You would think that being reasonable is an essential requirement in any discussion that aims to resolve disputes about any issue. If either side can forget about being reasonable – ignoring evidence, flouting logic, making groundless assumptions – then no informed agreement can be reached.
Yet we hear more and more people insisting that reason is overrated. What is key apparently is what people happen to attach the greatest importance to. This could turn out to be all kinds of thing, and whatever it is, we are supposed to accept that it is something special and not subject to reason.
One familiar example would be individuals with some religious affiliation declaring that what they say must be accepted, and any attempt to question them by secularists (or people of other faiths) has to be automatically dismissed. What they proclaim could be about how they want to (mis)treat their children, interfere with other people’s lives, or (mis)lead others into giving them money. In all cases, they shield their position by invoking their religious righteousness as beyond anything such as reason.
Another type of example can be found with those who denigrate reason as a western middle-class obsession. For them, the practices of indigenous tribes should not be criticised for being unreasonable in making flawed assumptions. And they also want to defend marginalised people who want to talk about their feelings and experiences without considering the reasons (or lack of) for some of their beliefs. Unconsciously patronising, they want to canonise the disengagement from reasonable discourse, rather than support opportunities for all people to take part in reasoned dialogues.
Lastly, we have the unadulterated egoists who do not bother with invoking religion, culture, class, or anything else when they just come right out and say, “I believe this; I know I’m right; nothing anyone else says will make the slightest difference; and that’s the end of that.” Obviously, there would be no reasoning with them about anything. And a simple reminder of what it would be like if such a stance is permitted in a court of law, is sufficient to show without reason, disorder will ensue.
Of course, there are occasions when people express poetic sentiments, practise rituals, share stories, or manifest suppressed emotions, without making any declarative claims on what others must accept as true. In such cases, so long as their behaviour is not injurious to others, it would not be necessary to raise questions of reasonableness. But just because there are times when reason would not be a central issue, it should not be forgotten that in settling any disagreement over conflicting beliefs, reason has a vital role to play.
Reason calls for external validation, objective evidential examination, coherent inference, consistent probability assessment, weighing of the strengths of arguments, etc. It is rooted in the critical faculty of society where the effectiveness of everything from engineering design, scientific exploration, conflict resolution, to medical treatment, criminal investigation, and historical authentication, depends on the extent to which careful reasoning has been carried out.
People who want to privilege the claims they make as beyond the scrutiny of reason (on the grounds of their ‘religion’, ‘culture’, ‘tribe’, or personal status) are basically trying to get others to accept what they say without any reasonable consideration of the issue. They will play the ‘You’re not respecting my [religion/culture/tribe/me]’ card, but if they fundamentally want to keep reason out of a discussion of what they want everyone else to accept, then there is actually nothing further to discuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment