Do all humans have the ability to reason?

Post Reply New Topic

Right now Im taking a philosophy class and we studied a philosopher Kant. He defined humans as individuals that have the ability to reason. I asked my philosophy prof if Kant believed that all humans(species) were humans(had the ability to reason). This is the responce he gave me

"If I understand your question correctly, you've asked a question that philosophers are still debating about today. Unfortunately it's not clear from Kant's writings whether he thought that all human beings (as members of a species) are persons in the sense of having reason, being worthy of dignity and all the other things that go along with it. I have a friend who is writing his dissertation on precisely this topic, so I asked him what his take was. He said that it looks like he would have probably said that all human beings are persons, but it's also clear that Kant wasn't considering the wide range of human beings -- people who are severely autistic, or developmentally disabled, or people in the advanced stages of alzheimer's, for instance."

I would like to think that all humans do have the ability to reason or some ability. Im really not familar with the abilities of people that have severe learning developmental problems? So what do you guys think, do all humans have the ability to reason.

I suppose some people with profound disabilities might lack the ability to reason - at least as far as we can observe. People in a persistent vegetative state, for instance. This happened to a relative, and the consensus was that if the brain is so impacted that the person cannot enjoy music or television, the person is gone even if the body is alive.

The average person, on the other hand, has the ability to reason, but prefers not to do so unless absolutely necessary.

Last edited by monty on 06 Aug 2008, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, not all people have the capacity for reason. And I'm not just referring to the people who are formally classified as mentally disabled. As far as I can tell, the ability to truly think in a rational manner seems to be relatively uncommon.

Yes. If you look at the history of AI (artificial intelligence), you see that there were immensely high hopes for being able to make intelligent programs very quickly. And this was way back in the day, when all computers filled rooms, and none of them could hold a candle to a modern cell phone. And still today, we're struggling to get down many of the basic tasks we all take for granted.

Or take a look at how very long it took to make a computer that could beat the best at chess in the world. And that's *chess* we're talking about -- a game that's much better suited to a computer than to the human way of thinking.

Also, if you take a look at languages -- chimps can be taught a fairly big vocabulary of sign language, but researchers can't agree on whether they can learn *any* grammar, even very basic stuff. African Grey Parrots can be taught words, and meanings too. They can tell the difference between shapes and colors. But they can't be taught to form complex sentences -- a task very easily within the capacity of even young children.

Even the low end of human capabilities is quite different from either machines or animals.

if people had the ability to reason, religion wouldn't exist by this point.

Having been forced to read a good bit of Kant, wonder if he had the ability to reason, much less critique it with such gusto. Talk about overrated... Like all good German philosophers, had no trouble filling hundreds of pages while leaving enough ambiguity to keep Philosphy majors busy for a long, long time.

It really depends on what we consider "reason" to be. If we use the verb "reason" we get this:

rea-son (rezn) v. intr. 1. To use the faculty of reason; think logically. 2. To talk or argue logically and persuasively.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Now, for #1, well, we'd have to define what it means to think logically or use the faculty of reason. Depending upon how loosely or rigorously we define it, we could leave it open to rather stupid creatures, or limit the ability to only the most skeptical of minds(merely intelligent ones being prone to illogical self-delusion). After all, the very nature of an information processing system demands that it "thinks" logically, if only because few other systems than a semi-logical system could get life-sustaining results in the long run.

As for #2, well, no. Not all people have the ability, including the smart ones, as persuasiveness is the social skill of finding a common ground of common premises and working with those premises, and not all people can figure out the functionings of other people well enough to persuade them. However, assuming away the social problem, we still run into the issue of logic. How do we define "logically", as a lot of minds can carry with them problems that undermine their ability to be fully logical. This means that even intelligent people with high processing abilities could be disqualified because they carry hidden assumptions and other rather unproblematic logical flaws.... unless we define the term "logically" broadly in which case partially fallacious thoughts can be included simply due to their attempts at reasonably processing.

I suppose though, we could argue theoretical potential to do so, which would make things easier.

If we argued theoretical potential and based upon definition 2 so that it includes social and logical needs, then I guess we can argue that the mentally handicapped cannot reason. I am being way too analytical... perhaps because I am tired. I really do not know though.

Yes, it depends on what we consider reason, in the biological sense, all humans are capable of reason, being that the main difference from the rest of species, even though some animals have a "primitive" form of reasoning, in which have been observed in experiments, perhaps learned. One example of this I read a long time ago, is that in a lab, a rat was able to get a piece of food which was in a high altitude to him that he couldn't reach it, there were small boxes near him so he pushed one below the piece of food and then he climb over the box and now he was able to get it. That showed that the rat used reason to get the food, according to the experts, something that we take for granted and even some would not call that reasoning for seeming too obvious, for humans.

The capacity is inherent in the structure of our nervous systems (says me, the neuroscientist). If it is not exercised, ability will atrophy, but the fundamental capacity still exists. The vast majority of our species has the capacity for reason. Most people have not exercised the capacity beyond the most rudimentary of levels. That does not mean that the capacity does not exist. Of course, since I'm a neuroscientist, I've got a fairly biased view that is fettered by "reality".

Kant was a professor. It paid his bills.

I believe it is hard for some to reason being that they have taken to lies as the foundation of their thinking.

no, otherwise we wouldnt need laws

I haven't read any Kant, but I had to read about him for an apologetics class (Kant and Schliemacher almost single handedly completely screwed up the christian faith)

The general impression I got was that he was full of crap. You don't have to be a really smart person to figure this out.

Presumes facts not in evidence, specifically that it is not possible to simultaneously be rational and malevolent. Reason is not inherently moral--nor immoral. It's as moral as a flat rock. I can bake a pizza on that rock to share with starving children, or I can use the rock to bludgeon poor widows to death. The rock is just a tool.

The real question is whether or not you can bludgeon poor widows to death with a pizza made out of starving children.

Bigot!