RCSI is basically a modified variation of Adam smith theory of self interest.
The theory that was propagated that, was all men are rational.. and what ever they do they have a tangible or a non tangible self interest .. the common non tangible being self satisfaction...
This theory is built on immense psychological aspect, Think of the monk who sold his Ferrari.. at first thought , that is absolute bogus and irrational.. but according to RCSI its self satisfaction from the sacrifice, is your self interest(in the book it was things like enlightment good health etc etc )
According this theory Every aspect of a mans action is governed by his self interest, and which by no means a negative aspect . A mother child relationship is usually thought as a self less act of love and affection of the mother, which actually is not , in the lady's mind deep inside there is a feeling of being a complete women which she derives from motherhood, the fact she feels good about the child, the feel good factor of being good mother.... that’s un tangible but is a self interest..this makes her happy
The essence of this piece is Even the most irrational thing in this world can be rational if it makes you feel good about doin the act
Hence there is no absolute rationality or irrationality ..Existentialism again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well, you cant start justifying relationships using rationally calculated self interest (i dunno why you are calling it RCSA, i think it should have been RCSI)
RSCI (as i will call it) should be used as a yard stick of measuring actions, not emotions. if you are "calculating" something, then it has to be tangible. in other words we are to expect tangible returns for our actions, in shapes of profits or losses. losing the love of someone is not a tangible return. it has an emotional quotient to it. so, for example, if A is sarcastic towards B at time t, B might severe all connections with A. however, had that occured at a time (t+/-x) when B was perhaps lesser stressed, then B might not have reacted in the same manner.
Hence A can Never calculate his actions and interests in emotional transactions. In the same light, judging relationships (like mum and son)and categorising them based on self interests, is absolutely wrong. for the same mum, on going mad out of hunger, may kill the child, and there could be two reasons - she could bear the load of the child any more, or she couldnt bear the sorrow of the child anymore. the former is a tangible thought and the latter, an intangible one. how do you judge the lady's self interest in that case? was is rationally calculated? must have been - for she thought for herself! what was the rationale then?
If we economist can calculate utility, and externality.. i guess we can calculate anny god damn thing in the world.. but thats not the point... the point is u answered your self.. she kills the child because she cannot see the child dropping dead of hunger.. so relieve her from that sorrow she kill it.
the relief from sorrow even though intangiable is the self interest out here
i guess you didnt read me right - yeah the point you are trying to prove is right, but what if she killed her child because she could carry the monetary burden of feeding him anymore? what kind of rationally calculated self interest would that be?
To comment on ur RCSI debate....
The theory of self interest is built on immense psychological aspect. but in practice neo-classicists....who strongly support the theory have not done that. these bunch of chums are inetersted in things which depend on the actions and decisions of human beings....i mean they make assumptions about human beings, how they shud act and how they decide how to act.....for this we need to turn to psychologists.....after all they are the professionls who study human mind. but in practice these neo classicists have not done that.....mebbe the theories of psychologists do not answer the questions these chums need to ask.....or mebbe neo-classiscists are stubborn fellows.....whatever be the reason.
common....we all know of the examples of the non-self-interest behaviour. people who give to the temples and for other causes....who sacrifice themselvesin otherways.....i mean atleast my common sense suggests to me that....people are often irrational.
well, tell me can u say that......Mother Teresa was doin all those things bcz it really made her feel good...or she prefered to.....thus she is as self interested as anyone????? if u saying yes.....do u think ur decision wud have made any diference in the way she acted ????
common....so you does not regard Mother Teresa as a better person than say X ???? then it shows you are a cynic.
so i wud say people do often act on non-self-interested values....their own values.......not those of the govt..or any philosopher or any neo-classicists chum.
Well it quite simple.. Mother Teresa felt satisfied doing what she did, this satisfaction was RCSI..do u think if caring for the children did notmake Mother teresa feel good for serving a cause,,, she would have done it.
when we donate for releif, or temples.. we derive a satisfaction.. thats true for even any sacrifice..
thats the RCSI
The fact is it is not wrong to have an RCSi as every one has it,... it can be utility or satisfaction which are intangiable in nature as well
then where does this discussion take us ????????
does it tell us anything about the world ????????
NO....it only tells that the statement.....Mother Teresa had self interest in doin whatever she was doin........is sophistry.
Self-interested motives are common among human beings.
Mr X is a human being.
Therefore, it is probable that Mr X's motives in this particular case are self-interested.......this is a fallacy as i know.
Post a Comment