Rational or Irrational actions?

[Marc Moini]

"Human action is necessarily always rational. The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic."~ Ludwig von Mises

[LovePrevails]

the word "rational" or "irrational" as applied to actions can only be understood in terms of some gol or ends which an action seeks to procure

 

if I want to get to left it is irrational to go right in hope of getting there.

[cherapple]

If a person's actions are chosen in response to present circumstances, they are rational.

 

If a person has not processed his past and still responds to the world as if he's living out his childhood — in which he was forced to live in the company of irrational people who had near-infinite power over him, and who used that power to harm (abuse) HIS capacity for rationality — his actions are irrational.

 

An irrational person's main method of interaction lies in manipulation, a repetition of the way his parents treated him. A rational person uses negotiation (or escape, when the other person is irrational and negotiation is impossible) to achieve and create real, present-day connections.

I've said before: Judgment of others must be allowed. To remove it removes a child's — and later an adult's — capacity to judge whose company is good for him and whose company is harmful to him. 

 

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. ~Frederick Douglass

 

If you think that everyone is good, it is not possible to be rational, because it isn't logically true. People hurt each other and abuse each other all the time, especially making victims of the most vulnerable and easy targets (children). Those who can't, weren't, or aren't allowed to judge are put at risk of becoming vulnerable and easy targets for life. 

 

Either targets for life, or abusers for life — because non-judgment of others, no matter what they do, leads to non-judgment of oneself. Which is what most proponents of non-judgment want: A pass to commit whatever harms or wrongs they desire. Mistakes are one thing. Paving the way for wrong-doing is another.

[Marc Moini]

Thanks for your feedback, Cheryl. So you disagree with the quote, because your view is that some people do act in an irrational manner, if I understand correctly. And you also disagree because you resent people who advocate non-judgment of others, you see them as either fools or more likely malevolent people who are only trying to manipulate others into becoming their victims, right?

 

I think I understand what Mises said in a different manner than you. I see 3 choices where I think you may be recognizing 2, either moralistic judgment or non-judgment. I think the 3rd choice is the one that Mises is talking about here, the one that is foundational to Austrian economics, where each person judges based on value to them. The way I understand it, he says that all we can really do if we want to be consistent with logic is to use value judgment of both our own actions and the actions of others, value to us. He warns of the futility of trying to decide for another person of the value of something to them. I think passing value judgment allows us to recognize when someone's actions are not bringing us the value we want, and in this manner it allows us to protect ourself the way I think you want people and especially children to be able to protect themselves.

 

When mises writes  "it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volitions." I think he means value judgment as to whether other people's aims and volitions are a value to them. I think he's saying that each person passes value judgment on what is a value to themselves. Whereas if I understand correctly you're saying you want to pass moralistic judgment on the actions of others, as well as your own actions, and everyone should do the same. Would you please clarify if I am not understanding what you wrote?  

[Wesley]

Value is arbitrary. It can be valuable to me to mug someone and steal their money, as I become richer for it. However, that does not make it any more moral or rational to do it.

 

Value of actions and morality of actions are completely different categories.

[Marc Moini]

Wesley, yes, the way I understand it "value is arbitrary" if you think of it this way, without reference to any specific person. However, as I understand it, the point Mises is making is that when making value judgments each person logically can only use themselves as the reference (he explains why above), and then in reference to this person value is no longer arbitrary. If it is valuable to you to mug someone, then it is valuable to you. And that's why he says that it's rational, with this proviso.

 

The way I understand it, Austrian economics is based on this. If someone disagrees with this, I have trouble understanding how they can accept Austrian economics.

 

And yes, I agree that value of actions and morality of actions are completely different categories, because one is supposed to apply to everyone while the other only has meaning when it is individual. That's what I've been trying to get people interested in the implications of, and I keep trying as I think of new ways to present this idea.

[Tadas]

In my opinion rational action is which is logically supposed to create desired result.

 

as If I want to break glass I smash it.

 

I smash my watch with hammer in attempt to fix it  while I know hat it will not work it will be irrational.

 

I think irrational actions are done to pace yourself and other people as you have urge to fix some problem but you do not have solution, so you just do anything and say that you made your attempt.

