A civil code is a codification of private law relating to property , family , and obligations .
132-497: The Swiss Civil Code ( SR/RS 210 , German : Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (ZGB) ; French : Code civil suisse (CC) ; Italian : Codice civile svizzero (CC) ; Romansh : Cudesch civil svizzer ) is a portion of the second part (SR/RS 2) of the internal Swiss law ("Private law - Administration of civil justice - Enforcement") that regulates the codified law ruling in Switzerland and relationship between individuals. It
264-457: A case by way of introducing a general rule — an exercise of legislative — thus, there is no rule of stare decisis (binding precedent) in French law, but some jurisprudence constante , to interpret the law. It might also had influenced other countries. Rationality Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason . In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have
396-411: A certain ideal of perfection, either moral or non-moral, is the goal of rationality. According to the intuitionist perspective, something is rational "if and only if [it] conforms to self-evident truths, intuited by reason". These different perspectives diverge a lot concerning the behavior they prescribe. One problem for all of them is that they ignore the role of the evidence or information possessed by
528-479: A civil code generally also has a code of civil procedure . In some jurisdictions with a civil code, a number of the core areas of private law that would otherwise typically be codified in a civil code may instead be codified in a commercial code . The history of codification dates back to ancient Babylon . The earliest surviving civil code is the Code of Ur-Nammu , written around 2100–2050 BC. The Corpus Juris Civilis ,
660-705: A codification of Roman law produced between 529 and 534 AD by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I , forms the basis of civil law legal systems that would rule over Continental Europe . Other codified laws used since ancient times include various texts used in religious law , such as the Law of Manu in Hindu law , Islamic Sharia law, the Mishnah in Jewish Halakha law, and the Canons of
792-548: A good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence . This quality can apply to an ability, as in a rational animal , to a psychological process , like reasoning , to mental states , such as beliefs and intentions , or to persons who possess these other forms of rationality. A thing that lacks rationality is either arational , if it is outside the domain of rational evaluation, or irrational , if it belongs to this domain but does not fulfill its standards. There are many discussions about
924-626: A means. Proceduralists hold that this is the only way a desire can be irrational. Substantivists, on the other hand, allow that noninstrumental desires may also be irrational. In this regard, a substantivist could claim that it would be irrational for Jack to lack his noninstrumental desire to be healthy. Similar debates focus on the rationality of emotions . Theoretical and practical rationality are often discussed separately and there are many differences between them. In some cases, they even conflict with each other. However, there are also various ways in which they overlap and depend on each other. It
1056-466: A negative evaluation of the agent in terms of responsibility but remains silent on normative issues. On a competence-based account, which defines rationality in terms of the competence of responding to reasons, such behavior can be understood as a failure to execute one's competence. But sometimes we are lucky and we succeed in the normative dimension despite failing to perform competently, i.e. rationally, due to being irresponsible. The opposite can also be
1188-404: A person believes in the axioms of Euclidean geometry and is nonetheless convinced that it is possible to square the circle . Positive coherence refers to the support that different mental states provide for each other. For example, there is positive coherence between the belief that there are eight planets in the solar system and the belief that there are less than ten planets in the solar system:
1320-411: A proposition. Various theories of rationality assume some form of ideal rationality, for example, by demanding that rational agents obey all the laws and implications of logic . This can include the requirement that if the agent believes a proposition , they should also believe in everything that logically follows from this proposition. However, many theorists reject this form of logical omniscience as
1452-418: A provision. In the absence of a provision, the court shall decide in accordance with customary law and, in the absence of customary law, in accordance with the rule that it would make as legislator. In doing so, the court shall follow established doctrine and case law. This Switzerland -related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Civil Code A jurisdiction that has
SECTION 10
#17328445652741584-493: A requirement for rationality. They argue that, since the human mind is limited, rationality has to be defined accordingly to account for how actual finite humans possess some form of resource-limited rationality. According to the position of bounded rationality , theories of rationality should take into account cognitive limitations, such as incomplete knowledge, imperfect memory, and limited capacities of computation and representation. An important research question in this field
1716-400: A substantive account of rationality in contrast to structural accounts. One important argument in favor of the normativity of rationality is based on considerations of praise- and blameworthiness. It states that we usually hold each other responsible for being rational and criticize each other when we fail to do so. This practice indicates that irrationality is some form of fault on the side of
1848-450: A way to adapt to the limitations of the human mind, especially in complex cases where these limitations make brute calculations impossible or very time- and resource-intensive. Most discussions and research in the academic literature focus on individual rationality. This concerns the rationality of individual persons, for example, whether their beliefs and actions are rational. But the question of rationality can also be applied to groups as
1980-406: A weaker criterion of coherence to avoid cases of necessary irrationality: rationality requires not to obey all norms of coherence but to obey as many norms as possible. So in rational dilemmas, agents can still be rational if they violate the minimal number of rational requirements. Another criticism rests on the claim that coherence-based accounts are either redundant or false. On this view, either
2112-400: A whole on the social level. This form of social or collective rationality concerns both theoretical and practical issues like group beliefs and group decisions. And just like in the individual case, it is possible to study these phenomena as well as the processes and structures that are responsible for them. On the social level, there are various forms of cooperation to reach a shared goal. In
2244-536: Is Hume's law , which states that one cannot deduce what ought to be based on what is. So just because a certain heuristic or cognitive bias is present in a specific case, it should not be inferred that it should be present. One approach to these problems is to hold that descriptive and normative theories talk about different types of rationality. This way, there is no contradiction between the two and both can be correct in their own field. Similar problems are discussed in so-called naturalized epistemology . Rationality
