Should reason alone be used to determine which actions are morally right or morally wrong?

Answer 1

Yes. Reason should always be relied upon when deciding questions of right and wrong. It is one of the foundations of law.

• reason: to think through in a logical manner; the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments and inferences from facts

Answer:

Reason is always a key tool in deciding a course of action, it has the failing of requiring all the facts to arrive at the totally acceptable answer and these are not always available. Sometimes a person needs what is called in Zen Buddhism an "instantaneous appreciation of the whole" and sometimes it requires illogical behaviour. If this were not the case firemen and police could let buildings burn and hostages die as logic could indicate that their chances of surviving the event are too low.

Altruistic behaviour (taking one for the team) seems to be as important as reason and works at a deeper survival of the species level. It is even exhibited by herd animals where the young are protected by the adults.

Neither of these options requires addressing the morality or right/wrong of the situation.

Answer:

Reason alone? Absolutely not. Aristotle relied upon reason when he wrote that killing one's newborn babies is perfectly acceptable and a necessary practice.

Answer 2

Reason is only useful when put into a moral philosophical framework for evaluating reality and operates using accurate evidence about reality. You need all three things in order to come to a proper moral evaluation technique. It is important to say, though, that reason is necessary because it provides a system for evaluating evidence and comparing it to the moral philosophical framework.

For example, if you have a particular utilitarian philosophy that holds that welfare for the majority is more important than individuals' welfare, it is perfectly rational to enslave a small portion of the population in order to vastly increase the welfare of the non-enslaved majority. It is rational because you are maximizing the majority welfare, which is the goal of the philosophy and this can be evaluated by accurate evidence of the situation.

A different example is that even if you have a defensible philosophical framework, such as a belief that slavery should be expunged, but inaccurate evidence, such as not knowing that any slaves are actually present in your country when there actually are slaves in your country, your rational outlook would not be to allocate resources to combating slavery since your evidence would indicate that it is not an issue.

Both of these examples are morally repugnant, and rightfully so, because they use rationality, but without either a moral philosophical framework or without accurate evidence.