Society usually do not care about results as it cares about intent. so if you can show your good intent you get approval independently of results

[Marc Moini]

Tadas, that's what I read in the quote as well, that actions are meant to create our desired result.

 

So if I do some actions in order to pace myself, then that is my desired result and those actions thus are rational, not irrational. The fact that I have some problem I don't know how to solve, does not change this, that's a separate thing, right?

 

I'm not sure who you are referring to as society, but I agree that many people place a lot of value on intent, and sometimes that can lead them to omit also evaluating the results of their actions. Personally I try to take both intent and results into account, when judging whether actions meet my needs. 

[SirJamesIII]

Here's another quote from Human Action that will help elucidate things a bit: 

It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable--although faulty--deliberation and an attempt--although an ineffectual attempt--to attain a definite goal.

All conscious action is committed because an actor has a reason for doing so. That is what Mises means as "rational." Suppose we have a scientist who performs an experiment to try to prove his hypothesis, but the scientist is unaware that his hypothesis is incorrect. Then suppose we have a girl who is behaving emotionally and breaks up with her boyfriend, but regrets it later. Categorically, the two examples are no different. Both actors performed an action "unsuited to the end sought." One sought to prove an incorrect hypothesis and the other sought a healthy relationship. However, in colloquial terms, most would consider the scientist as rational and the emotional girl as "irrational."

 

One may say that the scientist couldn't have known that his hypothesis was incorrect given the available information while the girl did have available information that could have pointed her in the right direction. One may also say that there exists no means in reality that can achieve the end sought by the scientist because it is impossible to prove his hypothesis while there does exist available means to the girl for the purposes of attaining her desired ends. These objections, however, are not relevant to praxeology and economics. Firstly, all action implies uncertainty on behalf of the actor. Rothbard says: 

Another fundamental implication derived from the existence of human action is the uncertainty of the future. This must be true because the contrary would completely negate the possibility of action. If man knew future events completely, he would never act, since no act of his could change the situation. Thus, the fact of action signifies that the future is uncertain to the actors. This uncertainty about future events stems from two basic sources: the unpredictability of human acts of choice, and insufficient knowledge about natural phenomena.

There are no scientific means of establishing whether or not means employed by an actor will bring about desired results because even if one could predict with total certainty the outcome of every action, no one has the authority to say whether or not that outcome is desirable to the actor until the actor has actually experienced it. An actor's values are in constant flux, which means we can perform actions whose sought ends are in contradiction with actions we may have performed in the past or will perform in the future. For all we know, the scientist may have figured out that he really enjoys trying to prove impossible hypotheses. 

[Marc Moini]

Thanks SirJamesIII, I find your post brings clarity to the discussion. And I agree, and I particularly like the quote you chose because the way I understand it, morality does not allow for mistakes ("You should have known!"), and this makes morality a flawed framework for dealing with reality, because in reality humans are not infallible.

 

The way I see it, if I want to be consistent, I cannot at the same time accept both Austrian economics and morality (any kind).

[Cosmin]

The way I see it, if I want to be consistent, I cannot at the same time accept both Austrian economics and morality (any kind).

 

Nope, you yourself admitted that value of actions and morality of actions are two different things. So you can't now put them in the same category by saying you can't accept both Austrian economics and morality.

 

It's like saying you can't be both tall and fat.

[Marc Moini]

Cosmin, if I accept Austrian economics it means I judge my actions and those of others according to the value these actions have for me, and I understand that each other person likewise judges what is the value to them of my actions and their own actions and the actions of anyone else.

 

For me, accepting morality means something that isn't compatible with this, because then I would judge my actions and those of others not according to their value to me, but according to an impersonal standard that assigns one moral value regardless of who is affected by those actions.

 

The way I understand it, morality says there is one right way to judge an action, whereas with value judgments as in Austrian economics, no one can decide the value of an action for anyone but themselves.

 

I'm not sure how to express this with categories, but I think that's a big difference.

[Cosmin]

Austrian economics acknowledges that people act in their interest (e.g. some people prefer to steal).

 

Morality means a set of rules which are universal - everybody should obey them at all times.