2376-651: Is a good reason for them and irrational otherwise. It is not clear in all cases what belongs to the domain of rational assessment. For example, there are disagreements about whether desires and emotions can be evaluated as rational and irrational rather than arational. The term "irrational" is sometimes used in a wide sense to include cases of arationality. The meaning of the terms "rational" and "irrational" in academic discourse often differs from how they are used in everyday language. Examples of behaviors considered irrational in ordinary discourse are giving into temptations , going out late even though one has to get up early in
2508-494: Is about how cognitive agents use heuristics rather than brute calculations to solve problems and make decisions. According to the satisficing heuristic, for example, agents usually stop their search for the best option once an option is found that meets their desired achievement level. In this regard, people often do not continue to search for the best possible option, even though this is what theories of ideal rationality commonly demand. Using heuristics can be highly rational as
2640-429: Is accepted that deductive reasoning in the form of modus ponens leads to rational beliefs. This claim can be investigated using methods like rational intuition or careful deliberation toward a reflective equilibrium . These forms of investigation can arrive at conclusions about what forms of thought are rational and irrational without depending on empirical evidence . An important question in this field concerns
2772-409: Is also the rational choice. This thought experiment indicates that rationality and normativity coincide since what is rational and what one ought to do depends on the agent's mind after all. Some theorists have responded to these thought experiments by distinguishing between normativity and responsibility . On this view, critique of irrational behavior, like the doctor prescribing drug B, involves
SECTION 20
#17328445652742904-425: Is based on the controversial claim that we can decide what to believe. It can take the form of epistemic decision theory , which states that people try to fulfill epistemic aims when deciding what to believe. A similar idea is defended by Jesús Mosterín . He argues that the proper object of rationality is not belief but acceptance . He understands acceptance as a voluntary and context-dependent decision to affirm
3036-462: Is between ideal rationality, which demands that rational agents obey all the laws and implications of logic, and bounded rationality , which takes into account that this is not always possible since the computational power of the human mind is too limited. Most academic discussions focus on the rationality of individuals. This contrasts with social or collective rationality, which pertains to collectives and their group beliefs and decisions. Rationality
3168-475: Is between negative and positive coherence. Negative coherence is an uncontroversial aspect of most such theories: it requires the absence of contradictions and inconsistencies . This means that the agent's mental states do not clash with each other. In some cases, inconsistencies are rather obvious, as when a person believes that it will rain tomorrow and that it will not rain tomorrow. In complex cases, inconsistencies may be difficult to detect, for example, when
3300-535: Is claimed that humans are rational animals , this usually refers to the ability to think and act in reasonable ways. It does not imply that all humans are rational all the time: this ability is exercised in some cases but not in others. On the other hand, the term can also refer to the process of reasoning that results from exercising this ability. Often many additional activities of the higher cognitive faculties are included as well, such as acquiring concepts, judging , deliberating , planning, and deciding as well as
3432-642: Is discussed in a great variety of fields, often in very different terms. While some theorists try to provide a unifying conception expressing the features shared by all forms of rationality, the more common approach is to articulate the different aspects of the individual forms of rationality. The most common distinction is between theoretical and practical rationality. Other classifications include categories for ideal and bounded rationality as well as for individual and social rationality. The most influential distinction contrasts theoretical or epistemic rationality with practical rationality. Its theoretical side concerns
3564-544: Is important for solving all kinds of problems in order to efficiently reach one's goal. It is relevant to and discussed in many disciplines. In ethics , one question is whether one can be rational without being moral at the same time. Psychology is interested in how psychological processes implement rationality. This also includes the study of failures to do so, as in the case of cognitive biases . Cognitive and behavioral sciences usually assume that people are rational enough to predict how they think and act. Logic studies
3696-415: Is impossible to be rational, no matter which norm is privileged. Some defenders of coherence theories of rationality have argued that, when formulated correctly, the norms of rationality cannot enter into conflict with each other. That means that rational dilemmas are impossible. This is sometimes tied to additional non-trivial assumptions, such that ethical dilemmas also do not exist. A different response
3828-432: Is in tune with the agent's beliefs and realizes their desires. Externalists, on the other hand, see reasons as external factors about what is good or right. They state that whether an action is rational also depends on its actual consequences. The difference between the two positions is that internalists affirm and externalists reject the claim that rationality supervenes on the mind. This claim means that it only depends on
3960-414: Is no clear consensus on whether they belong to this domain or not. For example, concerning the rationality of desires, two important theories are proceduralism and substantivism. According to proceduralism, there is an important distinction between instrumental and noninstrumental desires . A desire is instrumental if its fulfillment serves as a means to the fulfillment of another desire. For example, Jack
4092-494: Is often argued that to be rational, the believer has to respond to the impressions or reasons presented by these sources. For example, the visual impression of the sunlight on a tree makes it rational to believe that the sun is shining. In this regard, it may also be relevant whether the formed belief is involuntary and implicit The second factor pertains to the norms and procedures of rationality that govern how agents should form beliefs based on this evidence. These norms include
Swiss Civil Code - Misplaced Pages Continue
4224-436: Is practically rational to take medicine if one has the desire to cure a sickness. But it is theoretically irrational to adopt the belief that one is healthy just because one desires this. This is a form of wishful thinking . In some cases, the demands of practical and theoretical rationality conflict with each other. For example, the practical reason of loyalty to one's child may demand the belief that they are innocent while
