Talk:Instrumental and value-rational action

Potential duplicate

Hi all - noticed a potential dupe at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Instrumental_and_value_rationality Cgoecknerwald (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this page?

I will soon propose deleting this page for the following reasons. 1) It has been without talk or revision for years. 2) I will soon propose a page on instrumental rationality that covers much of the content here.TBR-qed (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

I am posting a revision of this article, merged with Value-rational action to be renamed Instrumental action and Value-rational action. Please give me several days before critiquing.TBR-qed (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision complete

I have finished revising, and welcome comments.TBR-qed (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-like

The article should be less essay-like (see WP:SYNTH) and cover more recent sources like the following: Honneth, Axel: "Work and Instrumental Action" (1982), and Scott, Alan: "Modernity's Machine Metaphor" (1997). Right now the most recent source cited is The Theory of Communicative Action (1981). --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me rather less essay-like than this version before the recent set of revisions. But it could stand to be more of a reveiw of the published sources on this topic. Statements such as Dewey's challenge to Weber's separation between instrumental and value-rational action remains unanswered. The distinction persists in both common sense and scholarly explanations of human behavior. are opnions or judgemetns and should be cited to a source that expresses them, or left out. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Two Entries to Avoid Duplication

Note-- I've also added this to a duplicate entry's talk page at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Instrumental_and_value_rationality

There's some work that needs to be done here.

These two definitions (instrumental and value rationality) are currently merged in two different entries, and they should be separated into two distinct yet connected definitions. These terms are complex enough to stand on their own; there is no rationally defensible reason to connect them.

That's it; keeping them connected in two entries only softens and dilutes the clarity provided by a free-standing definition.

It seems absurd and intentional that instrumental rationality cannot have its own definition. Instead, we get two entries combining the terms, which does not reflect good faith to make things clear.

I understand and appreciate that instrumental rationality (reason used as a means to an end) and value rationality (reason evaluating ends/values themselves) are inextricably connected because the legitimacy of the former depends on the ethical grounding provided by the latter. I also appreciate that there's a paradox in the fact that even value rationality can lead to contradictory conclusions about what ends are justifiable.

While exploring the philosophical connections and tensions between instrumental and value rationality is quite valuable, I am concerned that the "paradoxical nature" should not come at the expense of diluting the distinct importance of defining the nature of instrumental rationality.

In conclusion, I want to highlight what is going on here. This article is a battle of philosophies: one absolutely prioritizes deontological value commitments, and the other highlights consequentialist, pragmatic reasoning. So here, in this definition, there's a battle about unquestioned truths "contaminating" the latter.

So, in this context, there are editors who advocate for a kind of ethical absolutism - the belief that unconditional a priori moral laws or values, derived from pure reason alone, should reign supreme over contingent instrumental reasoning. Currently, the article conflates these concepts, and it needs to be revised to reflect a balanced distinction between them.

The goal is for deontological perspectives to participate in the discourse, not unilaterally dictate the shape of the article; if we allow this, we will end up with the two duplicate entries that we have now, and the two duplicate definitions will reflect the "deontological agenda."

We need balance here.

Edunoramus (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]