# The moral failure of reason!



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2010)

Reason fails to be an authority in a moral sense because it is impossible to decide the moral "oughtness" of two contrary ethical beliefs on reason alone. It is my opinion that all ethical theories will go back, logically, to some basic Kantian idea of ethics. Let me explain.

If you take reason to be the sole decider in ethical matters than you run into a serious problem. For example I was debating a couple of self described moral Kantians who told me that reason alone could decide between conflicting ethical views. So I asked them then what the rational difference was between these two statements:

1. It is morally wrong to murder someone
2. It is morally right to murder someone

I pointed out to them that these two sentinces make perfect rational sense. They were puzzeled and said that statement 2 had to be wrong. So I said well how is it irrational? What logical fallacy does it commit? Again no answer. The problem is that to some unbelievers reason is the ultimate authority in their lives, and this is mistaken. I think that we have to remember that reason is a tool given to us by God to understand his world and word. 

Another example. Some might point out that an ethical theory like utilitarianism, pragmatism, or naturalistic theories seem to have some other basis or criteria for "good" (greatest good or what works). But they all degenerate back to assuming that reason can decide in an objective fashon what is good and bad. They are nothing more than abitray and subjective opinions of the person holding the theory. Since reason has failed, at least, as an ultimate authority in moral matters this is an excellant line of defense for any christian engaged in the apologetical pursuit. 

If an opponant seems to claim that reason is the ultimate authority in his or her life then press them on the ethical issue and reveal that reason has failed them here. You then can lay out why only on a christian basis can we distinguish between good and bad. I'll explain.

God as the creator has the right to demand certian behaviours from his creatures, for no other purpose than to reflect his charector as image bearers. He does not look to some trancsendant moral code above or beyond Him to decide what is right or wrong nor does he simply abitrarly pick and choose for no good reason. He defines what is right and wrong, these words make no sense outside of his revealation. You see unbelieving moral theories made good in some form an intrinsic catagory but in christianity it is relational to God's will. Something is only good if it lines up with what God has declared is good. I hope this helps anybody and ask me to clarify if something doesn't make sense.


----------



## Philip (Feb 18, 2010)

What exactly do you mean by "reason"?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> What exactly do you mean by "reason"?


 You know I did leave that a little ambiguas, so I'll define now. I would be fooling myself if I thought I could exaust the meaning of this term, its defenition depends most clearly on its use. But I think the most prominant meaning I was giving would be the use of our logical faucalties. A logical analysis over and against an empirical analysis, although these two are mixed with one another but in each case one analysis is more prominant than the other. I think another use tied into what I was talking about could be rationalization, rationalyzing one point of view over another. I hope this clears things up, if not ask me to elaborate.


----------



## Philip (Feb 18, 2010)

My purpose in asking is that the term has been used in various ways by different philosophers. For example, when Locke speaks of "reason", he is speaking of logical, empirical, and conscientious all together. Hume, though, used it in the sense you have described.

For a Kantian (or Hegelian), reason is not mere logic, but "right thinking" which is somewhat indefinable. Thinking rightly, though, seems to be "thinking like civilized westerners."


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2010)

It would be true to say that non Christian philosophies in general fail to produce any imperative in terms of either moral or rational considerations. They cannot tell us why we "ought" to believe their view of the world. With no ultimate judgment to come there is no "reason" to believe this, that, or anything else. They themselves are shown to feel this when they eventually give up on rationality and integrity altogether, and adopt an each to his own POV.


----------



## Philip (Feb 18, 2010)

Is the point of ethics to figure out what we ought to do or why we ought to do it? It seems to me that the ideas we are discussing here would make little sense to an unbeliever who sees no need to account for ethics.

Let us, though, suppose that the non-Christian has claimed that reason is his basis. The apologist asks him what criteria he is using--he says "reason." The apologist then asks him to distinguish those two propositions you have provided and the non-Christian says, "The second is self-evidently wrong." You point out the conceivability of someone holding to 2 and the non-Christian simply says, "That person is not reasonable."

One can be logical, but not reasonable--paranoia is generally logical but not reasonable.