4356-436: Is rational depends on the agent's experience. Since different people make different experiences, there are differences in what is rational for them. Rationality is normative in the sense that it sets up certain rules or standards of correctness: to be rational is to comply with certain requirements. For example, rationality requires that the agent does not have contradictory beliefs. Many discussions on this issue concern
4488-457: Is rational to bring an umbrella if the agent has strong evidence that it is going to rain. But without this evidence, it would be rational to leave the umbrella at home, even if, unbeknownst to the agent, it is going to rain. These versions avoid the previous objection since rationality no longer requires the agent to respond to external factors of which they could not have been aware. A problem faced by all forms of reason-responsiveness theories
4620-512: Is related to something else. But there are disagreements as to what it has to be related to and in what way. For reason-based accounts, the relation to a reason that justifies or explains the rational state is central. For coherence-based accounts, the relation of coherence between mental states matters. There is a lively discussion in the contemporary literature on whether reason-based accounts or coherence-based accounts are superior. Some theorists also try to understand rationality in relation to
4752-406: Is sick and wants to take medicine to get healthy again. In this case, the desire to take the medicine is instrumental since it only serves as a means to Jack's noninstrumental desire to get healthy. Both proceduralism and substantivism usually agree that a person can be irrational if they lack an instrumental desire despite having the corresponding noninstrumental desire and being aware that it acts as
4884-414: Is sometimes claimed that theoretical rationality aims at truth while practical rationality aims at goodness . According to John Searle , the difference can be expressed in terms of " direction of fit ". On this view, theoretical rationality is about how the mind corresponds to the world by representing it. Practical rationality, on the other hand, is about how the world corresponds to the ideal set up by
5016-697: Is strongly reflected by its content. The French code was the most influential one because it was introduced in many countries standing under French occupation during the Napoleonic Wars . In particular, countries such as Italy , the Benelux countries, Spain , Portugal (with the Civil Code of 1867, later replaced by the Civil Code of 1966, which is strongly influenced by the German BGB), the Latin American countries,
5148-457: Is that "reason is the slave of the passions". This is often understood as the claim that rationality concerns only how to reach a goal but not whether the goal should be pursued at all. So people with perverse or weird goals may still be perfectly rational. This position is opposed by Kant, who argues that rationality requires having the right goals and motives . According to William Frankena there are four conceptions of rationality based on
5280-424: Is that rationality is relative to the person's perspective or mental states. Whether a belief or an action is rational usually depends on which mental states the person has. So carrying an umbrella for the walk to the supermarket is rational for a person believing that it will rain but irrational for another person who lacks this belief. According to Robert Audi , this can be explained in terms of experience : what
5412-499: Is that there are usually many reasons relevant and some of them may conflict with each other. So while salmonella contamination is a reason against eating the fish, its good taste and the desire not to offend the host are reasons in favor of eating it. This problem is usually approached by weighing all the different reasons. This way, one does not respond directly to each reason individually but instead to their weighted sum . Cases of conflict are thus solved since one side usually outweighs
Swiss Civil Code - Misplaced Pages Continue
5544-421: Is the case. But one can assess what is the case independently of knowing what should be done. So in this regard, one can study theoretical rationality as a distinct discipline independent of practical rationality but not the other way round. However, this independence is rejected by some forms of doxastic voluntarism. They hold that theoretical rationality can be understood as one type of practical rationality. This
5676-455: Is the quality of being guided by reasons or being reasonable. For example, a person who acts rationally has good reasons for what they do. This usually implies that they reflected on the possible consequences of their action and the goal it is supposed to realize. In the case of beliefs , it is rational to believe something if the agent has good evidence for it and it is coherent with the agent's other beliefs. While actions and beliefs are
5808-467: Is to bite the bullet and allow that rational dilemmas exist. This has the consequence that, in such cases, rationality is not possible for the agent and theories of rationality cannot offer guidance to them. These problems are avoided by reason-responsiveness accounts of rationality since they "allow for rationality despite conflicting reasons but [coherence-based accounts] do not allow for rationality despite conflicting requirements". Some theorists suggest
5940-629: Is typically taught according to the Pandect System (which was devised by German scholars in the time between the enactment of the Austrian and the German Codes), even though this is not consistent with the structure of the Code. The following is the list of national or regional civil codes by alphabetic order of names of countries or regions: The legislation of the Civil Code of China was started in 1954, after
6072-445: Is usually accepted, but many theorists have raised doubts that rationality can be identified with normativity. On this view, rationality may sometimes recommend suboptimal actions, for example, because the agent lacks important information or has false information. In this regard, discussions between internalism and externalism overlap with discussions of the normativity of rationality. An important implication of internalist conceptions
6204-452: Is usually understood as conservative in the sense that rational agents do not start from zero but already possess many beliefs and intentions. Reasoning takes place on the background of these pre-existing mental states and tries to improve them. This way, the original beliefs and intentions are privileged: one keeps them unless a reason to doubt them is encountered. Some forms of epistemic foundationalism reject this approach. According to them,
6336-579: Is very different in form and content from all other civil codes. Another unique example is the Louisiana Civil Code , based on Spanish law Las Siete Partidas , but incorrectly credited to be based on French Law. In 1825, Haiti promulgated a Code Civil , that was simply a copy of the Napoleonic one; while Louisiana abolished its Digeste , replacing it with the Code Civil de l'État de la Louisiane
6468-489: Is yet to pass a law in this regard. A typical civil code deals with the fields of law known to the common lawyer as law of contracts , torts , property law , family law and the law of inheritance . Commercial law , corporate law and civil procedure are usually codified separately. The older civil codes such as the French, Egyptian, Austrian and Spanish ones are structured under the Institutional System of
