For a physical taste like food preferences the taste is a biological fact, but there is choice for what to do about it: add salt, eat it or not, etc. Other kinds of taste, such as taste in art as meaning what preference, are based on prior accepted principles, explicitly or implicitly. So all matters of taste require reasoning within the realm of choice.

There are simply no questions in reality for which logical reasoning doesn't apply. Even if that devolves back to determining the values/principles that determine taste.

I would propose simply that we distinguish questions where reason applies from questions of taste.

It depends where you find that the overall sum of quality and quantity of life experience is maximized for you.

I've had others tell me they don't think gambling at a casino can ever be rational. The way I look at it is, I fully expect to lose the money I bring in there to play with. If I expect to get enough enjoyment out of the game to be worth that price, then it was a rational decision anyway. If I don't, then walking in there was a bad idea.

Read it 40 years ago. However, I'll still continue to be emotional when it pleases my rationale.

"Defining" an irrational goal does not make it rational.

Deciding to not have children is not "suicide".

Rational minds do not "intervene" to "edit" life. The rational person lives by reason.

The entire field of ethics arises because each individual is confronted with choices that make a difference to his life and survival. It does not start with politics. Every political philosophy is based on and presupposes an ethics. The anti-philosophical libertarian attempt to base all discussion on "initiatation of force" is false. Instead of making snide remarks please read Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics".

Spock was a parody based on the common false notion of reason claimed to mean no emotions for anything. The heroes of Ayn Rand's novels did not remotely resemble Spock. Ayn Rand was a clear writer. Misrepresenting her in order to promote an emotionalist attack on reason is not honest.

Your own name-calling and overt misrepresentations are not "civil discourse". The rejection on behalf of civility of your belligerent incivility and worse is not uncivil.

"Spock was only half human ... and just not a hell of a lot of fun to be around." Bingo!! The die-hard, "I've found my calling" Objectivists are a lot like I was in the 1960s......Tiring........ like Spock.

100% of what? Reason is the means of acquiring knowledge. Emotions are automatic responses in accordance with values already accepted. Emotions are not tools of cognition and not a substitute for reason. Being rational does not mean not having emotions and is not a "handicap" in "deep doo-doo". Those who confuse the different functions of reason and emotion and substitute emotions for thinking are.

Please read "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness and other discussions of reason vs. emotions in Philosophy: Who Needs It?.

+1.

What does "defined" goal mean? Rational or irrational?
A decision is irrational if it opposes rational principles - objectively defined principles.

Please provide an example by way of link or quotation with citation.

Humans are not inherently 100% rational beings ... that's why emotions exist ... they are a necessity to the sum total known as "human."

Trying to root out all emotions leads to serious mental aberrations. To discard emotions is to cut off a leg. You might still be able to stand, but you are at a serious handicap in the race of life.

An objectiivist without passions is in deep doo-doo.

"An Objectivist engineer I know says that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." "

And the good is the enemy of the perfect. That is where our rational minds must intervene and decisions must be made.

We edit our lives on the fly.

It IS rational ... if it is your goal to live a life with flavor, then ice cream and BBQ ribs (I prefer beef to pork) are required elements. ;-)

Spock was only half human ... and just not a hell of a lot of fun to be around.

That depends on the role of longevity within one's overall goals.

Yes, it IS rational. Even suicide can be a rational decision. Rationally speaking, I get to define which consequences are desirable in my own life.

Dagny and Hank were childless. That, like alcoholism, tobacco and other drug addictions, is suicide on the installment plan. Were they irrational?

I made the decision not to pursue great wealth in order to have more time with my kids. The business of my life was not to be business.

If the goal was material wealth, I chose poorly. If the choice was to develop personal relationships and to relax more along the way, then I chose wisely. I was a single Dad with full custody of two sons still in diapers. I could have pursued wealth and fobbed the care of my sons off on hirelings or I could focus on my sons. I tried to split that decision by marrying two more times. That was a major waste of time. (Note: I am now happily married for the past 16 years).

A decision is only irrational if it disagrees with a defined goal.

Hello edweaver,
I believe Ayn would consider me a student of objectivism. That is how I refer to myself. I do not know what it takes, short of being Ayn herself, to be an "Objectivist". I believe she once said she was the only objectivist and all others were students. One thing I think important is to exhaust all reason before resorting to decision based on emotion. If after due consideration the only direction left to one is emotion and a decision must be made then go with your gut. If on the other hand one rejects reason and places emotion paramount they are not even on the path of student.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Have you ever been a parent? What does an infant demonstrate? Emotion driven by basic needs: food, diaper changes, cuddling. It takes them time to develop their senses and figure out how to use them. Suckling is an innate response. Smiling at the face of a parent? Not so. Potty training is another example I'm going through (again) right now. Classic example of acquired knowledge: that sensation of something warm running down your leg could be flowing not into your clothes and on the floor or chair (or both), but into a proper receptacle. One learns what things are, of relationships between those objects, and then begins to tie things together: knowledge and reason to tie them together. I would also point out that children primarily learn by example: by watching what their parents do. If reason were all there were to it, they would intuitively figure out for themselves how to put on their clothes, cook their own food, and it wouldn't take them 15 years to grow up into a self-sufficient human being without any instruction from any other person. Yeah, I don't see that too much.

"Emotions are not not primaries as a 'default position', they are automatic reactions"

Again, go back and look at a child. Children evince pure, raw emotions that do not come from prior knowledge. Emotions are instinctual - not developed as a result of reason. You have it backwards. Reason is a product of rational capacity and experience/training. The ability to reason may be inherent, but its effectiveness is dependent on an aggregation of acquired knowledge and application. We can train ourselves to recognize and rationally react despite those displays of raw emotion, but emotions come whether you want them to or not. Take one example: love at first sight. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever rational about it. Take anger. If you see someone beating someone else, you immediately are indignant that that other person is being treated that way, but it isn't because you stop and think "Hey, that's wrong" and then decide to elevate your blood pressure and pump adrenaline into your veins. Can we learn to control our emotions? Only to the point that we do not allow our emotions to determine our responses to everything the way children do. That's called maturity. But the position that emotions are the product of reason is denied both by empirical observation and psychological studies.

I understand you do not grasp the concept of civil discourse.

Okay, you win, you're right, I'm wrong, have a nice day.....

I think every decision has to be based in reason, but with the recognition that there are different kinds of rationales. Obviously, there's not the same kind of moral imperative when deciding what to eat for breakfast as when casting a vote or making a purchase. But, I think it's important to adhere to reason in all decisions particularly in a free society because most actions have symbolic value. For instance, a decision to purchase a particular good supports the producer, so purchasing that product is really an endorsement of not just the quality of the good but the work ethic of the person who made it. Actions have consequences that ripple outward, so recognizing that and attempting to adhere to some consistent standard is important. I think that's more a necessary condition of developing a consistent self than a condition of Objectivism.