 

Stealing is wrong not because it does not bring an advantage to the thief, but because it cannot be universal (the thief steals something, but then he does not want somebody else to steal it from him).

 

Another way of putting it would be to say that economics studies the way people act, and morality studies the way people should act.

[Marc Moini]

I guess you want people to behave in a predictable way, a rational way, so you can protect yourself from their actions? Because otherwise it's too difficult/scary to figure out what they're likely to do?

[Marc Moini]

[Stephen C]

A thought comes to mind and it might be complete nonsense, but I'll toss it out anyway.People that are the most judgmental of others seem to be the most fearful of having judgement passed on them. When they are in a position where judgement is going to be or is being passed on them they desire to flee or defend out of an...irrational? fear they have. At the same time they will boast about the importance of judgement. These people might work very hard to present themselves in a way that would make it very difficult for others to have negative judgement of them, they want to present themselves as a perfect person. They do not do wrong, they do not harm others, they just make mistakes. Politicians come to mind.What do you think, Marc? Does any of this ring true or untrue?"In my opinion rational action is which is logically supposed to create desired result." I agree with this. 

[Marc Moini]

I'm glad to hear from you, Stephen.

 

Yes, this rings very true to me. It seems to me that we all need* to receive love, and that many of us are unfortunately raised with the belief that we'll only be loved if we behave a certain way, that we're not worthy of being loved for ourselves, that there's something deeply flawed in us and the only way we can hope to get the love we crave is if we pretend to be someone else.

 

So we try to figure out what it is we have to do to please others, so they'll love us. We look for rules that would tell us what we need to do, and we might also try to force others to give us love by putting them in situations where the rules say they must love us.

 

We try to conform to these rules ourselves, but if that doesn't succeed in getting us love, then we may think that our personal rules might be different than the rules for everyone else. I'm thinking of politicians here, but I know I've done that myself too.

 

So yes, this looks very rational to me, though fraught with errors of knowledge and/or reasoning. Plus I believe that fear makes it more difficult to think clearly, or even to feel clearly, so I think fear also explains a lot of these mistakes.

 

I would agree that the more I pass judgment, the more I also become fearful of judgement myself, because the more I depend on judgment (rules) to get love, the more risky it becomes for me, if I fail my own rules and people notice this.

 

How does this sound to you?

 

 

*the way I see it, it's possible to survive without love, but it's not possible to live a happy, fulfilling life, without love.

[Stephen C]

What comes to mind is this quote:"Dissociation mimics enlightenmentDissociation - being split - off from part or all of our emotions, inner truth, or history - is lauded in our troubled world as health. Families love children who do not cry or whine, but achieve or feign happiness in spite of their misery. People who are dissociated are often confident, strong, and sure of themselves, because they lean on a totally false self, and lack the conscious feelings which invariably block this falsity. These people often look like the healthiest of all, and in the sickest social environments they rise to the top.- and become leaders. They are often praised for their skill, power, and enlightenment, though in reality they are just mimicking a truly healed person. The truly healed person has earned his connection with his true self, and thus his enlightenment is not false, his confidence not built on sand, his leadership not built on corruption, and his motives conscious and pure-to his depths."From Trauma To Enlightenment: Self Therapy In Twelve Steps by Daniel Mackler and Frederick TimmPeep the knowledge...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yFxIjhdSlE

[Marc Moini]

I guess you're disappointed, because you were hoping to get support for making sense of things, and now you realize that you cannot get this support from the people you thought would be able to give it to you, because they'd need it first themselves?

 

Thanks for this video. Albert Ellis's views on guilt and shame sound very true to me, they match what I hear Marshall Rosenberg and Nathaniel Branden are saying.

[Stephen C]

I guess you're disappointed, because you were hoping to get support for making sense of things, and now you realize that you cannot get this support from the people you thought would be able to give it to you, because they'd need it first themselves?

 

Thanks for this video. Albert Ellis's views on guilt and shame sound very true to me, they match what I hear Marshall Rosenberg and Nathaniel Branden are saying.

I'm pretty disappointed about a lot of things, yes. Out of all the things in the world you are disappointed in, what is most disappointing to you?You're welcome.  