6600-546: The Roman jurist Gaius and generally have three large parts: The newer codes such as the ones of Germany, Switzerland, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Catalonia are structured according to the Pandectist System : The civil code of the state of Louisiana , following the institutions system, is divided into five parts: Pandectism also had an influence on the earlier codes and their interpretation. For example, Austrian civil law
6732-724: The essential features shared by all forms of rationality. According to reason-responsiveness accounts, to be rational is to be responsive to reasons. For example, dark clouds are a reason for taking an umbrella , which is why it is rational for an agent to do so in response. An important rival to this approach are coherence-based accounts, which define rationality as internal coherence among the agent's mental states. Many rules of coherence have been suggested in this regard, for example, that one should not hold contradictory beliefs or that one should intend to do something if one believes that one should do it. Goal-based accounts characterize rationality in relation to goals, such as acquiring truth in
SECTION 50
#17328445652746864-657: The mind should work. Descriptive theories, on the other hand, investigate how the mind actually works. This includes issues like under which circumstances the ideal rules are followed as well as studying the underlying psychological processes responsible for rational thought. Descriptive theories are often investigated in empirical psychology while philosophy tends to focus more on normative issues. This division also reflects how different these two types are investigated. Descriptive and normative theorists usually employ different methodologies in their research. Descriptive issues are studied by empirical research . This can take
6996-491: The rules of inference discussed in regular logic as well as other norms of coherence between mental states. In the case of rules of inference, the premises of a valid argument offer support to the conclusion and make therefore the belief in the conclusion rational. The support offered by the premises can either be deductive or non-deductive . In both cases, believing in the premises of an argument makes it rational to also believe in its conclusion. The difference between
7128-723: The 18th century in Germany , when the states of Austria , Prussia , Bavaria and Saxony began to codify their laws. The first statute that used this denomination was the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis of 1756 in Bavaria, still using the Latin language. It was followed in 1792 by a legal compilation that included civil, penal, and constitutional law, the Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preussischen Staaten (General National Law for
7260-526: The 8th year); nevertheless, in 1808 a Digeste de la loi civile was sanctioned. In the United States , codification appears to be widespread at a first glance, but U.S. legal codes are actually collections of common law rules and a variety of ad hoc statutes; that is, they do not aspire to complete logical coherence. For example, the California Civil Code largely codifies common law doctrine and
7392-614: The Apostles in Christian Canon law . The idea of codification re-emerged during the Age of Enlightenment , when it was believed that all spheres of life could be dealt with in a conclusive system based on human rationality , following from the experience of the early codifications of Roman Law during the Roman Empire . The first attempts at modern codification were made in the second half of
7524-663: The Argentine code, replacing its code of 1903. Cuba had the old Civil Code of Spain until the year 1987 when the National Assembly of People's Power approved the Cuban Civil Code, Law 59. The Portuguese Civil Code of 1868 was introduced in the Portuguese overseas territories of Asia ( Portuguese India , Macau and Portuguese Timor ) from 1870, with local modifications being latter introduced. It continued to be in effect in
7656-418: The Civil Code. It was passed on May 28 and came into force on January 1, 2021. Inspired by Justinian's sixth-century codification of Roman law. Differ with comprehensive rewrite including earlier rules, in a rational structure rather than a religious content. This made laws clearer and more accessible and superseded the conflict between royal and judges legislative power. This code prohibits judges from deciding
7788-562: The Code Civil du Bas-Canada (or Civil Code of Lower Canada ) was promulgated in Lower Canada (later the Canadian province of Quebec ). It was replaced in 1991 by a new Civil Code of Quebec , which came into effect in 1994. Uruguay promulgated its code in 1868, and Argentina in 1869 (work by Dalmacio Vélez Sársfield ). Paraguay adopted its code in 1987, and in 1877 Guatemala adopted
7920-658: The First law of the Civil Code of Catalonia, Parliament of Catalonia's several laws have approved the successive books of the Civil Code of Catalonia . This has replaced most of the Compilation of the Civil Law of Catalonia, several special laws and two partial codes. Only the Sixth book, relating to obligations and contracts, has to be approved. In Europe, apart from the common law countries of
8052-565: The French Civil Code was structured in a "casuistic" approach attempting to regulate every possible case, the German BGB and the later Swiss ZGB applied a more abstract and systematic approach. Therefore, the BGB had a great deal of influence on later codification projects in countries as diverse as Japan , Greece , Turkey , Portugal (1966 Civil Code) and Macau (1999 Civil Code). Since 2002 with
SECTION 60
#17328445652748184-598: The Peruvian code of 1852. Nicaragua in 1904 replaced its civil code of 1867 by adopting the Argentine code. In 1916 Brazil enacted its civil code (project of Clovis Bevilacqua , after rejecting the project by Teixeira de Freitas that was translated by the Argentines to prepare their project), that entered into effect in 1917 (in 2002, the Brazilian Civil Code was replaced by a new text). Brazilian Civil Code of 1916
8316-741: The Portuguese Code was replaced by the Indonesian Code when Indonesia occupied that territory in 1975. Macau adopted its own Civil Code in 1999, although this being based in the Portuguese Code of 1966. Also the civil code of Spain of 1889 would be enforced in its colony , the Philippines , and this would remain in effect even after the end of Spanish rule until the Philippines enacted its own Civil Code in 1950 after almost fifty years of U.S. rule. Many legal systems of other countries in Asia are within
8448-614: The Prussian States) promulgated by King Frederick II the Great . In Austria, the first step towards fully-fledged codification were the yet incomplete Codex Theresianus (compiled between 1753 and 1766), the Josephinian Code (1787) and the complete West Galician Code (enacted as a test in Galicia in 1797). The final Austrian Civil Code (called Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch , ABGB)
8580-456: The United Kingdom and Ireland, only Scandinavia remained untouched by the codification movement. The particular tradition of the civil code originally enacted in a country is often thought to have a lasting influence on the methodology employed in legal interpretation. Scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory of (financial) development usually subdivide
8712-562: The absence of new evidence, it is rational to keep the mental states one already has. According to foundationalism, the burden of proof is always in favor of suspending mental states. For example, the agent reflects on their pre-existing belief that the Taj Mahal is in Agra but is unable to access any reason for or against this belief. In this case, conservatists think it is rational to keep this belief while foundationalists reject it as irrational due to
