Rationality and Values
In entry 6 I declared the denial of incompatible differences by tolerance as a highway to unhappiness, and in entry 20 I pointed out the importance of creating closeness by solving problems with the method of constructive communication. But constructive communication requires the common ground of shared values, upon which an agreement of what is rational can be reached. People, who have incompatible value systems, can only avoid conflicts by keeping distance and tolerance, they cannot get mentally close. By using tolerance as a tool for the denial of incompatibility, they can well get infatuated with each other, and even emotionally attached the same way people get emotionally attached to pets, who have no value system. A deep mental bond can only be created upon shared values.
As much as I dislike to do so, I have to acknowledge, that the basic values of a person cannot be judged as rational or irrational. What can be evaluated in the light of rationality, are only the derived attitudes and behavior, when the values are influencing the coping under the conditions of the environment and circumstances.
I suspect, that the relative strength of the several instincts in comparison with rationality determines the identity of a person as either an individual or as a module in a chain of bearers of genes and more generally as a particle of something greater. This identity determines the value system as its conscious consequence and representation.
I am a predominantly rational person, I perceive myself as an individual in exchange with other individuals. That makes me an egalitarian. My value system declares every person, who is no doing damage to others, as deserving the same right to a good life. One hour of the life of the factory worker is of equal value as the life of the factory's owner. One hour in the life of a person in any poor third world country is of equal value as that of a person in Europe. The misery of the first and the much better life of the latter are in no way justifiable.
If the worker and the manager are born with about the same potential and talents, it is an unacceptable injustice that they did not get the same chances to develop and that at some later time in life the measured intelligence of the factory worker has become much lower than that of the owner.
Nobody has any justifiable right to inflict disadvantages upon strangers in favor of anybody because of a shared gene pool.
The factory owner, having a dozen children, being the owner of the factory in the fifth generation, being determined by the procreation instinct and the hierarchy instinct, perceives himself in his identity as a member of an eternal chain of handing on his genes and the material achiements of the previous bearers of his genes down to the future bearer of his genes. His value system is subjectively to him very moral as having obligations to his genes more than to all genetically unrelated human beings.
He perceives the inequality of himself having privileges as justified by being a member in a chain of powerful, rich and capable bearers of genes, his privileges being the requirement and necessity for his gene chain's survival as part of the survival of the gene pool of the entire group or society. He perceives himself as fitter by natural selection, as a garanty for the survival of the species, and therefore as deserving his priviledges. He is driven by the principle, that the fitter the genes, the more they are entitled to privileges. He might exploit, even kill genetically unrelated persons, and subjectively believe himself a good person doing his duty to whoever he consciously considers above him, but who on the instinct level are his genes.
I personally loathe that factory owner. But there is no ultimate absolute way to logically call his doings wrong, I can only subjectively loathe him based upon my own values. But I cannot claim my values to be more rational than his. I wished I could.
Evolution and natural selection and the power of the genes are facts, that are beyond any value judgement. Procreation and inequality are as rational for the survival of the species as they are irrational for the individual.
It is a dilemma. Subjectively, I cannot accept his values as equal to mine and be tolerant, because they are too alien to my whole being. I cannot refute his values rationally as being wrong compared with mine. So all I can do is avoid people with such values.
I had written the above before I discovered the research of Kanazawa, and again, in a rough way, I see my ideas backed up, when he connects differences in values with differences in intelligence.
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JBS2009.pdf
But again, I see things more drastic than he does. He seems to see that the increase of intelligence as still completely under the realm of the selection of the fittest serving the species. He sees evolution still in progress to improve the general fitness of the human species. That being childfree could be a result of evolution having overstepped its own purpose does not seem to be included in his theories. I did not find any biography of his, so I wonder, if he is a breeder himself or wishing in vain to breed and is caught inside his own genetic determination.
As much as I dislike to do so, I have to acknowledge, that the basic values of a person cannot be judged as rational or irrational. What can be evaluated in the light of rationality, are only the derived attitudes and behavior, when the values are influencing the coping under the conditions of the environment and circumstances.
I suspect, that the relative strength of the several instincts in comparison with rationality determines the identity of a person as either an individual or as a module in a chain of bearers of genes and more generally as a particle of something greater. This identity determines the value system as its conscious consequence and representation.
I am a predominantly rational person, I perceive myself as an individual in exchange with other individuals. That makes me an egalitarian. My value system declares every person, who is no doing damage to others, as deserving the same right to a good life. One hour of the life of the factory worker is of equal value as the life of the factory's owner. One hour in the life of a person in any poor third world country is of equal value as that of a person in Europe. The misery of the first and the much better life of the latter are in no way justifiable.
If the worker and the manager are born with about the same potential and talents, it is an unacceptable injustice that they did not get the same chances to develop and that at some later time in life the measured intelligence of the factory worker has become much lower than that of the owner.
Nobody has any justifiable right to inflict disadvantages upon strangers in favor of anybody because of a shared gene pool.
The factory owner, having a dozen children, being the owner of the factory in the fifth generation, being determined by the procreation instinct and the hierarchy instinct, perceives himself in his identity as a member of an eternal chain of handing on his genes and the material achiements of the previous bearers of his genes down to the future bearer of his genes. His value system is subjectively to him very moral as having obligations to his genes more than to all genetically unrelated human beings.
He perceives the inequality of himself having privileges as justified by being a member in a chain of powerful, rich and capable bearers of genes, his privileges being the requirement and necessity for his gene chain's survival as part of the survival of the gene pool of the entire group or society. He perceives himself as fitter by natural selection, as a garanty for the survival of the species, and therefore as deserving his priviledges. He is driven by the principle, that the fitter the genes, the more they are entitled to privileges. He might exploit, even kill genetically unrelated persons, and subjectively believe himself a good person doing his duty to whoever he consciously considers above him, but who on the instinct level are his genes.
I personally loathe that factory owner. But there is no ultimate absolute way to logically call his doings wrong, I can only subjectively loathe him based upon my own values. But I cannot claim my values to be more rational than his. I wished I could.
Evolution and natural selection and the power of the genes are facts, that are beyond any value judgement. Procreation and inequality are as rational for the survival of the species as they are irrational for the individual.
It is a dilemma. Subjectively, I cannot accept his values as equal to mine and be tolerant, because they are too alien to my whole being. I cannot refute his values rationally as being wrong compared with mine. So all I can do is avoid people with such values.
I had written the above before I discovered the research of Kanazawa, and again, in a rough way, I see my ideas backed up, when he connects differences in values with differences in intelligence.
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JBS2009.pdf
But again, I see things more drastic than he does. He seems to see that the increase of intelligence as still completely under the realm of the selection of the fittest serving the species. He sees evolution still in progress to improve the general fitness of the human species. That being childfree could be a result of evolution having overstepped its own purpose does not seem to be included in his theories. I did not find any biography of his, so I wonder, if he is a breeder himself or wishing in vain to breed and is caught inside his own genetic determination.