[Marc Moini]

So in addition to feeling disappointed, you're also sad that there are so many things you are disappointed about? And maybe wondering where to go from here? If you want to say.

 

Personally I'm not disappointed about anything right now, though (just like everyone else I suppose) I've had many disappointments.

[Stephen C]

I'm pretty sad about there being so many things I'm disappointed about, yes. I'm wondering where to go from here.Out of all the things you have been disappointed about, what has been the most disappointing to you? Out of all the things you have been sad about, what has saddened you the most? When you are wondering where to go, what do you do?

[Marc Moini]

I had a friend, from when I was 19 to 29, who was over 20 years older. He became a sort of surrogate father for me, since my own father wasn't there. I learned a lot from him, he had started a handful of companies, he had spent his time in the army in jail because he didn't want to submit, he and some of his friends used to ram police vans around Paris with their large american cars and turn them over (that was back in the 70's), he used to get into a lot of fights, including gunfights with gypsies, from what he said. He was a real character, seemingly not afraid of anything, and I spent a lot of time with him, we started a software company together, me doing the software and him taking care of the business side. Actually I was doing both, since he didn't speak English and all our clients were in the US. But I thought that he knew what do to, and that I was learning from him. In fact neither of us knew, and we just bluffed our way into incredible deals, with me being completely unconcerned because I thought he had it under control and I just wasn't able to tell. I knew what I could do on the technical side, but we sold my work at prices I'd never had dreamed of, because with the attitude we had people believed they were getting their money's worth. I actually think now that it was fair, it's just that by myself I was undervaluing my work. This was 1987 to 1993 when the Macintosh was a desktop publishing machine, our clients were big companies like SuperMac or Central Point Software and they thought they were dealing with a cutting-edge european software house, when it was just me working at home, sometimes asking for help from a friend or two.

Towards the end, when I had been doing everything including handling clients alone for a couple of years, I realized that my friend actually wasn't contributing anything anymore, because by then I had learned everything I could learn from him. I had learned how to talk to clients and close deals, how to drive cars and motorcycles (he used to do european 250cc motorcycle races), and a lot about life in general, and I was starting to notice inconsistencies in what he was doing and saying. He was an obsessive womanizer, and I realized it was from insecurity. He pretended to have all this wisdom, yet one of his sons, who was 17, killed himself (didn't mean to, took a knife to his own gut to make his girlfriend come back apparently, but the ambulance didn't arrive for an hour). I wondered why he had been spending so much time with me all these years, when his children needed him, and I realized that a major reason was that I was his way of making money. I had been looking for a guide, someone to help me make sense of this world and where I fit, and he had pretended to know more than he did, partly in order to exploit me. That was a huge disappointment. I haven't talked with him since, though now I would, now that I am able to put all of this into perspective and understand that it wasn't something personal against me, he was just scared he wouldn't be able to feed his family and he didn't know how to do this any better than by lying to me.

 

The thing that saddened me the most was the thought that I had failed my children, when their mother left because we couldn't solve the disagreements between us. That and leaving them at her house after each time they're here. I'm still sad about this, each time, though it's slowly getting better as I see that they're suffering less now that we're talking more and more about what's bothering each of us, i.e. the communication between us is getting good enough that each person feels heard and accepted.

 

When I'm wondering what to do, where to go, I listen in, and if I can't tell then I take it as easy as I can, doing only the minimum I absolutely need to do to live, and I try to do kind things for myself. Like take time to go outside and enjoy sights and sounds and smells and the touch of nature, such as going barefoot in the forest after the rain, or going into the ocean and swimming or surfing. Or even just taking my shirt off and catching 5 minutes of sun outside my door. That really helps. Just not rushing, taking time to enjoy life, even small things. This eventually gets me back to feeling at peace, and then I just do whatever I can, that seems like a good idea. If I feel some resistance inside, when I think of doing something, then I don't do that thing, because it doesn't seem worth it, to do something if it goes against myself. It seems to be working, overall I feel much more at peace now than I remember feeling before, and it's not the dull anaesthesia of dissociation that I used to feel, I do get moments of intense joy as well as moments of strong pain or sadness, but I'm ok with all of it.

