Post0430

Humans are rational creatures. And because we are rational creatures, we use logic and mutually agreed-upon facts to build complex arguments in order to debate each other. To prove the other person wrong and demonstrate that one's own opinion is correct, people pose hypotheticals, cite facts, introduce personal experience, make inferences, and try to trap each other into making contradictory statements. Through this logical flow of reasoning, we build complex and robust arguments that withstand the test of reason in the eyes of critics. Humans have a natural inclination to not be wrong; being proven wrong is a sign of defeat.

Being right gives one the power to take certain actions without impediment. The government is justified in collecting taxes from the people because it provides social services in exchange. Law enforcement is justified in sending criminals to jail because criminals have violated the accepted social contract between government and subject. Revolutions and revolt against tyranny are justified and motivated by the belief that those in power are not justified in their actions, which justifies war and resistance and even compels other people to join the cause. Therefore, losing an argument can have disastrous consequences.

If you fail to convince your boss that you deserve a raise, your boss will certainly not give you a raise. If the employees you manage believe that you are abusing your power and you fail to defend your actions, you will likely be an ineffective and possibly resented employer. If you fail to convince yourself that your habit of smoking or of procrastinating is harmful, then you will have a tough time quitting your habit of smoking. When your monkey brain takes over and strongly urges you to indulge in your bad habit, you are much more vulnerable to caving in if you lack a strong argument prepared in advance against engaging this habit that is wreaking havoc on your life.

So, every statement you make and every action you take should be sturdy enough to withstand the forceful hurricane of the question "Why?" An inadequate response to the question "Why?" has the potential to cast your original claim into doubt and to call your reputation into question. "Why are you qualified to manage us?" "Why are you sending me to jail?" "Why are you justified in telling me what my weight should be?"

Sometimes, the answers to these questions are well thought out and thouroughly justified by universally accepted truths and impenetrable logic. For example, as I understand it, the case for equal treatment of women and men before the law is strong (though equality before the law isn't universal, as evidenced by the laws of Middle Eastern nations)--society has very little to lose and very much to gain by granting women and men the same rights in the public sphere. But sometimes, the answers are seemingly arbitrary and incomprehensible, though they may be correct. You may not be able to understand a hundred-page proof that relies upon advanced mathematics and introduces new notation, but you also cannot rule out the possibility that it is correct. But the author of the proof also may have trouble convincing others to join his or her side without providing justifications that others understand.

In this category are the answers to questions like "Mom, why can't I go out to the park?" The mother need not say anything but "I am your mother, and that is my decision." The child is probably less satisfied upon hearing this than if he were told "Because it's raining out and I don't want you to get hurt." But the mother is correct in giving the first justification. The mother does indeed have control over where she allows her child to go, though she hopefully does not use this reasoning for all of her actions. Nevertheless, the child may have his own opinions of what a mother is and isn't allowed to do. The answer to questions like these perhaps is only realized with experience and wisdom, sometimes at levels beyond the reach of human intellectual capacity. We still argue over age-old topics such as the ideal form of government and what actions should and shouldn't be allowed. Hopefully, the reason for this is that these are difficult questions and not that we are simply being stupid and closing our eyes to logic.

War is one possible outcome of the failure to reconcile or agree upon the justification behind the reasoning of an action. The quiet endurance of suffering is another. Avoidance is another. Our biological motivations and emotions sometimes suppress our proclivity for logical thought and compel us to prove our "right by might." Animals do this a lot; male gophers prove their competence for their chosen mate by wrestling against fellow male gophers who compete for the same female. The only logic involved in this process is "The stronger male gopher deserves the female gopher," which hardly seems to be a convincing argument to us humans. But humans are not much different. Most of the time, we humans do what we want. When two humans have conflicting goals or beliefs, they either engage in the intellectual and abstract wrestling match of physical reasoning or resort to real physical aggression. There is no doubt at the end of a fight who is the winner and who is the loser. If the losing party is not ready to accept defeat he only needs to continue fighting. The winner of a fight, by virtue of being the winner, is able to do what he or she wants by force, thus circumventing the usual means of physical reasoning to achieve consensus. Another possible outcome of a conflict between two animals or humans is subjugation, where one accepts the other's action without being logically convinced, thereby allowing the other to gain what he or she wants. A third outcome is avoidance, where both parties with conflicting goals simply give up their original intentions out of a lack of willingness to fight.

A consequence of the asymmetry of human rationality, logic, and motivation (i.e. the inevitable conflict between human goals) means that life is unfair. Everyone cannot get what he or she desires. Additionally, factors far beyond the predictive or analytical capabilities are capable of presenting extreme seemingly arbitrary situations. But no matter how much you shout at a tornado and ask what right it thinks it has to destroy your home built through the hard work of your own hands and the patience of your mind, the tornado does not justify its actions. It simply exists and cannot be stopped by humans, at least so far. It has won by might. Terrible things can happen and are statistically bound to happen. In the movie "Eye in the Sky," some people have to die: either the victims of the attack of the suicide bombers or the individuals killed by the collateral damage of the missile sent by the British government. Collateral damage: a statistical calculation of the number of ill-fated innocent civilians who just so happened to be walking by the target of the missile at the time of the strike, unaware of their imminent and frustratingly arbitrary and seemingly meaningless demise.