The question for this enquiry asks: Does Moral Action Depend on Reasoning?
The enquiry follows:
Any problem can present different, even multiple objectives. One objective will always be concerned with the structural issue presented, others may claim independent issues. If “moral action” is involved, one objective will be concerned with what we can call for the purposes of this discussion, “morality”.
The question assumes that if morality is involved then a dilemma may be present. There is a problem to resolve but there may be conflicting objectives, both of which claim priority under their own rules. Each of these objectives can be rationally analyzed with respect to their own requirements, that’s true - however those resolutions may still balance on a large degree of implied or accepted fantasy, and much of the reasoning that is involved may ultimately be found to be superficial. How can we tell?
Logic is sound. It makes sense. It is perfect; it has to be. It challenges itself and it proves itself, it constantly self-corrects. But it cannot reach beyond itself. It cannot be influenced by that of which it is unaware. Morality, on the other hand is based on spiritual or emotional concepts. It can “hear” that which cannot be said, can “see” that which is not visible, and can be influenced by underlying impressions of which it is not completely aware but which it senses in dimensions beyond its ability to comprehend or describe in terms of logic.
Logic can be taught. It is factual, it can be tested and proven or not. Morality cannot be taught. It can only be transmitted. It cannot be tested, not by logic. Not all people are even aware of its existence. A person walking a dog is totally unaware of the universe of smells through which the dog walks and which tells the dog of delights around the next corner or of terrors lurking behind the bushes. His human escort plods along, perhaps “lost” in some errotically-intellectual conversation with himself.
A person might decide the best action to achieve his purpose would be to cheat someone else. But if he believes a higher power will punish those who cheat others, then he might not cheat that person in order to not incur the wrath of that implied higher power. That would be action based on “reasoning”, even though the premises for that reasoning would not itself be based on any form of absolute logic, but on a logic-like system developed to “prove” a moral, but still basically illogical, requirement. In other words, it would be placing a framework similar to logic onto a construct of fantasy, then “proving” a desired point by using fantasy in a logical-like manner.
So. Moral action, or action directed to achieving a moral objective obviously IS based on reasoning. The answer to that question is a definite “yes”. But - that is not the real question which will lead us to the Simple Truth. The question we need to ask - and answer - is this: Is reasoning which leads to moral action based on logic or is it based on some other form of knowledge?
This line of conjecture now leads us a bit farther. The confluence between logic and morality, or any other artificial but cohesive and imposed "rules" or "laws", will create a disturbance. These non-logical rules and laws create a special type of knowledge or logic system which can be called “faith” or "revelation". Faith can take the form of a theological creed, an obsessive madness, or that of an Einsteinien dream, all of which provide a form of revelation or illogical knowledge which is not fully comprehended by the possessor of that revelation because it is a partial knowledge of a much larger universe which is denied to its owner by reason of the limited reach of his tools of logic.
As a person continues to learn and expand his intellectual horizons, he or she will find that logical knowledge alone will provide only greater access to the mental “cage” which he has constructed and in which he has chosen to live, while at the same time barring access to the greater worlds which lie in abundance around that “cage”. The borders of the “logic cage” can be expanded, but since they require “proof” and “facts” and “answers” that fit together, it is a laborious process. Remember it took Einstein more than 35 years to “prove” his theory of relativity which he had grasped instantly in a dream.
Logic is only a tool. It is like a hammer or a skillet or a canoe paddle. If you want to travel, you will use your canoe paddle, and you can go to and see a lot of amazing things. But if that is the only tool you have for travel, then you are very limited in where you can go. If the only tool you have is a hammer and you need a saw, the hammer will not do. You will have to acquire a saw or ask a neighbor for help.
The same applies to questions leading to the Simple Truth. If logic is the only tool you have to explore questions, some of which will be beyond the scope of logic, then you will have to either acquire knowledge of other understandings or ask someone who may be a bit farther along than you are in that "faith" to help you explore those new worlds which lie in abundance around each one of us.