 

Does any of this help?

 

 

[Stephen C]

I appreciate you telling me about this time in your life and your experience of it. Thank you for sharing, Marc. Does it help you at all to tell it?

[Marc Moini]

I enjoyed remembering this period of my life that I wrote about, and in general I enjoy if I can contribute in some way to someone's happiness. Do you resent that I asked you if what I wrote helps? That's the impression I get, that you want consideration and that asking you if it helped, went against that.

[Stephen C]

I enjoyed remembering this period of my life that I wrote about, and in general I enjoy if I can contribute in some way to someone's happiness. Do you resent that I asked you if what I wrote helps? That's the impression I get, that you want consideration and that asking you if it helped, went against that.

I do resent you for asking me if what you wrote helps. Do you have any thoughts that might help me?

[Marc Moini]

Thanks for confirming. I'm afraid that anything I suggest you will reject, because the way I see it what you are after the most is to know that the choices you make for yourself are the best ones for you. Plus I suppose you already know that the ideas I think can help people in general be happier, are mainly those of Marshall Rosenberg and Nathaniel Branden.

 

I watched part of your video about your inner critic, and my impression is that IFS can be an effective way for some people to find things about themselves, but I don't use it or recommend it myself because I'm afraid it would prevent me from feeling at peace. I believe with the ideas I've learned from the people named above, I can figure out what's happening in me, the various feelings I have and what causes them, whether this cause is some needs (NVC ones) or some thoughts, and then I can usually figure out from that, what to do so I can feel happy and at peace.

 

If you have any thoughts that might help me, I'm all ears.

[Stephen C]

You're welcome.Will I reject anything others suggest?Have I not been making the best choices possible for myself?Am I afraid of myself?I noticed you don't end your messages to me with "Best wishes, Marc". I'm glad because I can already see your name above your avatar and being wished well several times in one day is overdose amounts of well wishing for me. 

[Marc Moini]

Yes, after a while (and after you told me), I figured that you didn't like it when I would end my posts with that. For me "Best wishes, Marc" was something I wrote because I meant it, I wanted to convey that I care for each person I write to, but it sounds like you heard it as me insulting you, like I thought you didn't know who it was that was writing, or maybe that it wasn't sincere.

 

Just like I get the impression that you got the sense that I think you're not making the best choices for yourself, or that you will reject anything people suggest, when I don't think any of that.

[Stephen C]

Would you like to tell me "Best Wishes, Marc"?Do you think I make the best choices for myself?Do you think I will accept anything people suggest?Why do I make up fantasies about what you think and being that I do, what can be done about this?

[Marc Moini]

I used to enjoy writing "Best wishes, Marc", but not anymore, since you say you hear it as something demeaning, if I understand correctly.

 

Yes I think you (just like anybody else) make the best choices for yourself at any given time, though at a later time you might think of other choices that you would have preferred. We learn and we change, but at each instant, I think we're always making the best choice between the alternatives that we see available to us in that moment (and our mind might be clouded by emotion right then, so we might see less alternatives than we would if we were calmer). Someone else might make a different choice, but they're not us living what we're living in that moment.

 

No I don't think you will accept anything people suggest.

 

I don't think you make up fantasies about what I think, it seems to me that in general communication is imperfect and as a result of that all of us are potentially hearing in other people's words things that they don't mean in the way we take it.

[Stephen C]

It sucks that you stopped writing "Best wishes, Marc" on all your forum posts because Stephen C hears it as something demeaning even though you like saying it. Is it possible that Stephen C might of been hearing in your words things that you don't mean because, in general, communication is imperfect? 

[Marc Moini]

The reason I stopped writing this is because it occurred to me that perhaps others as well found it irritating. I don't see anyone else writing this in their forum posts, so I'm guessing it is part of forum etiquette and it just took me a long time to figure it out. Perhaps I wouldn't have, if you hadn't told me directly, so I'm grateful to you for that.

 

I am convinced that in general, yes, we all sometimes hear in others' words things that they don't mean, because as you say communication is imperfect.

[Stephen C]

I like you sometimes.

[Marc Moini]

Thanks! I'm glad to know that And I'm returning the compliment!