8844-513: The academic literature. The most influential distinction is between theoretical and practical rationality. Theoretical rationality concerns the rationality of beliefs. Rational beliefs are based on evidence that supports them. Practical rationality pertains primarily to actions. This includes certain mental states and events preceding actions, like intentions and decisions . In some cases, the two can conflict, as when practical rationality requires that one adopts an irrational belief. Another distinction
8976-491: The actually correct path goes right. Bernard Williams has criticized externalist conceptions of rationality based on the claim that rationality should help explain what motivates the agent to act. This is easy for internalism but difficult for externalism since external reasons can be independent of the agent's motivation. Externalists have responded to this objection by distinguishing between motivational and normative reasons . Motivational reasons explain why someone acts
9108-514: The agent does not need to respond to reasons in general, but only to reasons they have or possess. The success of such approaches depends a lot on what it means to have a reason and there are various disagreements on this issue. A common approach is to hold that this access is given through the possession of evidence in the form of cognitive mental states , like perceptions and knowledge . A similar version states that "rationality consists in responding correctly to beliefs about reasons". So it
9240-416: The agent should always choose the option with the highest expected value. However, calculating the expected value of each option may take a very long time in complex situations and may not be worth the trouble. This is reflected in the fact that actual reasoners often settle for an option that is good enough without making certain that it is really the best option available. A further difficulty in this regard
9372-489: The agent should change their plans and intentions. Theoretical rationality concerns the rationality of cognitive mental states, in particular, of beliefs. It is common to distinguish between two factors. The first factor is about the fact that good reasons are necessary for a belief to be rational. This is usually understood in terms of evidence provided by the so-called sources of knowledge , i.e. faculties like perception , introspection , and memory . In this regard, it
9504-645: The agent to be irrational, leading to a rational dilemma. For example, if terrorists threaten to blow up a city unless the agent forms an irrational belief, this is a very weighty reason to do all in one's power to violate the norms of rationality. An influential rival to the reason-responsiveness account understands rationality as internal coherence. On this view, a person is rational to the extent that their mental states and actions are coherent with each other. Diverse versions of this approach exist that differ in how they understand coherence and what rules of coherence they propose. A general distinction in this regard
9636-435: The agent. In this regard, it matters for rationality not just whether the agent acts efficiently towards a certain goal but also what information they have and how their actions appear reasonable from this perspective. Richard Brandt responds to this idea by proposing a conception of rationality based on relevant information: "Rationality is a matter of what would survive scrutiny by all relevant information." This implies that
9768-488: The arrangement of products in a supermarket can be rational if it is based on a rational plan. The term "rational" has two opposites: irrational and arational . Arational things are outside the domain of rational evaluation, like digestive processes or the weather. Things within the domain of rationality are either rational or irrational depending on whether they fulfill the standards of rationality. For example, beliefs, actions, or general policies are rational if there
9900-474: The case of theoretical rationality. Internalists believe that rationality depends only on the person's mind . Externalists contend that external factors may also be relevant. Debates about the normativity of rationality concern the question of whether one should always be rational. A further discussion is whether rationality requires that all beliefs be reviewed from scratch rather than trusting pre-existing beliefs. Various types of rationality are discussed in
10032-417: The case: bad luck may result in failure despite a responsible, competent performance. This explains how rationality and normativity can come apart despite our practice of criticizing irrationality. The concept of normativity can also be used to distinguish different theories of rationality. Normative theories explore the normative nature of rationality. They are concerned with rules and ideals that govern how
10164-591: The civil law tradition and have enacted a civil code, mostly derived from the German civil code; that is the case of China , Japan , Korea , Thailand (the Civil and Commercial Code), Taiwan and Indonesia (which is influenced by the Dutch Civil Code, Burgerlijke Wetboek ). The Indian Constitution in its Directive Principles of State Policy recommends to a Uniform Civil Code in ts Article 44. The Indian parliament
10296-526: The claim that, in order to respond to reasons, people have to be aware of them, i.e. they have some form of epistemic access. But lacking this access is not automatically irrational. In one example by John Broome , the agent eats a fish contaminated with salmonella , which is a strong reason against eating the fish. But since the agent could not have known this fact, eating the fish is rational for them. Because of such problems, many theorists have opted for an internalist version of this account. This means that
10428-549: The codes of several other states, such as Peru . In 1911, the Swiss Code of Obligations (SR 22) was adopted and considered as the fifth part of the Swiss Civil Code. It thus became the first civil code to include commercial law. The Swiss Civil Code contains more than two thousands articles. Its first article states that: The law applies according to its wording or interpretation to all legal questions for which it contains
10560-522: The countries of the civil law tradition as belonging either to the French, Scandinavian or German group (the latter including Germany , Austria , Switzerland , Liechtenstein , Japan , China , Taiwan , South Korea and Ukraine ). The first civil code promulgated in Canada was that of New Brunswick of 1804, inspired by the 1800 project of the French civil code, known as the Projet de l'an VIII (project of
10692-452: The different sets of rules they require. One problem with such coherence-based accounts of rationality is that the norms can enter into conflict with each other, so-called rational dilemmas . For example, if the agent has a pre-existing intention that turns out to conflict with their beliefs, then the enkratic norm requires them to change it, which is disallowed by the norm of persistence. This suggests that, in cases of rational dilemmas, it
10824-401: The earlier belief implies the latter belief. Other types of support through positive coherence include explanatory and causal connections. Coherence-based accounts are also referred to as rule-based accounts since the different aspects of coherence are often expressed in precise rules. In this regard, to be rational means to follow the rules of rationality in thought and action. According to
