It embodies instrumental rationality which holds "why" questions as a given and focuses on efficiency of means.
On models of faith that take a cognitive component as central, and construe faith's object as propositional, reasonable faith arguably needs to conform to evidentialism the requirement, generally thought essential to rationality, to hold propositions to be true only to the extent justified on one's available evidence.
Contractualism, which stems from the Kantian line of social contract thought, holds that rationality requires that we respect persons, which in turn requires that moral principles be such that they can be justified to each person.
Other philosophers have provided arguments against strict (and Jeffrey) conditionalization: van Fraassen (1989) holds that rationality does not require the adoption of a particular update rule (but see Hájek 1998 and Kvanvig 1994).
A payoff allocation which holds Individual's rationality and collective rationality is called Imputation.
Moreover, many hold that Completeness is not rationally required; that rationality makes demands only on the judgments an agent actually holds, but says nothing of whether a judgement must be held in the first place.
In this showdown, there can be only one winner: Pentheus's male rationality and prison chains hold no sway over the wild unleashed power of Dionysus.
In the above example, they would hold that rationality requires assigning a prior probability of 1/2 to drawing a black ball from the urn.
Or a Bayesian might hold that rationality places no constraint on probabilistic judgments beyond coherence (or conformity to the probability calculus).
As we have seen, many feminist philosophers argue that it is a mistake to hold that rationality alone is essential to the self and that the ideal self is transparent, unified, coherent, and independent, for they discern misogynist subtexts in the atomistic individualism of the Kantian ethical subject and homo economicus (see Section 1).
