Kelley quoted Joseph Heath:
>
>
> <quote>
> [CLIP]
> Thus the attempt to explain consumerism as a form of irrationality is a
> self-defeating theoretical strategy, since the ascription of irrationality
> to agents counts as prima facie evidence against any theory that draws
> support from such an ascription.
>
> </quote>
I couldn't agree more. But I want to extend this to almost _all_ kinds of human behavior that gets described as "irrational" -- including most specifically the support given by a majority of u.s. residents to Bush and his foreign policy. My own preference would be to reserve the word "irrational" for _actions_, and to insist that the performance of an irrational act is _not_ any indication at all of the "irrationality" of the actor. As soon as one shifts from the act to the actor an indefinite series of possibly different contexts for the same action present themselves. (Crude example: Act: leaping from the 50th story of the building _apparently not on fire_; Motive: Something the equivalent of an inescapable fire inside, not visible from the outside.)
Carrol