Critical Reasoning

A reason is “a statement offered in explanation or justification” that expresses “a rational ground or motive” and “supports a conclusion or explains a fact.”21 As a verb, reason means “to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions.”22 Reasoning is thinking.

Being rational refers to having a reason, being reasonable means “being in accord with reason.”23 In moral philosophy arguing involves giving reasons for a conclusion. An argument, therefore, is not about opinions or beliefs, but about the reasons for our opinions or beliefs. In ethics, the goal of arguing is (or should be) not to win, but to clarify our reasoning. 

This means unmasking rationalizations. In some disciplines of thought rationalize means “to bring into accord with reason,” but in ethics it means “to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives.”24 A reason is not a rationalization, in moral philosophy, because reasoning involves analyzing our motives.

It is often difficult, however, to distinguish reasons from rationalizations. For example, if I own land that I want to log to make a profit, but argue at a public hearing that logging should be allowed because it will bring jobs into the community, my public statement is a rationalization.

If, however, I state publicly that I support logging because I will benefit from it and think that the community will also benefit, I am giving two reasons for my position. Self-interest is rational and is not a rationalization, unless self-interest is concealed or is the unconscious motivation for making an argument. 

Reasoning by analogy explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar, although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is clarifying.

For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman animals as we do to humans?  

Deductive reasoning applies a principle to a situation. If every person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every person.

Drawing an inference means much the same, for it involves “passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from the former.”25

Inductive reasoning involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis.  The greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it.

There is growing scientific evidence for the hypothesis that the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, factories, motor vehicles, and airplanes is contributing to global warming. This evidence substantiates the ethical argument that human communities have a duty to reduce carbon emissions in order to prevent the further degradation of the earth’s biosphere. 

The words therefore or thus, or because or it follows, or given that imply a conclusion is about to be drawn in an argument. Critical reasoning involves raising questions when we hear these words or phrases. What principle is being asserted, and is it rational? Have the motives behind the argument been clarified?  Does the conclusion being drawn follow from the facts and reasons given?

analogy to rule of law 
constructing presumptions
faith and reason
environmental ethics 
ethical traditions
feelings
ethical relativism
right and good 
testing presumptions

21.  Online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason.

22.  Ibid.

23.  Online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasonable.

24.  Online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize.

25.  Online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inference.

 Feelings and Reason...

Reasoning always involves our feelings. Look at this painting by Van Gogh of olive trees beside a field. There is a sense here of nature and of human activity. We do not create trees, but we create orchids. We depend on nature for food, but cultivate crops and orchids to ensure our food supply. Because we feel strongly about our natural world, we are motivated to use our reason in caring for the earth and its fruit-bearing plants and trees.

We easily rationalize our destruction of nature. Wild flowers are worthless to us, but cultivated land makes a profit. We know rationally that wild flowers not only are lovely, but also are essential in the ecosystems that sustain life.

Moreover, we know that making a profit is irrational, if in doing so we destroy the top soil and the natural cycles of life simply for a short-term financial gain. Van Gogh celebrates wild flowers and farms in his paintings, and invites us to find good reasons to care for both.

If we have a duty to care for nature, by reasoning deductively we may infer that we have a duty to care for wild flowers and blossoms. By reasoning inductively we can confirm that caring for both wild nature and our cultivated crops makes it more likely that we will conserve the ecosystems that sustain all life on earth.

Therefore, we should concerned by the damage that we are doing to our natural environment. We have good reasons to act quickly and wisely to preserve forests and wild flowers, and to make our agriculture more sustainable.