Not saying that his reasoning is correct, just that the nonbeliever can make Russell's teapot arguments to escape. The unbeliever can account for these sort of things, just as a Freudian can account for pretty much any psychological event. The answers may be contrary to common sense, but then again, Christianity is "uncommon sense."


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 19, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> My purpose in asking is that the term has been used in various ways by different philosophers. For example, when Locke speaks of "reason", he is speaking of logical, empirical, and conscientious all together. Hume, though, used it in the sense you have described.
> 
> For a Kantian (or Hegelian), reason is not mere logic, but "right thinking" which is somewhat indefinable. Thinking rightly, though, seems to be "thinking like civilized westerners."


I got mine somewhat out of a dictionary, but you are absolutly right about it taking on different meanings by differant philosophers. I guess I was more reffering to how it is used by the unbeliever and the believer and less on their theory of what it is, if that makes sense.

---------- Post added at 09:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------




armourbearer said:


> It would be true to say that non Christian philosophies in general fail to produce any imperative in terms of either moral or rational considerations. They cannot tell us why we "ought" to believe their view of the world. With no ultimate judgment to come there is no "reason" to believe this, that, or anything else. They themselves are shown to feel this when they eventually give up on rationality and integrity altogether, and adopt an each to his own POV.


 You make an excellant point. But even people who adopt such a point of view must rationally show why everyone "ought" to adopt this point of view.

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Is the point of ethics to figure out what we ought to do or why we ought to do it? It seems to me that the ideas we are discussing here would make little sense to an unbeliever who sees no need to account for ethics.
> 
> Let us, though, suppose that the non-Christian has claimed that reason is his basis. The apologist asks him what criteria he is using--he says "reason." The apologist then asks him to distinguish those two propositions you have provided and the non-Christian says, "The second is self-evidently wrong." You point out the conceivability of someone holding to 2 and the non-Christian simply says, "That person is not reasonable."
> 
> ...


 Both of your deffanitions of ethics are dead on:
1. your first part is the method for deciding what is right and wrong.
2. your second part is the justification, I use this word in a logical and epistomological sense, of why something is right or wrong.

Whether or not this makes sense to an unbeliever or not is irrelavant, this is the philosophy of ethics. If they want to point to some alleged moral defintancy in the bible than I would press them to give me a theory of ethics first before we dealt with the issue they raised. Keep in mind this is a logical necessaty more than a polemical one. Logic forces all of us to give answers to these questions, that is the nature of the tool that God gave us.

The two kantians I was debating initially said the same thing as your example said, so I pressed them to show logically why it is "self evident"? They could not answer and so I pressed them into the questions that I initially stated in my first post. To simply assert that something is "self evident" does make the logical problems go away it only tells me how someone thinks or feels about the issue.

I'm not famelier with Russell's teapot argument but I am curious, if you wouldn't mind giving it to me. As far as Frued goes he could never justify any ethical theories with his own thought, even he cannot escape the totality of these logical concerns. He has given us insights in the area of psychology but to take his total worldview and apply it to all of reality and he comes up short, along with every other unbeliever's worldview. Does this clarify at all? If not than just let me know.


----------



## Philip (Feb 19, 2010)

> To simply assert that something is "self evident" does make the logical problems go away it only tells me how someone thinks or feels about the issue.



"Self-evident" here does not mean "tautologous" but "blasted obvious to anyone reasoning rightly." Right reason here isn't just logic. They could also just take it as axiomatic.



> I'm not famelier with Russell's teapot argument but I am curious, if you wouldn't mind giving it to me.



I believe that in the asteroid belt, there is a teapot. Now, you could give me all kinds of reasons why there should not be a teapot there, but none of them are conclusive. So you get out the high-powered telescope and I look through it and say, "There's the teapot." You look through it and see nothing. My explanation: it moved.

You can account for anything--the unbeliever can (I think) account for anything. At some point (I think), you have to bring in a common sense argument.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 19, 2010)

> "Self-evident" here does not mean "tautologous" but "blasted obvious to anyone reasoning rightly." Right reason here isn't just logic. They could also just take it as axiomatic.


