{"id":844,"date":"2010-09-06T16:30:38","date_gmt":"2010-09-06T23:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/qpr.ca\/blog\/?p=844"},"modified":"2010-09-09T02:41:07","modified_gmt":"2010-09-09T09:41:07","slug":"freedom-from-rationality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/2010\/09\/06\/freedom-from-rationality\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom from Rationality"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.3quarksdaily.com\/3quarksdaily\/2010\/08\/secularism-and-religious-freedom-a-place-for-everyone.html#more\">Quinn O&#8217;Neill<\/a> at 3quarksdaily has commented on both tone and content of the reason vs religion &#8220;debate&#8221;, suggesting, among other things, that freedom of religion requires that all views be treated with respect and tolerance.<!--more--><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/metamagician3000.blogspot.com\/2010\/08\/freedom-of-religion-oneill-adds-to.html\">Russell Blackford<\/a> disagrees, on what appear to be largely technical grounde, with the reference to freedom of religion, saying &#8220;O&#8217;Neill puts on airs as if she is an expert on freedom of religion, but she is obviously ignorant about it&#8221;.<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/kazez.blogspot.com\/2010\/08\/incivility-debate.html\">Jean Kazez<\/a> (who I was led to by a posting by <a href=\"http:\/\/heathen-hub.com\/blog.php?blogid=538\">Gurdur<\/a>) correctly points out that Blackford&#8217;s excessively legalistic and historical definition of &#8220;freedom of religion&#8221; is not the only reasonable one, and that the concept has evolved over time. Kazez also calls Blackford&#8217;s response &#8220;uncivil&#8221; but I don&#8217;t really think it&#8217;s out of bounds nor that it misrepresents O&#8217;Neill&#8217;s position.<br \/>\nHe&#8217;s just wrong. And maybe too full of himself to understand that that might be possible.<\/p>\n<p>Despite all that, I do think O&#8217;Neill&#8217;s analysis is short of the mark.<br \/>\nFor example, she says the following:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;Suppose you could choose either to maximize human  rationality or to maximize human happiness.  For most of us, even for  the most strident advocates of reason and critical thinking, I suspect  the choice would be happiness or well-being.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>One problem with this (as with all naive utilitarianism) is how to define cumulative &#8220;well-being&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>For anyone who takes total human &#8220;happiness&#8221; as the ultimate goal the following <a href='http:\/\/092.me'>question<\/a>s come to mind:<\/p>\n<p>If a drug were available which created unending total individual  happiness without shortening lifespan or impairing normal function &#8211; but  at the cost of imposing an irrational but apparently harmless delusion,  would you take it? recommend it? give it to your children?<\/p>\n<p>And if the effectiveness and harmlessness of the drug was dependent on having <em>everyone<\/em> take it, how much harm would you be willing to do in order to make that happen?<\/p>\n<p>If happiness is the ultimate value, then might not a rational  utilitarian who had found such a drug reasonably decide to sacrifice  reason, and even to cause huge immediate suffering, in order to reach the  ultimate goal of having ignorant bliss eventually be the lot of <em>all<\/em> future generations?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Quinn O&#8217;Neill at 3quarksdaily has commented on both tone and content of the reason vs religion &#8220;debate&#8221;, suggesting, among other things, that freedom of religion requires that all views be treated with respect and tolerance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,2],"tags":[229,134],"class_list":["post-844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religion","category-social","tag-religion","tag-utilitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/844","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=844"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/844\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":859,"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/844\/revisions\/859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qpr.ca\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}