10956-428: The enkratic rule, for example, rational agents are required to intend what they believe they ought to do. This requires coherence between beliefs and intentions. The norm of persistence states that agents should retain their intentions over time. This way, earlier mental states cohere with later ones. It is also possible to distinguish different types of rationality, such as theoretical or practical rationality, based on
11088-459: The evidence linking them to the crime may demand a belief in their guilt on the theoretical level. But the two domains also overlap in certain ways. For example, the norm of rationality known as enkrasia links beliefs and intentions. It states that "[r]ationality requires of you that you intend to F if you believe your reasons require you to F". Failing to fulfill this requirement results in cases of irrationality known as akrasia or weakness of
11220-438: The fact that a food is healthy is a reason to eat it. So this reason makes it rational for the agent to eat the food. An important aspect of this interpretation is that it is not sufficient to merely act accidentally in accordance with reasons. Instead, responding to reasons implies that one acts intentionally because of these reasons. Some theorists understand reasons as external facts. This view has been criticized based on
11352-403: The field of actions but not of behavior in general. The difference between the two is that actions are intentional behavior, i.e. they are performed for a purpose and guided by it. In this regard, intentional behavior like driving a car is either rational or irrational while non-intentional behavior like sneezing is outside the domain of rationality. For various other practical phenomena, there
11484-671: The first Constitution was adopted. However, legislation was stopped and resumed for several times, while China adopted several civil laws instead. In 2014, the current legislation procedure started, and the first part, the General Provisions, was adopted in 2017 National People's Congress . Despite the delay of the 2020 National People's Congress due to the COVID-19 pandemic , the Congressmen gathered in Beijing on May 22 to discuss and vote for
11616-400: The form of formal and informal fallacies is another cause of theoretical irrationality. All forms of practical rationality are concerned with how we act. It pertains both to actions directly as well as to mental states and events preceding actions, like intentions and decisions . There are various aspects of practical rationality, such as how to pick a goal to follow and how to choose
11748-406: The form of studies that present their participants with a cognitive problem. It is then observed how the participants solve the problem, possibly together with explanations of why they arrived at a specific solution. Normative issues, on the other hand, are usually investigated in similar ways to how the formal sciences conduct their inquiry. In the field of theoretical rationality, for example, it
11880-441: The formation of desires and intentions. These processes usually affect some kind of change in the thinker's mental states. In this regard, one can also talk of the rationality of mental states, like beliefs and intentions. A person who possesses these forms of rationality to a sufficiently high degree may themselves be called rational . In some cases, also non-mental results of rational processes may qualify as rational. For example,
12012-557: The former Portuguese India even after the end of the Portuguese rule in 1961. It is still in force in the present Indian territories of Goa (locally referred as the Goa civil code ), Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli . As Macau and Portuguese Timor were still under Portuguese rule when the Portuguese Civil Code of 1868 was replaced by that of 1966, this later was adopted by these territories. In East Timor (ex-Portuguese Timor),
12144-402: The goals it tries to achieve. They correspond to egoism , utilitarianism , perfectionism , and intuitionism . According to the egoist perspective, rationality implies looking out for one's own happiness . This contrasts with the utilitarian point of view, which states that rationality entails trying to contribute to everyone's well-being or to the greatest general good. For perfectionism,
12276-452: The goals it tries to realize. Other disputes in this field concern whether rationality depends only on the agent's mind or also on external factors, whether rationality requires a review of all one's beliefs from scratch, and whether we should always be rational. A common idea of many theories of rationality is that it can be defined in terms of reasons. On this view, to be rational means to respond correctly to reasons. For example,
12408-426: The lack of reasons. In this regard, conservatism is much closer to the ordinary conception of rationality. One problem for foundationalism is that very few beliefs, if any, would remain if this approach was carried out meticulously. Another is that enormous mental resources would be required to constantly keep track of all the justificatory relations connecting non-fundamental beliefs to fundamental ones. Rationality
12540-472: The laws of probability theory when assessing the likelihood of future events. This article focuses mainly on irrationality in the academic sense. The terms "rationality", " reason ", and "reasoning" are frequently used as synonyms. But in technical contexts, their meanings are often distinguished. Reason is usually understood as the faculty responsible for the process of reasoning. This process aims at improving mental states. Reasoning tries to ensure that
12672-422: The laws of correct arguments . These laws are highly relevant to the rationality of beliefs. A very influential conception of practical rationality is given in decision theory , which states that a decision is rational if the chosen option has the highest expected utility . Other relevant fields include game theory , Bayesianism , economics , and artificial intelligence . In its most common sense, rationality
12804-442: The means for reaching this goal. Other issues include the coherence between different intentions as well as between beliefs and intentions. Some theorists define the rationality of actions in terms of beliefs and desires. On this view, an action to bring about a certain goal is rational if the agent has the desire to bring about this goal and the belief that their action will realize it. A stronger version of this view requires that
12936-415: The mind and how it should be changed. Another difference is that arbitrary choices are sometimes needed for practical rationality. For example, there may be two equally good routes available to reach a goal. On the practical level, one has to choose one of them if one wants to reach the goal. It would even be practically irrational to resist this arbitrary choice, as exemplified by Buridan's ass . But on
13068-431: The morning, smoking despite being aware of the health risks, or believing in astrology . In the academic discourse, on the other hand, rationality is usually identified with being guided by reasons or following norms of internal coherence. Some of the earlier examples may qualify as rational in the academic sense depending on the circumstances. Examples of irrationality in this sense include cognitive biases and violating