I can see your point but I don't believe "self-evident" holds much philosophical wieght, heres why. What is the criteria for determining that something is "self-evident"? Philosophers have been trying to figure this one out since at least Descarte, a lot have simply abandend the quest ( this is the whole foundationalist/nonfoundationalist debate). I like your common sense aproech to this and I agree that common sense is a vital part of the philosophical endeavor but it still doesn't get us around the logical problems here. 



> You can account for anything--the unbeliever can (I think) account for anything. At some point (I think), you have to bring in a common sense argument.


I think "account" is a slightly weird word thats why I try to stress "justification for a belief". I can account for things but I don't think the unbeleiver can, I think you and I are aproeching from two different angles so let me address that. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are refering more to isolated absolute facts, murder is wrong etc., and I'm more interested in the whole worldview someone is putting up. I think we agree that everyone aproechs the world from their own biased P.O.V. and this is their grid, I think, for interpriting the world around them. Here's an example of how this works out in history.

A christian apologets and an atheistic naturalist are both looking at the evidence for Christ's ressurection. I believe there is absolute proof for this because it is a historical fact. They both come to the conclusion that this event did in fact take place, but when asked why the atheist still doesn't believe in God he responds "this only proves that a unique event happened in history to a guy named Jesus. How do you know that some incredably rare event didn't happen? It doesn't seem self-evident to me that this cannot happen by natural causes, because there is so much out there that we don't know yet". 

How is the christian to legitametly respond to this? You see they both looked at the same evidence, or facts, and derived 2 different interpretations of them. It is their presupossitions that determined what their interpretations were. Common sense dictates that the atheist is stretching things but this is why Van Til denied that such nuetral playing grounds exsist. We don't leave our worldview at the door when we do science or balance our checkbooks, to some degree (and it varies) we are interpreting things through our worldview. 



> I believe that in the asteroid belt, there is a teapot. Now, you could give me all kinds of reasons why there should not be a teapot there, but none of them are conclusive. So you get out the high-powered telescope and I look through it and say, "There's the teapot." You look through it and see nothing. My explanation: it moved.


I like that, thank you for sharing that with me. This is still just logical dodging of one kind or another. But I'm curious about how this form of argument would apply to the moral argument I was making? I don't see how this gets them around the logical problems I mentioned? As far as you keep mentioning that unbelievers are uniterested in these sorts of questions, I must agree. Van Til called these people "epistemological loafers...".


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 20, 2010)

I tell you what P. F. Pugh if it will better clarify my position I will start a couple of threads at a time to deal with one theory of ethics each and you can see how my points play out. The first two I will work out are utilitarianism and intuitionalism.


----------



## biggandyy (Feb 28, 2010)

James, I can see where one might be so inclined to declare the the moral failure of reason given what you have outlined. But there is one aspect you may have failed to have taken into consideration. Rationality (or reason) simply does not exist outside of a worldview, be it a Christian worldview, or atheist, or evolutionist, etc.

I will hearken it to an area of expertise I have, geology. I can take a sample of rock and subject it to all manner of test. Test it's composition, its hardness, its ductility, specific gravity, and porosity. I can map it across continental divides or examine it under a scanning electron microscope. I can measure it's radiation or count its constituent parts. I can even smell it, taste it, and polish it and sell it on eBay.

But there is one thing that rock sample can not reveal to me from any measurement or test, and that is its age. Even those who profess to place credence in various dating methods are not directly measuring the age of the material but calculating an age from assumptions not observed in that rock sample. Those assumptions come directly from our worldview. If one is looking for old age one can easily find it using data from that rock sample. I can find young age using the same exact data but only using a different lens of a worldview.

In this case, reason has not failed because reason can not exist apart from the worldview of the reasoner. A Christian worldview uses the tools of logic and reason and arrives at a moral absolute (murder is absolutely morally wrong). A relativist will use those same tools of logic (A can not be A and ~A etc, etc) but arrive at the moral absolute "murder is not absolutely morally wrong".

