Q&A: GREAT QUESTION! —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? A

Q&A: GREAT QUESTION!

—“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? And how differentiate it with critical-rationalism?”—

SIMPLE ANSWER ON DIFFERENCES : SCOPE OF YOUR WARRANTY

1) Rationalism requires we test for internal consistency(logical) and non contradiction(not false), but not that we test for external correspondence (empirically consistent) in order to attempt to falsify our ideas (hypotheses). In other words we don’t have to warranty that our ideas are externallly correspondent. We can claim that we have been forthright (rational) and free of blame for having made rational choices.

2) Critical rationalism requires that we test for internal consistency, and external correspondence, and that we attempt to falsify them because confirming them is meaningless..

3) Testimonialism asks us to test by rationalism, critical rationalism, and moral objectivity.

SIMPLE ANSWER ON RATIONALISM IN ETHICS

In the sequence: pedagogical ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, outcome ethics, and testimonial ethics, each describes the ethical model one must rely upon given one’s knowledge and understanding.

Now if one uses an ethical model lower than one’s understanding, then one can intentionally use that lower ethical criteria to justify unethical behavior.

This is what libertines (libertarians) do, when they refer to the NAP and self determination of morality. They are claiming non-responsibiity for externalities caused by their actions.

So you sort of have to warranty your actions by using an ethical system someone will believe you are not using for theft.