Reasoning vs rationalizing

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.” As a verb, reason means “to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions.” Reasoning is thinking. Being rational refers to having a reason, being reasonable means “being in accord with reason.”

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.” 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.

With hope...Bob