I profess myself a Christian Rationalist with the caveat that the Christian Worldview is the sole and authoritative grounding of all moral calculations.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 1, 2010)

> But there is one aspect you may have failed to have taken into consideration. Rationality (or reason) simply does not exist outside of a worldview, be it a Christian worldview, or atheist, or evolutionist, etc.


The metaphysics of a worldview determines what reason is in a sense, but we all use the same tool. We don't use two different tools but the same tool for different reasons.



> I will hearken it to an area of expertise I have, geology. I can take a sample of rock and subject it to all manner of test. Test it's composition, its hardness, its ductility, specific gravity, and porosity. I can map it across continental divides or examine it under a scanning electron microscope. I can measure it's radiation or count its constituent parts. I can even smell it, taste it, and polish it and sell it on eBay.
> 
> But there is one thing that rock sample can not reveal to me from any measurement or test, and that is its age. Even those who profess to place credence in various dating methods are not directly measuring the age of the material but calculating an age from assumptions not observed in that rock sample. Those assumptions come directly from our worldview. If one is looking for old age one can easily find it using data from that rock sample. I can find young age using the same exact data but only using a different lens of a worldview.


I'm not even an amatuer in this area. But you did demonstrate very nicley how Van Til's ideas play out in the supossidly nuetral area of science, thank you for that.



> In this case, reason has not failed because reason can not exist apart from the worldview of the reasoner. A Christian worldview uses the tools of logic and reason and arrives at a moral absolute (murder is absolutely morally wrong). A relativist will use those same tools of logic (A can not be A and ~A etc, etc) but arrive at the moral absolute "murder is not absolutely morally wrong".
> 
> I profess myself a Christian Rationalist with the caveat that the Christian Worldview is the sole and authoritative grounding of all moral calculations.


You must keep in mind that my argument was about reason as an ultimate authority in ones life. Reason by itself cannot in any WV determine what is right and wrong, even in the Christian WV. In the garden Adam had to be told by God what He wanted Adam to do, even then special revelation was needed to determine things. Adam used his tool of reason to understand what God meant. We Christians today use our tool of reasoning to understand Scripture and that tells us what is right and wrong.


----------



## Dewi Sant (Mar 1, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> What exactly do you mean by "reason"?



Wouldn't it be better to use the word logic?


----------



## biggandyy (Mar 1, 2010)

I think by "reason" he is wanting to explore if by reason, using the rules of logic, one can demonstrate morality, Christian or otherwise. In other words, taking the build blocks provided by logic and using pure reason alone, erect a moral framework that will withstand assault by the very bricks from which that morality is built (i.e. logic).


----------



## Dewi Sant (Mar 3, 2010)

I have attempted to attach a PDF of an article written by G. H. Clark for JETS. If it comes through, and you can open it, go to page 4 (pg 218 JETS) - as you can see, according to Clark, it's not the Logos, it's the axiom that you begin with. If you argue that through reason alone one may discern the will of God, you will fail because Adam failed. If, however, you argue that we are rational (logical) beings because we are image bearers, then it's a short step to argue that if we logically deduce from scripture an ethical system then it can be normative - not because we reasoned it out from nothing, but because if God prescribes it in his word, we would be insane not to follow. Follow?

Kris


----------



## Dewi Sant (Mar 3, 2010)

I just read my reply - not very rational. But then, I'm an amateur. I'm sure Clark is WAY clearer.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 4, 2010)

Dewi Sant said:


> I have attempted to attach a PDF of an article written by G. H. Clark for JETS. If it comes through, and you can open it, go to page 4 (pg 218 JETS) - as you can see, according to Clark, it's not the Logos, it's the axiom that you begin with. If you argue that through reason alone one may discern the will of God, you will fail because Adam failed. If, however, you argue that we are rational (logical) beings because we are image bearers, then it's a short step to argue that if we logically deduce from scripture an ethical system then it can be normative - not because we reasoned it out from nothing, but because if God prescribes it in his word, we would be insane not to follow. Follow?
> 
> Kris


 Yes thats what it boils down to, your right. I definantly agree with you and Clark here. Thank you for the PDF file too!


----------

