The Human Being: The Irrational and Passionate Creature

From philosophers to academics, from scientists to politicians, all of them claim that we are rational animals. Since we have the faculty of reason which none other organisms have, then, according to most philosophers, what defines us as human beings is rationality. Thus, human beings are rational agents. But this, though not intentional,  is misleading. Just because we have the capacity to be rational does not in anyway make us rational agents. Or at least the ability to reason should not be definitive of what it means to be human. This is because such a belief leads to some problematic results. On the assumption that human beings are rational, we conduct research studies and formulate hypotheses. But from my own observation, and maybe your own, human beings are oftentime irrational, or more prone to go with their passions and desires than follow the advice of reason. Think about the last time you made a hasty purchase during a shopping trip or gave in to a craving that has been tempting you for a long time?

I believe you see the logic in all this. Unlike previously, and time immemoriably, been stated, human beings are not rational. Human beings are irrational animals, that happen to have the capacity and ability to be rational. If you asked me what would be considered a purely rational entity I would say the thing you are typing on right now, i.e. your computer or smartphone. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is consistently and absolutely rational in a logical way. They can be consistent and always rational because they have no faculty of emotions, they have no passions or desires. Maybe their only desire is to be logically consistent, but I digress. If you claim that there are humans who are completely rational at all times then I suspect that they are really AIs in disguished. This is because regardless of how rational and consistent a person can be, it will never be absolute precisely for the reasons mentioned above: humans are animals of passion and desire. Usually, though not all the time, passion and reason pull in opposite directions. And as I’ve quoted before, Hume claimed that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” In other words, your reasons just match whatever passions you have. I allow that there is a possibility that one’s passions could come in line with one’s reasons, but it would be really difficult and miserable.

The reason why we cannot be perfectly rational and objective about anything is because of our own personal passions, desires, motives and intentions. Regardless of how objective your research results are it is always hedge within a subjective bias. What you believe as truth is dependent on what you want to believe as truth. Even the most objective facts are delivered and defined within the subjective framework of a person. Who defines truth? Who says what counts as a fact and what is merely a hypothesis? Human beings, you and I. Most of the time, it is with no malicious intent that we tend to let our subjectivity defines the objective. It is inevitable as human beings, as emotional beings. Imagine a scenario in which you want to convince someone of belief X which you hold. Belief X is a widely held belief in your community and is as close to a fact as can get. How would you go about trying to convince this unbeliever? I believe we would use sound arguments and rational lines of thought to get through to them or persuade them. But as you might realise, belief X is not some universal truth. Belief X is just that, a belief which we personally hold and by convention of society is held as true. We believe it because it is either advantageous to our survival and life or it is advantageous to our purposes or motivations. For example, the moral reason for “murder is wrong” is because of some divine command or some moral code of conduct in society. But there is a very practical reason for it: humans want to live a life of security to be assured that they can pursue their interests and purposes and that it will not be in vain. Of course, also because people are afraid of dying. As this example shows, it is because the moral law of murder as an offence promotes the interests of people so it is favourable to have and thus be considered as rationally sound.

This is why sometimes it is difficult to convey with conviction on what we believe is true to others. We can believe that belief X is true but with as much conviction someone else can believe that belief X is false. We tend to only believe what is favourable to us and keeps us comfortable. This is itself problematic because then we choose interest over truth and convenience over what is right. But here I’m not promoting some form of pragmatic relativism. In fact, my last post on compartmentalism argues against just that. So you might ask then what is my point here. Here, I want to show the other extreme of the spectrum. The cases in which people believe fervently that they are executing justice or enlightening the world with truth but are in fact driven by their own personal interests to have people agree with their point of view. It is dangerous, not just because you are being conniving, but because you are doing so unintentionally and with good intentions. And usually when you finally realise this is the case, people have been hurt and relationships broken beyond repair. So it is good to take a step back and consider why you tell someone something or want to tell them something. Is it really in their interest that you want them to know the truth or right the wrong they believe or because you don’t like their opposing beliefs or actions and crusade to change it to one you can be comfortable with?

The AI is never wrong, or at least never internally inconsistent. Their decision will always be completely objective because they have no personal bias. Human beings are more passionate creatures than rational. When the decision is not a matter of life and death or irrevocable consequences, then people just let their passions decide for them, which they ‘feel’ more for or want more. Just having the notion of dislike for a value or belief someone else holds is enough justification to reason with them. Hume is right after all, reason is but a slave to our passions. Why we do something is always link to our passions, be it being in our interest or for fear of the consequences. While I might not like it that the idea of truth is inherently connected with our beliefs and motivations, it is inevitable. The most we can do is be sure of what exactly are the motivations and passions that underlie our reasons and rational lines of thought. That way we will perhaps be more humble, less conceited, and more empathetic towards others. It is when we understand that we are fallible and that our “truths” are not ironclad that we can converse and argue in humility.

We are really not as rational as we believe we are. Rationality or irrationality is completely dependent on the passions. if we like rationality, we choose it, if we don’t then we choose otherwise. We are not rational agents, merely irrational animals with capacity for rational thinking. As such, we can never be absolutely objective, and only as objective as our own subjective bias. The way we decide does not always follow a rational process and our reasons are rarely ever objectively construed. In the end, counselling others becomes an exercise in self-reflection, and philosophical argumentation becomes a process of humbling.