Is human action rational or irrational? Mistake in UPB?

[Mole]

"Let us look at three actions, to help us further distinguish between ethics and aesthetics. The first action is irrationality; the second is lying; the third is murder." - UPB p. 48.

 

This sentence implies action can be irrational.

 

"every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action" - UPB p. 33

 

If every human action is chosen in preference, then every human action is purposeful. According to praxeology, human action, as opposed to reaction, is purposeful behaviour. Praxeology differentiates action from reaction because it also states that human action is always rational. But that contradicts with p. 48 of UPB which states that action can be irrational.

 

The only way to defend both uses of the word 'action' would be to believe that purposeful behaviour can be irrational, and praxeology is wrong in this regard. But isn't purpose the product of the rational faculty? I would think that irrational behaviour would be a product of external forces such as human instinct, emotion or the environment all of which can't recognise universal principles and logic.

 

Does page 48 include reactions in its sense of action while page 33 doesn't? Also if you could help me understand the difference between behaviour and action that would be great. Thanks!

[Anuojat]

Hmmm i think what stef is talking with "irrational action" here is something that is still rational in OTHEr aspect of said action, namely its motivation.

 

For instance when i was child i prayed to "god" (sky daddy, unseens entity, take your pick) that bad things wouldnt happen to me and that "heaven" would have coca cola that didnt ro teeth.

 

As you can see my action was irrational, but the why i did it aka "the purposeful action" was absolutely rational given my enviroment and religions parent(s) at the time and for anyone else in similiar situation.

 

The motivation or purpose of our action is always (at the very least on deepest emotional level such as fear, anger, hathred) rational. Sometimes doing the irrational can be the most rational thing to do for your safety ect.

[Mole]

Hmmm i think what stef is talking with "irrational action" here is something that is still rational in OTHEr aspect of said action, namely its motivation.

 

For instance when i was child i prayed to "god" (sky daddy, unseens entity, take your pick) that bad things wouldnt happen to me and that "heaven" would have coca cola that didnt ro teeth.

 

As you can see my action was irrational, but the why i did it aka "the purposeful action" was absolutely rational given my enviroment and religions parent(s) at the time and for anyone else in similiar situation.

 

The motivation or purpose of our action is always (at the very least on deepest emotional level such as fear, anger, hathred) rational. Sometimes doing the irrational can be the most rational thing to do for your safety ect.

I guess the problem with praxeology is that it fails to recognise that every action is subject to some kind of expected gratification. We could even go as far to say that with gratification is something that we cannot transcend. While I'd like to save my money at the moment, I save it, not to defer my gratification, but because I actually feel a sense of gratification for saving my money. That particular kind of gratification which exists without any materialistic benefit could have two causes. Either it is evolutionary, meaning our brain rewards us for saving as a built-in evolutionary instinct. Or it could be due to something we teach ourselves through our rational faculty. That is, examining the world through our senses and teaching ourselves what is good for us. As I mentioned earlier, if it is true that we necessarily act out of gratification, it would mean that acting out of some principle you give yourself, through your rational faculty, would require practise and would have to become a habit. This makes intuitive sense. We know the brain creates neural networks which can strengthen over time, and we also know how hard it is for addicts to quit. However, the line between evolutionary instinct and rational faculty may not be distinct. Indeed, the rational faculty itself is a product of evolution. Most likely our rational faculty is limited to our knowledge, and the more we learn, and practise, the easier it is to take courses of human action that follow a principle we have given ourselves. It's probably impossible to ever imagine a scenario in which all our actions are thought out, carefully planned, rationalised. The rational faculty was designed to recognise patterns in objective reality and never to define man's ends. Rather than seeing the rational faculty as an artier of man's action, we should see it as a means itself. The rational faculty does not recognise principle. It is actually the unconscious that recognises principle. The rational faculty just recognise the patterns to enable us to make our own principles. So it is not the rational faculty that defines a man. It is more the aggregation of his habits, both in his principle and in his human nature.

 

1. Human action is employing a means

2. Attaining an end is a human action.

3. Therefore attaining an end is employing a means.

 

Would it be fair to say that every end is an intermediate end, being employed for the attainment of one ultimate end? Mises has mentioned this ultimate end so I'm not making this up. This is irrational on couple levels. First of all, why would man attempt to attain an end he cannot attain? For as long as humans act, this ultimate end should exist. Mises describes means in this way; "A thing becomes a means when human reason plans to employ it for the attainment of some end." It should follow then, that every end is a means, and means are planned to be employed, and so every human action (which is the actual employment of means) to employ an 'end' should be rational. Secondly, since humans start acting at the time they start existing, by this logic, we would have rationalised this ultimate end while we were infants in our mother's womb. There may be some truth in this; that man is an end in himself, and perhaps we all unconsciously know this. But even if an infant holds this as an instinct, it's not something that they rationalised from their senses. Thirdly, if attaining an end is employing a means, then employing a means is attaining an end. This reduces our human action to spontaneous accomplishment.

