Freedom from reason

Segun Gbadegesin

I TAKE my topic today from my late professor, Marcus G. Singer. It was the title of his review of an ethics book, Freedom and Reason (Oxford, 1963), by R. M. Hare. In the book, Hare had argued that “one of the most important constituents of our freedom, as moral agents, is the freedom to form our own opinions about moral questions, even if that involves changing our language.”

Moral philosophers have been at logger heads regarding the status of moral questions and moral judgments. Are they statements of facts? Are they prescriptive statements? Do they make any sense? Are they deductions of reason? Hare thought that there “can be no logical deduction of moral judgments from statements of fact.” From “You just killed an innocent person” we cannot deduce “That’s bad of you” or “that’s wrong of you.” Or from “Mask wearing saves lives” we cannot deduce “Everyone ought to wear masks.”

The import of that position is that “we are free to form our own moral opinions” and, unlike opinions about facts, our moral opinions do not have to agree with the moral opinions formed by others. The fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is established. But that is not the case with moral statements.

In his review, Marcus Singer thought Hare’s position was strictly not a reconciliation of freedom and reason, but rather, a quest for freedom from reason. In other words, what Hare did was to set us free from the directive of reason. But it is a dangerous move because we are rational beings, and without the guidance of reason, humanity is bound to self-destruct.

Philosophy, in general, has not always been seen as relevant to real life. But at its inception in Greek and Ancient Egyptian systems, moral philosophy aimed at the good life with a focus on how to live well. In the late 19th to early 20th century, however, this uniqueness of moral philosophy was questioned by philosophers who insisted that any attempt to make moral statements or give moral judgments was nonsensical. Philosophy must be about analysis of concepts and not about normative claims. This debasement of normative moral philosophy in the name of conceptual analysis is, for Singer, an abandonment of reason.

There is a sense in which academic controversies in general, and philosophical controversies in particular are mirrors of society. There is no better evidence for this observation than what is going on around the world in the onslaught of the coronavirus pandemic, and Singer’s coinage of the phrase “freedom from reason” aptly captures the current predicament of humanity. While we can certainly find ample evidences of our collective abandonment of reason in every corner of the world, there is no better place to look now than in the most advanced, richest, and most intellectually endowed of all 21st century societies, the US of A.

But, you may ask, what is wrong about getting relief from the dictate of reason? Why do we need the guidance of reason and who or what makes reason master over us? While these may appear as ridiculous, if not rebellious, questions, they are legitimate. Indeed, philosophers have not been shy to raise them, and quite a bunch, including the Scottish philosopher David Hume, have ridiculed the impotence of reason in the presence of passion. Yet the vast majority stick to the property of rationality that defines our humanity and insist that, as such, reason must sanction our conduct.

It is hard to dispute the significance of following reason. Strictly, this means having sound reasons in support of our actions, and where we encounter a reason better than ours, we shouldn’t hesitate to abandon ours in favor of the better one. We should not let our emotion and passion, which could be subjective, dictate our conduct. This is especially true and important where our conduct have consequences for our wellbeing and the welfare of others. Thus, even when I crave with passion the taste of red wine, I should not indulge in excessive drinking if I also have to drive. Even if there is no law against drinking and driving, reason dictates that I should avoid it. It is this dictate of reason that the law codifies.

The United States of America is the iconic land of the free and the home of the brave. It is therefore not unexpected that freedom would be honored, respected, and protected. Leave free or die. In particular, the liberal conception of freedom as absence of constraint is the reigning conception of freedom in the West, the United States included. Therefore, any constraint, legal, regulatory, or moral, is considered an obstacle to be avoided, or if impossible to avoid, merely tolerated without total acceptance.

In other words, what reason dictates and is codified in laws, regulations, and morals, freedom may at best tolerate or, at worst reject.

It is now common knowledge that the United States accounts for the most cases of coronavirus infection in the entire world. As of this week, there are more than 5 million cases and more than 160,000 deaths. It is extraordinary, given that here is one of the most advanced nations technologically, educationally, and politically. The U.S. has led the world in the number of Nobel Laureates in every sphere of learning. So, why has it also led in these negative statistics?

There are two approaches to understanding the debacle that has been the lot of the US in this pandemic situation. One, which only a few would find controversial, is the governance philosophy that has predominated in the nation since 2016. This philosophy downplayed the severity of the pandemic, dismissed it as a hoax; insisted that it was going to disappear, and contradicted the experts at every point. With a laser focus on his reelection, the president was publicly reluctant about a lockdown, even if temporary, that can slow down the economy. Yet, the experience of other industrialized nations has demonstrated that the most effective approach was what the president of the United States was hesitant to adopt. Consider New Zealand.

As it has turned out, the US economy has suffered severely. Millions have lost their jobs; the country is in the worst recession since the Great Depression; and there is no end in sight.

But there is a second approach to understanding the US predicament, and it has to do with the obsession with freedom. Face mask wearing and social distancing are proven preventives against the spread of the virus. But thousands of Americans have continuously and perilously shunned the recommendation of public health experts about mask wearing. And these people have been supported and applauded by some local and state leaders in some states and counties controlled by the president’s party as well as by the president himself.

A Florida Sheriff banned the wearing of masks for all deputies and visitors. His reason? Masks make it difficult to identify people, and with “anti-police sentiment”, “someone might enter the sheriff’s office with nefarious purpose and be unidentifiable with a mask”. Does this make sense? Another Florida city-council passed a mandatory mask ordinance. It was vetoed by the mayor because “his constituents don’t want a mask ordinance.” It is the most vivid, if dangerous, illustration of the exercise of freedom from reason.

Widespread testing and contact tracing are the other two tested approaches to combating the virus. But the President has argued ad infinitum that more testing means more cases, and less tests mean less cases as if it is testing that causes people to get infected. He has therefore asked for less testing, publicly demanding that his team must “slow down the testing.” But the President and his aides get tested frequently. So does whoever has a physical appointment with him. However, some animals are less equal than others, and the unfortunate ones get sick and, not too infrequently, die. That was the lot of a prominent leader who attended the Oklahoma rally, shunned mask wearing, caught the virus, and passed on.

In the land of freedom, exercising the freedom from reason has dire national and personal consequences.

• For comments, send SMS to 08111813080