>In a message dated 7/23/03 10:28:09 PM, lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org writes:
>
>
>
>>Look, one can niggle and nitpick unto infinity about whether an act is
>>'rational' or not-- patting oneself on the back for creating such fine
>>distinctions. But to insist upon such ridiculous pedantry before making
>>a judgement is, I think, surrendering one's own moral authority. I reserve
>>the right to call an act, a person, or an event "insane" or "lunatic" or
>>"evil."
>>
>>
>
>I'd rather analyze than decry.
>
Have fun.
>Well, I don't think you're following me. My point is that rational is not
>equal to good, or just, or right, or defensible. Rationality, in fact, can be
>worse than simple insanity. Take Kissinger. The guy spiked the Paris peace
>talks so he could get a government job.
>
I don't equate "rational" with "good," although I think rationality is,
in general, a Good Thing, and its application tends to create more good
than bad. What I object to is the insistence that judgements such as
"evil," "insane" or "lunatic" should not be invoked at all-- and
especially when the subject is someone such as Joseph Stalin.
>
>Well, if you want to talk about evil, then to say that evil is essentially
>irrational is a mistake, I think. It lets us off the hook--if we think the U.S.
>occupation of Iraq is essentially irrational, then further explanation
>becomes unnecessary, indeed futile.
>
Since I've never said that evil is essentially irrational, I can ignore
this point. And I don't see how calling something "irrational" somehow
stops or halts analysis; after all, one would have to explain _why_ the
subject is irrational, and wouldn't that take some degree of analysis?
>
>