13200-709: The most paradigmatic forms of rationality, the term is used both in ordinary language and in many academic disciplines to describe a wide variety of things, such as persons , desires , intentions , decisions , policies, and institutions. Because of this variety in different contexts, it has proven difficult to give a unified definition covering all these fields and usages. In this regard, different fields often focus their investigation on one specific conception, type, or aspect of rationality without trying to cover it in its most general sense. These different forms of rationality are sometimes divided into abilities , processes , mental states , and persons. For example, when it
13332-426: The norms of rationality obtain. It differs from rationality nonetheless since other psychological processes besides reasoning may have the same effect. Rationality derives etymologically from the Latin term rationalitas . There are many disputes about the essential characteristics of rationality. It is often understood in relational terms: something, like a belief or an intention, is rational because of how it
13464-466: The other hand, aims at non-epistemic goals, like moral , prudential, political, economic, or aesthetic goals. This is usually understood in the sense that rationality follows these goals but does not set them. So rationality may be understood as a " minister without portfolio " since it serves goals external to itself. This issue has been the source of an important historical discussion between David Hume and Immanuel Kant . The slogan of Hume's position
13596-453: The other. So despite the reasons cited in favor of eating the fish, the balance of reasons stands against it, since avoiding a salmonella infection is a much weightier reason than the other reasons cited. This can be expressed by stating that rational agents pick the option favored by the balance of reasons. However, other objections to the reason-responsiveness account are not so easily solved. They often focus on cases where reasons require
13728-400: The patient's death. The doctor's problem is that they cannot tell which of the drugs B and C results in a complete cure and which one in the patient's death. The objectively best case would be for the patient to get drug B, but it would be highly irresponsible for the doctor to prescribe it given the uncertainty about its effects. So the doctor ought to prescribe the less effective drug A, which
13860-408: The person's mind whether they are rational and not on external factors. So for internalism, two persons with the same mental states would both have the same degree of rationality independent of how different their external situation is. Because of this limitation, rationality can diverge from actuality. So if the agent has a lot of misleading evidence, it may be rational for them to turn left even though
13992-478: The premises make it more likely that the conclusion is true. In this case, it is usually demanded that the non-deductive support is sufficiently strong if the belief in the conclusion is to be rational. An important form of theoretical irrationality is motivationally biased belief, sometimes referred to as wishful thinking . In this case, beliefs are formed based on one's desires or what is pleasing to imagine without proper evidential support. Faulty reasoning in
14124-466: The province of Quebec in Canada , and all other former French colonies which base their civil law systems to a strong extent on the Napoleonic Code. It is a misconception that the state of Louisiana in the United States based their civil code on the Napoleonic code. Rather, the drafters of the code were instructed to write a civil code based on the current laws, and the laws that were in effect at
14256-523: The question of what exactly these standards are. Some theorists characterize the normativity of rationality in the deontological terms of obligations and permissions . Others understand them from an evaluative perspective as good or valuable. A further approach is to talk of rationality based on what is praise- and blameworthy. It is important to distinguish the norms of rationality from other types of norms. For example, some forms of fashion prescribe that men do not wear bell-bottom trousers . Understood in
14388-456: The rationality of beliefs : whether it is rational to hold a given belief and how certain one should be about it. Practical rationality, on the other hand, is about the rationality of actions , intentions , and decisions . This corresponds to the distinction between theoretical reasoning and practical reasoning: theoretical reasoning tries to assess whether the agent should change their beliefs while practical reasoning tries to assess whether
14520-492: The relation between descriptive and normative approaches to rationality. One difficulty in this regard is that there is in many cases a huge gap between what the norms of ideal rationality prescribe and how people actually reason. Examples of normative systems of rationality are classical logic , probability theory , and decision theory . Actual reasoners often diverge from these standards because of cognitive biases , heuristics, or other mental limitations. Traditionally, it
14652-403: The responsible beliefs and desires are rational themselves. A very influential conception of the rationality of decisions comes from decision theory . In decisions, the agent is presented with a set of possible courses of action and has to choose one among them. Decision theory holds that the agent should choose the alternative that has the highest expected value . Practical rationality includes
14784-540: The rules recommend the same option as the balance of reasons or a different option. If they recommend the same option, they are redundant. If they recommend a different option, they are false since, according to its critics, there is no special value in sticking to rules against the balance of reasons. A different approach characterizes rationality in relation to the goals it aims to achieve. In this regard, theoretical rationality aims at epistemic goals, like acquiring truth and avoiding falsehood. Practical rationality, on
14916-565: The same year. The Mexican state of Oaxaca promulgated the first Latin American civil code in 1827, copying the French civil code. Later on, in 1830, the civil code of Bolivia , a summarized copy of the French one, was promulgated by Andrés de Santa Cruz . The latest, with some changes, was adopted by Costa Rica in 1841. The Dominican Republic , in 1845, put into force the original Napoleonic code, in French language (a translation in Spanish
15048-483: The scheme and for the contents (similar to the Castillan law in force in that territory) that was written by Andrés Bello (begun in 1833). This code was integrally adopted by Ecuador in 1858; El Salvador in 1859; Venezuela in 1862 (only during that year); Nicaragua in 1867; Honduras in 1880 (until 1899, and again since 1906); Colombia in 1887; and Panama (after its separation from Colombia in 1903). In 1865,
15180-424: The sense that rationality only depends on the reasons accessible to the agent or how things appear to them. What one ought to do, on the other hand, is determined by objectively existing reasons. In the ideal case, rationality and normativity may coincide but they come apart either if the agent lacks access to a reason or if he has a mistaken belief about the presence of a reason. These considerations are summed up in
15312-416: The statement that rationality supervenes only on the agent's mind but normativity does not. But there are also thought experiments in favor of the normativity of rationality. One, due to Frank Jackson , involves a doctor who receives a patient with a mild condition and has to prescribe one out of three drugs: drug A resulting in a partial cure, drug B resulting in a complete cure, or drug C resulting in
