying to ask. So I would like to try approaching the fundamental question again, but this time by way of a different specific question. Now, as I quoted previously, you said:

While reason is necessary to define what is proper, it is not sufficient.  A person can be rational, but mistaken, and arrive at principles which are not proper.

In other words, after identifying that both the 'rational' and the 'proper' are "based on or derived from a rational thought process", you identified the potential for error as that which differentiates the 'rational' from the 'proper' here. So my question is: if one identifies the fact that a person is rational in arriving at his principles - and - identifies the fact that he is not mistaken, then may those principles now be identified not only as 'rational' but also as 'proper', as your statement suggests?