Reason as a Motive to Action

Aristotle was of the opinion (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 6) that the aim or end of the process of willing is set only by our desires, and that reason is required to discover the means to achieve those ends. This was echoed by David Hume, who wrote, in Treatise on Human Nature, that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions". Thus the ends at which we aim are determined by our innate instincts and preferences, leaving reason to assist only in finding the best ways to attain these ends.

This view has in the past been challenged in a variety of ways.

1. Sometimes the desire to act in a consistent manner and avoid contradiction - as it is sometimes called, to behave rationally - may override other desires. Thus a thief may feel a pang of pity for his victims, but he would very likely pull himself together by arguing that he should not allow his emotions to get in the way of pursuing his professional calling.

2. When there is a choice of desirable options to aim for, then reason will be called on to choose between them, so in that sense, reason could be said to be setting the aims in this situation.

3. A strong criticism of the theory is that it makes an artificial distinction between reason and desire which does not exist in practice. The mind exists and operates as a unity, with the "component" parts of it working together in a seamless manner.

4. Reason and reflection may suggest a course of action, and if this is later accompanied by a desire the action may be put into effect. Some might argue that desire is still the determining factor, but here, reasoning has also played a part.

5. Introspection (a reasoning process) may lead us to suspend our judgement, and leave the execution of a desirable course of action until a later time, after which it may happen that other considerations have arisen which will influence our desires. For example, if I write an angry letter to someone, it may happen that if I do not send it immediately, but perhaps wait until next morning, I may discover some rational considerations which make the sending of the letter seem less desirable.

These objections (and others) can lead us on to the possibility of our actions being determined, not so much by our desires and instincts, as by a "sense of duty" or conscience.

Socrates, who is often celebrated as the founder of Western philosophy, held that knowledge is virtue. In his view, a clear understanding of what is good would inevitably overcome all our other tendencies to action and thus would lead to right conduct.

Syllogisms Can Help The World

The cause of many of the most major problems in our lives is when people commit a logical fallacy.

Let me tell you what I mean.

The study of logical inferences, or the drawing of conclusions from a starting statement, known as an premise, using logic, hinges on the idea of a syllogism.

Here is a classic syllogism.

A. All men are mortal
B. Socrates is a man
I. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The two statements, or premises, A and B are combined together to make the logical inference I. This is the basis of philosophical logic; it is the building block upon which the entire edifice of philosophy is founded. But as we shall see - also of everyday life. A poor understanding of the workings of the syllogism can lead us to make disastrous decisions, affecting not only ourselves, but others too.

Another syllogism:

A. All cats look grey in the dark
B. Felix is a cat
I. Therefore Felix looks grey in the dark

The first syllogism cannot be disputed, because the logic is faultless, AND the premises are true. In the second one, we could dispute it, not because there is anything wrong logically, but because we might disagree with one of the original premises (all cats look grey in the dark.)

What about this one?

A. All grass is green
B. My eyes are green
I. Therefore my eyes are grass

Can you see what is wrong with this one and how it is different from the correct one at the top of this post? If you can, then your logic is better than that of the Education Ministry of a small, populous and influential country on the north-west fringe of Europe. Their argument went like this: A survey of schools where students get consistently high grades shows that all of them set homework. So if the schools in the inner-city sink areas and in the ghettoes start to set homework and enforce it, then they too will have high grades. Yes, these people really did believe that! Their error can be seen in a simple syllogism.

A. All successful schools set homework to their students
B. Drug Street High School has started setting homework
I. Therefore Drug Street High School will start to be successful

This a bit like saying my eyes are grass. There's an episode in Alice in Wonderland where they had mistakenly planted white roses which were supposed to be red, so they painted them red. But sadly, this is the way governments work.

Another kind of logical fallacy, and one which is very dangerous in our society, leads people to fear those who are different in some way. For example, in their skin colour. An illustration of this fallacy is:

A. All the black men I have heard about are criminals
B. John is a black man
I. Therefore John is a criminal

When we write it in this way, the mistake becomes more obvious.

Perhaps if people took more notice of syllogisms in their thinking, the world would be a happier place.

Just to finish, here is a paradox syllogism:

A. All the men of the island of Crete are liars
B. I am a Cretan man
I. Therefore I am lying

If he is lying, how do we know that either of statements A or B are true? And if they are not true, how do we know that it's true that he's lying? And if it is true that he's lying, he must be telling the truth, so he's not lying, so it's....

AAAAh, no, I can't get my head round this!