What is your opinion on rationalism and utilitarianism as being in opposition to empiricism and pragmatism?

[Nikki1989]

The former being concerned with questions of morality, the latter having more to say about behaviour in the real world.

[Pinup_Scarlett46]

Rationalism and utilitarianism, as philosophical frameworks, often present different approaches compared to empiricism and pragmatism.

- **Rationalism** emphasizes reason and logic as the primary sources of knowledge, often prioritizing innate ideas or deductive reasoning over sensory experience. It contrasts with **empiricism**, which holds that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience and observation.

- **Utilitarianism**, a moral philosophy advocating for actions that maximize overall happiness or well-being, can sometimes conflict with **pragmatism**, which focuses on practical consequences and the effectiveness of ideas in real-world applications.

In essence:

- **Rationalism** and **utilitarianism** can sometimes appear in opposition to **empiricism** and **pragmatism** because they emphasize different sources or methods for deriving knowledge and making ethical decisions. Rationalism values theoretical reasoning, while empiricism relies on empirical evidence. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing general welfare, whereas pragmatism emphasizes practical effectiveness and adaptability.

These philosophies each offer valuable perspectives and can inform various approaches to understanding and addressing problems, often complementing rather than strictly opposing one another.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I think the biggest difference between morals and ethics is that ethics is done with the acknowledgement of consequences of one’s actions whereas morals focus on the feelings of the actions, not the consequences.

[DJB72]

Rationalist and utilitarian "morality" would see the introduction of euthanasia on a massive scale. After all, keeping people alive once they're no longer producing anything due to old age or chronic illness or injury is irrational as it drains resources the workers can use. So the utilitarian thing to do is to dispose of them.

"Humanely". Like gas chambers, perhaps...

The Nazis and the Stalinist Communists were the ultimate "Rational and Utilitarian" societies. Well, until Mao...

[beefcakebradybatson]

Who offed THIRTY MILLION Chinese !!!

[DJB72]

Mao's regime terminated closer to 100 million...

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

This seems to be a festivalism of -ISM in here 😆

I trust some of them, specifically, anarchism, feminism, marxism, humanism... to name a few. If the question is: Do you believe that all systems deserve a read, then YES ! I also believe that strictly opposing too few systems is a very restrictive approach to philosophy and politics and the world in general, I'm really not a fan of this.

[BoobMan]

Properly constructed morality shouldn't typically be in opposition to optimal real-world behavior. There may be edge cases where that's the case, but for the vast majority of circumstances the two should work well together.

[RyanR03]

I would say stop reading philosophy books. 📖. I read the question and went… 😴. And I am a reader

[ProbablyClueless]

I don't think of them as being in opposition?

[beefcakebradybatson]

The four should balance each other, but too often don't.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Exactly the perfect answer when you feel trapped in an intellectual conversation, this works 100%
🤣

[RetroReviews]

Uh huh huh, tacos burritos... nachos, vanilla, chocolate and strawberry,

[dailyoctopus94]

As with anything, it depends on the level of subjectivity and morality imposed on the rationalist agenda.

[MikeTheBartender]

Above and beyond bartender grammar. Sorry. I'm out on answering this question :(

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Farewell 😆

[Agape93]

I don't think they're necessarily opposites.

[negrl4a69]

No fucking idea