The rationalists and the empiricists take vastly different approaches towards explaining how we know what we do. To illu

[answerhappygod]

The rationalists and the empiricists take vastly differentapproaches towards explaining how we know what we do. To illustrateby way of an example: take the moral principle that "torturingothers for fun is never permissible."
A rationalist might describe this idea as logically sound, apiece of moral knowledge that we have deduced using our reason.Torturing others for fun is wrong because "torture" and "fun" arelogically exclusive categories, or at least they should be to anyrational person (not perhaps, to the deranged mind of a serialkiller). Now, an empiricist could certainly agree with the premise,but they would disagree on the why and how. An empiricist mightclaim that we know torture is wrong (for fun, or otherwise)precisely because we have seen what happens when people aretortured. Both torturers and the tortured have relevant experienceswhich they have shared with the rest of us. Torture producesphysical pain and destruction of the body for the tortured, andmental anguish, guilt, and remorse for the torturer. Thus, we knowthat torture is wrong because of the material outcomes we haveexperienced.
We could use other examples to illustrate this point. Do we knowthat 2+2=4 because it is logically necessary? Or because we haveexperiences of 2's added to 2's which always become 4s? Pick a sideand explain which description, that of the rationalists, or that ofthe empiricists, is more persuasive to you. Do we acquire knowledgeprimarily through reason? Or through experience?