 

Most likely, I think Mises was wrong about this ultimate end. I don't think attaining an end is a human action. To describe any action, there exists a given end and a given means. If I walk to my car, my end is being at my car; my means is opening a door and walking. So my human action is, exclusively opening a door and walking. Being at my car isn't neccesarily a human action!! Because being at my car is just one step in my means to get to work. And a means can only be described fully. Walking half way to my car is not my means, it is the full thing. Likewise, just being at my car is not the full human action, rather driving to work is the full human action. In this way, once an end is attained, it does not mean that the end is employing a mean because the end is usually just a small part of employing a greater means. This allows for future ends to be constantly changing, also remember that ends are ultimited while means are scarse. I really thing there isn't an ultimate end and Mises was wrong about that.

[ClearConscience]

I'm a bit confused at what you're hung up on.  I agree that the purpose of action is what determines whether that action is rational or irrational.  For instance, if your purpose is to provide an education for your children, it would be irrational to mandate that your children are not allowed to attend school.  I implore you to ignore your opinions regarding public education, indoctrination, and all that for the moment.  If your aim is for your children to be educated, then it is rational to instruct them to attend school, rather than the opposite.  But, if you also have a competing purpose/goal/objective/aim for the safety of your children, and you hear that there is a bomb threat at the school, then the purpose of protecting your children will necessarily override the previous purpose to provide education.  But allow us to suppose there was no substantive bomb threat, but you feared for the safety of your children nonetheless.  The instruction to not attend school due such fear would be irrational.  The fear itself is irrational because it does not correspond to a need.  In other words, if the fear were tied to an existing need, then the action would be rational.  I am drawing a distinction between legitimate fear and illegitimate fear, and this distinction is relevant to whether the action, as a response to fear, is rational.

Rational action is action that is narrowly tailored to fulfill an existing need.
 

When you adjust your definitions to make these important distinctions, the claim that "purposeful behavior [sic: I'm an American] can be irrational" is entirely tenable.

 

I would think that irrational behaviour would be a product of external forces such as human instinct, emotion or the environment all of which can't recognize universal principles and logic.!

 

​Perhaps my misunderstanding is the use of the word "external forces" to refer to emotions or instinct.  When I am emotional, that emotion is not external to me.  I am fear.  I am sorrow.  I am glee.  And those emotions are very much rational responses to external stimuli.  Only where there is some defect, some damage, do these emotions not respond rationally to external stimuli.

[RichardY]

"Let us look at three actions, to help us further distinguish between ethics and aesthetics. The first action is irrationality; the second is lying; the third is murder." - UPB p. 48.

 

This sentence implies action can be irrational.

I think the word "subject" rather than action would be correct. Could be a mistake IMO.

 

"every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action" - UPB p. 33

 

If every human action is chosen in preference, then every human action is purposeful. According to praxeology, human action, as opposed to reaction, is purposeful behaviour. Praxeology differentiates action from reaction because it also states that human action is always rational. But that contradicts with p. 48 of UPB which states that action can be irrational.

That "Human Action is (Necessarily) always rational", I think is a reference to the axiom that the laws of physics are consistent. 

 

The next sentence from Human Action says that: "The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic (redundant).

 

 But isn't purpose the product of the rational faculty?

Could you elaborate further?

 

----------------------------------

 

 

I guess the problem with praxeology is that it fails to recognise that every action is subject to some kind of expected gratification. We could even go as far to say that with gratification is something that we cannot transcend.

Is the emphasis on expected here? I think Human Action refers to this on Pg 13,14 & 15 on Google Books. Human Action, The Scholar's Edition. The sentence Praxeology: it is a science of means, not of ends." (Pg 15)

 

Would it be fair to say that every end is an intermediate end, being employed for the attainment of one ultimate end? Mises has mentioned this ultimate end so I'm not making this up. This is irrational on couple levels. First of all, why would man attempt to attain an end he cannot attain?

This is irrational on couple levels, yeah looks that way, but not necessarily a "bad" thing. To remain alive or keep going despite almost certain death in cases (thinking of the guy who got stuck in canyon and cut his arm off with a penknife),"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how." Nietzsche. Importantly though I think it might be better for the person to be unaware if they are to attempt some end "Never tell me the odds." Han Solo  , others deem to be unobtainable or unlikely.

 

"If you think you can, or think you can't your right." Henry Ford. A quote on a recent Youtube video: Why Donald Trump is Winning.

 

The Ultimate end(purpose?, Determinism, Freedom,  God, Truth.... take your pick) question seems like a very interesting question to me. I have a few thoughts on it, even if there is no purpose as such, perhaps there is a way of synthetic purpose through religion or something else. 

 

Just a few thoughts, including loops like found in computer programs, expressing irrational numbers like Pi, symbolism like in Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Wheel and the Swastika, A Total Recall Scenario "You blew my cover!"  . Aesthetics might be worth exploring as a guide in "self-knowledge"  or determining the ultimate end or at least some ideal.

[cassidy408]

anything you can justify in your mind is rational. How does one decide rational action? Through deduction or experience perhaps. Does experience in that context suggest you taking action would be appropriate? By appropriate do you mean that we want an ideal outcome? I would think so.

[RichardY]

anything you can justify in your mind is rational. How does one decide rational action? Through deduction or experience perhaps. Does experience in that context suggest you taking action would be appropriate? By appropriate do you mean that we want an ideal outcome? I would think so.

and the act of justifying is rational? Where do I say appropriate?