A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT QUIZ #1:

A SHORT ESSAY QUESTION turned out harder than I was hoping for. Here is the Question 1 (as stated on the quiz): Some philosophers and theoreticians maintain that:

(R) A rational action is whatever action efficiently leads to achieving one's goals.

Using a convincing example, state and explain an objection to (R). Make clear that, in your example, an agent is efficient and yet he acts (or, at least, seems to act) irrationally.

Some of you argued by describing some clearly immoral goal and then claiming that an agent achieving this goal acts irrationally. This would be a good argument if we could assume that (achieving) any immoral goal is automatically irrational. Plato and Kant (very likely) thought so. But, according to many contemporary philosophers, morality and rationality are not the same thing. So, although pursuing some goals may be immoral, these authors think it is not automatically irrational. A philosopher who accepts this view is Gert (I think he is right).

So, I want to give everyone an opportunity to revise the answer to the essay question (so I can give you all perfect grades). Here are your options:

  • A) You stick with the answer you have originally given and do not revise it all. I will give you a grade you have earned so far. (If, in your answer, you give an example of a goal that is immoral but not clearly irrational, I will give you maximum 70% for this part of quiz).
  • B) you revise your answer to the original quiz question and, in addition, you answer the following question:
    Some philosophers and theoreticians maintain that:
    (R2) A rational action is whatever action maximally benefits its agent (that is, rationality and prudence are one and the same thing).

    Using a convincing example, state and explain an objection to (R2). Make clear that, in your example, an agent is not acting in his or her best interest and yet his/her action is (seems) rational.

     

A WEEKLY HOMEWORK (mandatory for all):

Explain some version of pacifism. Then, state and explain an objection to this view.

Back to "WAR-page"