Quote:
|
Why is it irrational to segregate humans based upon race? I'm a white guy in the 1940s. I benefit from it. You're still fooling yourself. The philosophy that all men are equal is a belief. You can call it a principle if you like, but you believe in the principle.
|
As I pointed out before, the application of the Categorical Imperative is the basis for making "rational" decisions. The irrationality in segregation relates to the "overall" impact to human society, which can be shown to be negative, not just for those discriminated against, but for everyone. It is self evident that all men are NOT created equal; that is a rational statement. I don't "believe" in principles, I follow them and advocate them based upon their proven outcome. One can act upon a principle, while beliefs can only remain just that. You have it backwards again. I would reverse your statement and say "You can call it a belief if you like, but if you take actions based upon a belief, and it results in a positive outcome for society, it becomes a rational truth." The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
You said before that "Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing." Rationality does not involve morality (right & wrong), and although Kant did relate morality to actions, he asserted that only those maxims you'd be willing for everyone (not just yourself) to act were morally acceptable; it is always based on the net benefit to all.
There are to many examples of such actions to cite here. Some have argued that mercy killing is morally wrong, but others (including those being killed) see it as a very rational act. The one's who think otherwise are burdened with "beliefs."