Praxgirl - Episode 5 - The Rationality of Action
Translations of this material:
- into Russian: Праксиология Эпизод 5 — Рациональность действия. Translated in draft, editing and proof-reading required.
Submitted for translation by IrinaChernykh 09.06.2015
- into Hebrew: פרקסגירל - פרק 5 - הרציונאליות של הפעולה. Translated in draft, editing and proof-reading required.
Submitted for translation by Talz 08.11.2011
- into French: Praxéologie - Episode 5 - La Rationalité de l'Action. Translated in draft, editing and proof-reading required.
Submitted for translation by briquolo 09.09.2011
- into Dutch: Praxgirl - Aflevering 5 - De Rationaliteit van Actie. Translated in draft, editing and proof-reading required.
Submitted for translation by chamullero 25.08.2011
- into Spanish: Praxeología - Episodio 5 - La Racionalidad de la Acción. Translated in draft, editing and proof-reading required.
Submitted for translation by perogruyo 13.08.2011
Human action is necessarily always rational.
Hi guys, Praxgirl here.
In our last lesson, I defined the logical prerequisites of human action, I explained what Praxeology means when it employs the term “happiness”, and I made a logical case for why actions, even of the most emotional kind, fit into the universal laws of Praxeology. In this lesson, I’d like to explain why it is inappropriate to refer to action as either rational or irrational.
Action is always necessarily rational because an acting man is always aiming his action to satisfy some desire. The terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless with respect to the subjective goals of a man.
I’m sure you’ve heard a friend refer to someone’s actions as “irrational” in the past. But what exactly is our friend claiming to understand?
Suppose that Steve has to decide whether to go to Central Park or to a Beatle’s concert and he chooses going to the park. Peter calls Steve’s decision irrational. But Peter can’t call Steve’s decision irrational because what Steve values belongs to him and him only.
The only thing that Peter is claiming to know is what HE would have done in the same situation.
Now lets say Steve actually wanted to go to the Beatle’s concert, but someone told him that it would be held in the park. Can Peter now call Steve’s decision irrational? It’s true that Steve ended up going to a wrong location, but he acted according to what he believed would achieve his goal. He did his best. We all know man is fallible. But just because he fails to achieve his end, does not make it irrational.
Since nobody is in a position to replace his own values for those of an acting individual, it’s futile to pass judgments on other people’s goals that come from their free will. Praxeology takes the values of acting man as a given and does not analyze them. The only standard which it applies is whether or not the means chosen are fit for the attainment of the ends aimed at.Therefore, Praxeology is value free.