...it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for
supposing it true, I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would
completely transform our social life and our political system ….69
Reason notwithstanding, the transcendental
temptations of the paranormal and religion remain strong.70 Reason has much less popular appeal than unreason. Freethinkers should start a marketing campaign for reason. That is what the
Enlightenment was all about: a marketing campaign for reason, contra the authority of the church and aristocracy. In some ways this campaign for reason has succeeded, and in general the living conditions for people in Western society have improved
tremendously. Western culture is heavily influenced by science and reason. But, contrary to the hopes of some Enlightenment philosophes and their present-day admirers, religion and unreason remain in
existence even today.
It is hard to grasp the blatant incoherence of many believers who suspend their rationality in some domains of life. Nobody would survive long without at least the partial application of reason in their life. No one, not even pious believers or
diehard fundamentalists, cross a busy street by closing their eyes, trusting on faith. Many
fundamentalists, that is, those who take their
irrationality seriously, use modern technology, like cell phones and the Internet, to further their cause.
They seem to have compartmentalized their brain
69 Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays, p. 12.
70 Paul Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation
into rational and irrational parts. This is what
psychologists call cognitive dissonance; and what logicians call parallel logic. They use reason to
support unreason. That is exactly the tragedy of the 20th century: the use of technology by unreason, for example as happened with fascism and
communism. Frankfurt School thinkers point out the dangers of the instrumentalization of rationality.
Freethinkers on the other hand, use reason to criticize unreason. Freethinkers try to use reason in all their endeavors and try not to compartmentalize their brains. Of course, it is not always possible to make optimal rational choices. Rationality is
bounded by limited information, time and
calculating techniques. Rationality is an ideal to strive for. Behavior and opinions can always be corrected by (new) arguments and critique.
Decisions and beliefs are fallible, and critical inquirers realize this. ‘All-round rationality is no doubt an unattainable ideal. […] I believe that all solid progress in the world consists of an increase in rationality, both practical and theoretical.’71
In many cases reason cannot make the decision. Choosing between coffee and tea is arbitrary. Either way is fine, you can choose
whatever you like best at the moment. However, the situation would change if someone told you that
coffee is bad for your health, or that by drinking coffee you support terrible working conditions72, or, by drinking a latte you support factory farming.
Once such information is provided, the situation of the choice changes. The choice between coffee and tea is not arbitrary anymore now you have this
71 Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays, p. 41
72 Watch Black Gold (www.balckgoldmovie.com) and drinking coffee will never be the same.
information. You can decide whether or not to alter your choice in the light of the new information.
In comparison with the needs of people starving in Somalia, the desire to sample the wines of the leading French vineyards pales into
insignificance. Judged against the suffering of immobilized rabbits having shampoos dripped into their eyes, a better shampoo becomes an unworthy goal. The preservation of old-growth forests should override our desire to use
disposable paper towels. An ethical approach to life does not forbid having fun or enjoying food and wine, but it changes our sense of priorities.
The effort and expense put into buying fashionable clothes, the endless search for
more and more refined gastronomic pleasures, the astonishing additional expense that marks out the prestige car market from the market in cars for people who just want a reliable means of getting from A to B – all these become
disproportionate to people who can shift
perspective long enough to take themselves, at least for a time, out of the spotlight. If a higher ethical consciousness spreads, it will utterly change the society in which we live.73
In order to answer the question ‘Can morality be guided by reason?’ it makes sense to consider the alternatives. What would be the alternative of using reason as a guide in morality? Some people might say emotion, intuition, authority or faith, are moral guides. Emotions, intuition, authority and faith, however, are often limited in scope by custom and
73 Peter Singer, How Are We to Live?, p. 271.
conventions. These moral guides are not of much help in finding blind spots in the morals of a
particular culture or group. The expanding circle of morality and the emancipation of women, slaves, homosexuals, non-whites, handicapped, children and animals did not emanate from a morality based on emotion, intuition, authority or faith. Bertrand Russell found a better way to combine reason and emotion as he did with his adage: ‘The good life is one that is guided by reason, and inspired by love.’
It is useful to think this aphorism through; with love as moral guidance the circle of moral empathy could be very limited. For example: I do not love dogs or horses and there are many people I really do not love. Love limits, reason widens. Reason guides, even to unforeseen areas. When going down the road of rational inquiry of moral values, it is possible one will find flaws and blind spots. Love, or rather empathy, is needed because reason alone is not enough: knowing some people desperately need your help is not enough. You need love, or empathy, to act upon rationally acquired knowledge. Reason is a tool that can be used to explore areas as of yet completely unknown, like science investigates the unknown systematically. Love is needed to act upon moral knowledge.
For example, the idea of animal rights is first and foremost a rational idea, not based on
emotions. Many pet lovers, who care for the
wellbeing of their fancy pet, seem not to care for the cruelty imposed on animals in factory farming. This is a form of partial moral rationality. Animal rights activists on the other hand are not necessarily pet lovers. Personally, I do not care much for animals, but I am convinced that animals should have rights like human animals. Not the same rights however.
The guidance of reason in morality is not a
guarantee for justice and happiness, but by using reason, flagrantly immoral behavior and institutions can be spotted and corrected. What is good might be hard to define, what is bad is much easier to
spot. It is better to get rid of the bad first, in order to find the good.
All-round rationality could mean we will have to change our way of living dramatically in the light of reason. Adopting a rational point of view not only has cognitive consequences, like the vaporization of god, it will have to have consequences on how we are to live as well. Adopting reason as our guiding light has consequences for our moral conduct. Peter Singer: ‘Once we start reasoning, we may be
compelled to follow a chain of argument to a conclusion that we did not anticipate. Reason
provides us with the capacity to recognize that each of us is simply one being among others, all of whom have wants and needs that matter to them, as our needs and wants matter to us.’
The light of reason is a moral appeal; it is the end of blind obedience, the end of speciecism, the end of moral exclusiveness, the end of moral
ostrichism.
Imagine No Religion…
Many evils, which torment humans, are man made, let’s try to get rid of them. Let’s make the world a better place. Let’s get rid of religion.