Being Unreasonable About Reason

The cult of irrationality is growing in politics and more widely across society. Many people are ready to subscribe to groundless claims and harmful policies regardless of the evidence. When contradictions and lies are pointed out to them, they shrug and persist with their views.

Why is this happening? One key factor is the erosion of a shared understanding of the role of reason in resolving arguments. At the most basic level, we recognise discussions about what are to be believed should be free and open – with the critical proviso that what is said is relevant, coherent, objectively checkable, and not abusive or intimidatory. Overlooking the need for this proviso has led to some very confused reactions. Let’s look at some of these.

First we have the ‘Anything Goes’ mantra. Everyone is ‘entitled’ to have their own views, and they are free to express those views any time, anywhere. It does not matter that they are groundless and dangerous – declaring a life-saving vaccine a deadly potion; calling an innocent man a serial killer; describing a shelter for vulnerable people as a home for nasty criminals. Any attempt to restrict the propagation of such views is then attacked as ‘censorship’ or ‘cancel culture’.

Next we have the ‘better tough than reasonable’ outlook. We don’t want understanding, we are told, just action to sort things out. Overlooking the fact that without understanding a problem, you can’t solve it, those impatient (and in some cases, incompetent) with working out what a reasoned approach should be, fall for ‘strongman’ politicians, cult leaders, charlatans who claim to speak for God, and go with whatever thoughtless actions they call for.

Then there are those who, without any sense of irony, cloak their arbitrary dogmas by invoking their own twisted brand of ‘Reason’. From the Robespierre-led extremists in the French Revolution to those who believe that their grasp of dialectical history justifies Stalinist oppression, there are people who insist that they know what Reason declares to be unquestionably true. Alas, anyone who rejects critical analysis and rebuffs objective scrutiny can hardly be considered reasonable at all.

Finally, we have the random sceptics who are convinced that there is no distinction between what is in line with or what goes against reason. Reason for them is a mirage, and no one can tell them what is or what is not reasonable. They can believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and anyone trying to point out flaws in their views would simply be dismissed as lacking any coherent basis to do so.

The antidote to all this is to remind ourselves how we get through the most basic everyday decisions – understanding options, learning from experience, seeing what happens when different choices are made, reviewing assumptions in the light of new evidence or cogent arguments put forward by others, etc. We only get by if we work through ideas in an objective and non-contradictory manner. We all implicitly reason about what we are to believe and what to do. Anyone seriously making their choices without reasonable deliberations would find themselves in all kinds of trouble – with their home, their job, their health.

We need to apply our grasp of reasonableness consistently to wider societal issues and recognise that there is an important difference between reasonable ideas that merit consideration and unreasonable claims that should be exposed as unwarranted. To learn more, here are a few suggestions: Stephen Toulmin’s Return to Reason, P. F. Strawson’s Skepticism and Naturalism, Henry Tam’s What Should Citizens Believe, and Thomas A. Spragens Jnr’s Reason and Democracy.

Morality, Education & Public Policy

The teaching of moral issues is a contentious matter. Some people think that if education neglects the development of a common moral understanding, society is in peril. Others feel strongly that morality should be left to individuals, and any collective steer would inevitably be authoritarian and unacceptable. 

On the surface, this deadlock seems unbreakable if there is no such thing as a universal moral outlook that can be legitimately imparted.  If we take a deeper look, however, we will see that explicitly or implicitly we all recognise the golden rule of reciprocity. We take it as correct to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. We reject as wrong the behaviour of anyone who act on others in a manner they would not wish upon themselves.

This moral alignment with the ethos of reciprocity has been confirmed in research into the behaviour of young children, in anthropological studies of diverse groups of people, in game theory experiments testing the propensity towards mutual cooperation, and in everyday observations of how we all tend to welcome those who reciprocate civility and helpfulness, and think badly of those who repay courtesy and kindness with inconsiderate and selfish acts. None of this is surprising given the centrality of the golden rule in the moral teachings recorded in the most revered texts in all ancient civilisations.

Based on a concern with upholding the morality of reciprocity, it makes sense to have public policies that support its practical adoption and guard against its erosion by false notions and harmful deception. For example, consider the following types of policy:

[A] Public policy that requires and supports the teaching in all schools of moral understanding of issues such as:

·      Acting with civility and mutual respect towards one another.

·      Resolving disagreement non-violently with the help of objective evidence and coherent arguments.

·      Learning to cooperate in the exploration and pursuit of common goals.

·      Discovering how some people can suffer from circumstances beyond their control and why they would need help as we would in similar circumstances. 

[B] Public policy that disallows and sanctions against the teaching by schools or parents which inculcates beliefs, attitudes and behaviour such as:

·      Disparaging, hating, or intimidating others on the grounds of their race, religion, customs, gender, disability, poverty, appearance or any other prejudice-based factor.

·      Being supportive of those who advocate the use of force to terrorise target groups or undermine democratically elected government institutions.

·      Embracing assumptions that one can impose sexual acts on others without their consent, and blame them for objecting to such action.

·      Accepting false claims about why one should consume certain dangerous substance or refuse to receive essential medical treatment.

[C] Public policy that rules out the teaching of unfounded doctrines and dangerously misleading ideas such as:

·      “White people should be treated favourably and encouraged to live here while non-white should be frowned upon and made to feel unwelcome.”

·      “One religious denomination is correct about everything and all other denominations, sects, religions, and non-believers are unforgivably mistaken whenever they disagree with the one true faith.”

·      “Women should stay at home to look after their family, comply with their husband, and not seek equal opportunities as men.”

·      “Scientific expertise and widely peer-assessed research findings are to be dismissed whenever these run counter to what certain ideological groups with wealthy backers want to assert.”

Why would anyone object to the above types of public policy? Is type A policy not promoting the reciprocity that is needed to sustain a civil and mutually supportive society? Is type B policy not necessary to protect children and the wider community from serious harm? Is type C policy not essential to keep at bay the vilest indoctrination that would otherwise fuel arbitrary oppression?  Only those who reject reciprocity, who want to treat others in repugnant ways they would never put up with themselves, would push against these types of policy. Rather than conceding to their objections, society should confidently and resolutely develop such policies for the common good.