Nobody bases their political views rationally. I promise you, the foundations of your values are based on stuff you believe, but cannot demonstrate.
Statements like: “society should help the vulnerable”, or “society should enable the strong” cannot be validated or rejected based on formal logic. Logical valuations like true and false are incoherent when talking about how things ought to be.
What? Of course you can base your political views on rationality. For example, climate change is literally an existential threat to life on this planet, so the rational thing to do would be to support policies that preserve the biosphere and therefore dramatically reduce carbon emissions. This is rooted in the core biological desire to reproduce and care for your offspring. Similar arguments can be made for all basic human and animal needs, like food, shelter, etc.
If your point is that everything is contrived and therefore irrational, then that precludes this entire conversation to the point of uselessness.
Nobody bases their political views rationally. I promise you, the foundations of your values are based on stuff you believe, but cannot demonstrate.
Some people are pretty strict utilitarians. So, they wouldn’t say that “society should help the vulnerable” or “society should enable the strong”, but that society should try to maximize utility, which is also often called “happiness”, but it shouldn’t be confused as being exactly the same as the layman’s term of “happiness”.
I am not a strict utilitarian, but utilitarianism can be a useful tool, and it absolutely can be used to rationally examine your example statements. The only part of it that is a belief is that it’s better to maximize utility, and then the question of quantifying utility, but there is much more logic in that than you seem to think exists in a system of values.
Nobody bases their political views rationally. I promise you, the foundations of your values are based on stuff you believe, but cannot demonstrate.
Statements like: “society should help the vulnerable”, or “society should enable the strong” cannot be validated or rejected based on formal logic. Logical valuations like true and false are incoherent when talking about how things ought to be.
What? Of course you can base your political views on rationality. For example, climate change is literally an existential threat to life on this planet, so the rational thing to do would be to support policies that preserve the biosphere and therefore dramatically reduce carbon emissions. This is rooted in the core biological desire to reproduce and care for your offspring. Similar arguments can be made for all basic human and animal needs, like food, shelter, etc.
If your point is that everything is contrived and therefore irrational, then that precludes this entire conversation to the point of uselessness.
Some people are pretty strict utilitarians. So, they wouldn’t say that “society should help the vulnerable” or “society should enable the strong”, but that society should try to maximize utility, which is also often called “happiness”, but it shouldn’t be confused as being exactly the same as the layman’s term of “happiness”.
I am not a strict utilitarian, but utilitarianism can be a useful tool, and it absolutely can be used to rationally examine your example statements. The only part of it that is a belief is that it’s better to maximize utility, and then the question of quantifying utility, but there is much more logic in that than you seem to think exists in a system of values.