Reason or Morality?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Disagree, my friend.

Dichotomy-"a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different."
Reason is not opposed to morality and is not entirely different; not inherently at least.

It is true that some people's moral codes are not reasonable, but that doesn't make reason and morality inherently contrasted or entirely different. Proper morality is firmly rooted in reason. There is no dichotomy. If there was, morality would be inherently unreasonable(see definition of "dichotomy,") which it is not.

I will have to disagree with you. While Reason and Morality are NOT necessarily opposed to each other, they are entirely different in their inherent application.

I will give you what I believe is a very logical example of this:

Let us say you developed a political system that was 100% comprised on Reason and not morality. In other words, every action you take must be mandated by the concept of reason. This would initially seem fantastic and would probably remain so until unforeseen problems surfaced (things considered problems for us now, not within the society I am talking about.) What unforeseen problems? Eventually people within society who do not provide an overall benefit to the functioning of society will need to be examined.

They are the ones, whether they are large in number or small, who will be examined and deemed a weakness. (Remember, this is a system that is entirely based on what is best for the betterment of the whole of the society and whether something can be judged as moral or ethical is not a factor.) The only way to ensure reason remains relevant is to actively place priority over those who are making society better. Eventually you WILL reach a point where priority and segregation are not enough and those that are weakening society's progress will have to either be asked to leave or be destroyed. Which means a system based entirely on reason will inevitably lead to extremely immoral behaviour being seen as permissible.

Key advantage: the best way is ALWAYS prioritised over the right way and betterment of the individual and the state is guaranteed as long as reason is applied.

Key disadvantage: the murder of those that are considered the obstacle of applying reason are sanctioned by the state, which leads to mass murder and genocide. This is a grossly immoral set of circumstances.

Let us say you developed a political system that was 100% based on Morality and did not contain reason at all. Every action you take must be mandated by the concept of morality. This would initially seem fantastic and would probably remain so until unforeseen problems surfaced (things considered problems for us now, not within the society I am talking about.) What unforeseen problems? Eventually people within society who threaten to keep things balanced and fair (above average intelligence, above average strength, people able to better accumulate and maintain resources than the average person) will need to be examined if fairness and balance is to be continually applied.

They are the ones, whether they are large in number or small, who will be examined and deemed harmful to the concept of morality (Remember, this is a system that is entirely based on fairness and balance of the whole of the society and whether something can be judged as reasonable does not factor into it.) The only way to ensure morality remains relevant is to actively place priority over those who are making society more fair and balanced. Eventually you WILL reach a point where priority and segregation are not enough and those that are weakening society's ability to remain fair and balanced will have to either be asked to leave or be destroyed. Which means a system based entirely on morality will inevitably lead to a society that cannot progress nor adapt to modernity (if technology is able to exist) or evolution/external factors that cannot be controlled by individual nor state (natural disasters, diminishing resources, mutating disease.)

Key advantage: there is no fairer or more balanced system possible for both the individual or the state.

Key disadvantage: the murder of those seen as an obstacle to applying fairness and balance will be sanctioned by the state which is a grossly unreasonable set of circumstances.

(I am aware of the coincidence that the act of unjust mass murder are both the result in the key disadvantages of those situations - which is ironically a moral issue - but I strongly believe that is just a coincidence because we are far more likely to be living in an imperfect world.)

The point I have just demonstrated so far, and I believe it is close to irrefutable, is that you cannot prioritise a 50/50 approach on every issue as a standard rule because many important issues will NEVER be resolved until there is some sort of decision to prioritise (alter the 50/50 rule) one concept (reason) over the other (moral). There will always be more than several major issues at once where you WILL be forced to prioritise one over the other (no matter how small or large the priority change is). This is due to us living in what very much appears to be an imperfect world.

The question is, what is more important: resolving major problems and making giant strides forward in an imperfect world, or allowing major problems to exist and actively stifle your ability to survive external variables that cannot be controlled in an imperfect world.

I personally believe the former, which is why I would choose Reason over Morality if I were forced to. It's easy for an individual to say "but I would never have to do that", well guess what: people in positions of power and influence which are almost always people in charge of the state (governments, monarchies, authorities etc.) DO have to make that decision (not always, but still often) without compromising the nation's core values, which if that were allowed to happen would result in the forced replacement of the government or a bloody overthrow of the government.

Therefore, you are not presented with a "false dichotomy" but a genuine dichotomy that cannot be ignored unless you are favouring one concept over the other, which would actively prove the point of my opening post.

If I am wrong in any of the above logic and reasoning, please correct me. I am 99.99% confident that what I have just demonstrated is ironclad.