15444-415: The strongest sense, a norm prescribes what an agent ought to do or what they have most reason to do. The norms of fashion are not norms in this strong sense: that it is unfashionable does not mean that men ought not to wear bell-bottom trousers. Most discussions of the normativity of rationality are interested in the strong sense, i.e. whether agents ought always to be rational. This is sometimes termed
15576-528: The subject repeatedly reflects on all the relevant facts, including formal facts like the laws of logic. An important contemporary discussion in the field of rationality is between internalists and externalists . Both sides agree that rationality demands and depends in some sense on reasons. They disagree on what reasons are relevant or how to conceive those reasons. Internalists understand reasons as mental states, for example, as perceptions, beliefs, or desires. On this view, an action may be rational because it
15708-450: The subject that should not be the case. A strong counterexample to this position is due to John Broome , who considers the case of a fish an agent wants to eat. It contains salmonella, which is a decisive reason why the agent ought not to eat it. But the agent is unaware of this fact, which is why it is rational for them to eat the fish. So this would be a case where normativity and rationality come apart. This example can be generalized in
15840-469: The theoretical cases, a group of jurors may first discuss and then vote to determine whether the defendant is guilty. Or in the practical case, politicians may cooperate to implement new regulations to combat climate change . These forms of cooperation can be judged on their social rationality depending on how they are implemented and on the quality of the results they bear. Some theorists try to reduce social rationality to individual rationality by holding that
15972-463: The theoretical level, one does not have to form a belief about which route was taken upon hearing that someone reached the goal. In this case, the arbitrary choice for one belief rather than the other would be theoretically irrational. Instead, the agent should suspend their belief either way if they lack sufficient reasons. Another difference is that practical rationality is guided by specific goals and desires, in contrast to theoretical rationality. So it
16104-731: The time were Spanish laws based on Las Siete Partidas . The late 19th century and the beginning 20th century saw the emergence of the School of Pandectism , whose work peaked in the German Civil Code (BGB), which was enacted in 1900 in the course of Germany's national unification project, and in the Swiss Civil Code ( Zivilgesetzbuch ) of 1907. Those two codes had been most advanced in their systematic structure and classification from fundamental and general principles to specific areas of law (e.g. contract law, labour law, inheritance law). While
16236-408: The two is given by how the premises support the conclusion. For deductive reasoning, the premises offer the strongest possible support: it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. The premises of non-deductive arguments also offer support for their conclusion. But this support is not absolute: the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Instead,
16368-554: The way they do while normative reasons explain why someone ought to act in a certain way. Ideally, the two overlap, but they can come apart. For example, liking chocolate cake is a motivational reason for eating it while having high blood pressure is a normative reason for not eating it. The problem of rationality is primarily concerned with normative reasons. This is especially true for various contemporary philosophers who hold that rationality can be reduced to normative reasons. The distinction between motivational and normative reasons
16500-431: The whole system of beliefs is to be justified by self-evident beliefs. Examples of such self-evident beliefs may include immediate experiences as well as simple logical and mathematical axioms . An important difference between conservatism and foundationalism concerns their differing conceptions of the burden of proof . According to conservativism, the burden of proof is always in favor of already established belief: in
16632-466: The will . Another form of overlap is that the study of the rules governing practical rationality is a theoretical matter. And practical considerations may determine whether to pursue theoretical rationality on a certain issue as well as how much time and resources to invest in the inquiry. It is often held that practical rationality presupposes theoretical rationality. This is based on the idea that to decide what should be done, one needs to know what
16764-593: Was considered, by many, as the last code of the 19th century despite being adopted in the 20th century. The reason behind that is that the Brazilian Code of 1916 was the last of the important codes from the era of codifications in the world that had strong liberal influences, and all other codes enacted thereafter were deeply influenced by the social ideals that emerged after World War I and the Soviet Socialist Revolution. Panama in 1916 decided to adopt
16896-571: Was created by Eugen Huber , it was subsequently translated in the two other national languages (at the time Romansh was not official) by Virgile Rossel and Brenno Bertoni for French and Italian, respectively. The Civil code of the Republic of Turkey is a slightly modified version of the Swiss code, adopted in 1926 during Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 's presidency as part of the government's progressive reforms and secularization. The Swiss code also influenced
17028-557: Was first adopted in 1907 (effective since 1 January 1912). It was largely influenced by the German civil code , and partly influenced by the French civil code , but the majority of comparative law scholars (such as K. Zweigert and Rodolfo Sacco ) argue that the Swiss code derives from a distinct paradigm of civil law. Adopted on 10 December 1907 (and is thus formally known as the Swiss Civil Code of 10 December 1907 ), and in force since 1912. It
17160-447: Was often assumed that actual human reasoning should follow the rules described in normative theories. On this view, any discrepancy is a form of irrationality that should be avoided. However, this usually ignores the human limitations of the mind. Given these limitations, various discrepancies may be necessary (and in this sense rational ) to get the most useful results. For example, the ideal rational norms of decision theory demand that
17292-660: Was only completed in 1811 after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire under the influence of the Napoleonic Wars . One of the first countries to follow up through legal transplants in codification was Serbia , the Serbian Civil Code (1844). Meanwhile, the French Napoleonic code ( Code Civil ) was enacted in 1804 after only a few years of preparation, but it was a child of the French Revolution , which
17424-409: Was published in 1884). In 1852, Peru promulgated its own civil code (based on a project of 1847), which was not a simple copy or imitation of the French one, but presented a more original text based on the Castillan law (of Roman origin) that was previously in force on the Peruvian territory. Chile promulgated its civil code in 1855, an original work in confront with the French code both for
#273726