why is reason a better strategy of judgment than compassion and rigidity?

Question

Please, just throw out ideas. Anything will help. i already have the basic points such as:

with reason, you are less likely persuaded.
with reason, you may see things you may not have seen if you were biased.
with reason, you are most often correct and most people respect you.


Anything i may have missed?

Answer 1

Because judgment without thought is insane. Reason requires a process of thought. Compassion only requires a capacity to feel, and rigidity requires a capacity to obey.

But I disagree with some of the conclusions you have already put forth:

*with reason, you are less likely persuaded.* No, you are less likely fooled. You are more likely persuaded if the facts stand up.

*with reason, you may see things you may not have seen if you were biased.* This is a possibility, but not in and of itself complete. You can be biased toward a viewpoint (the truth) and see nothing new in an unreasonable argument to the contrary.


*with reason, you are most often correct and most people respect you.* You are only correct when and if your premises and knowledge of the facts are correct. It is possible to apply a process of reason to a set of incorrect data, and come up with a reasonable judgment, but wrong for the circumstances. It is also possible to arrive at a sound judgment and not have "most people" respect you, when their judgment is not as sound.

Answer 2

We are talking entirely different matters here that I do not see any connection between one and the other so I will stick to only one- Reason.

Let us suppose that you are asked to judge an accusation.

You want to apply your judgment based on reason. Is that the correct way to go? Yes and no.

Expert crooks and manipulative people can alter facts so that the reasonable judgment will appear in such a way to benefit their trickery and deceit.

The rich tricksters can buy the best legal defense so that a guilty person can be made to look innocent.

For simple, black and white matters, maybe reason is good enough.

Answer 3

Because "reason" and "strategy" are complementary terms, so a "strategy of judgment" will depend implicitly upon reason. By the same token, a "formula for judgment" would value "adherence to standards" (rigidity) and "soul-searching for judgment" would look for compassion.

If you are asking folks to choose between their heads and their hearts, don't be surprised to find strong gender preferences. The world is full of folks who make the right decisions without knowing why, while, as Robert Burns reminds us...

The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Answer 4

First off, reason is not a better strategy, it is only one among many. Movies portray some interesting characters - think of the relationship between Spock, Bones, and Kirk in Star Trek - they are the embodiment of Reason, Compassion, and Compassionate Reason. They occasionally have a rule following comic character.

Which is best for you? Are you all about reason? Are you all about heart and compassion? Are you all about following other people's rules? Are you something else entirely?

To be human is to follow your heart. To be human is to follow your reason. To be stupid is to follow other people's rules rigidly - oops. Any computer can follow rules rigidly, that is what they do, so following rules rigidly is to deny your humanity, your reason, your passion.

Disbelieve anyone you answers this question with certainty. They don't know what is best for you, only you do. The only way you can decide this is with your head and your heart, and however else you decide stuff.

Answer 5

'Reason' is different for people of a different understanding for it. Reasoning as a balancing for opposites of contrary nature is the most balanced of the Will and the Judgment. The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative. This dialectic reasoning is the coherent reasoning in some of the greatest theories of modern and postmodern philosophy science, e.g. Erick Erickson and Ego/Identity psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erick_Erickson , Karl Marx and social formation in class conflict http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm and G.W.F. Hegel http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_vi.htm#SL81
§ 81

[b] In the Dialectical stage these finite characterisations or formulae supersede themselves, and pass into their opposites.

(1) But when the Dialectical principle is employed by the understanding separately and independently — especially as seen in its application to philosophical theories — Dialectic becomes Scepticism; in which the result that ensues from its action is presented as a mere negation.

(2) It is customary to treat Dialectic as an adventitious art, which for very wantonness introduces confusion and a mere semblance of contradiction into definite notions. And in that light, the semblance is the nonentity, while the true reality is supposed to belong to the original dicta of understanding. Often, indeed, Dialectic is nothing more than a subjective seesaw of arguments pro and con, where the absence of sterling thought is disguised by the subtlety which gives birth to such arguments. But in its true and proper character, Dialectic is the very nature and essence of everything predicated by mere understanding — the law of things and of the finite as a whole. Dialectic is different from ‘Reflection’. In the first instance, Reflection is that movement out beyond the isolated predicate of a thing which gives it some reference, and brings out its relativity, while still in other respects leaving it its isolated validity. But by Dialectic is meant the indwelling tendency outwards by which the one-sidedness and limitation of the predicates of understanding is seen in its true light, and shown to be the negation of them. For anything to be finite is just to suppress itself and put itself aside. Thus understood the Dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific progress, the dynamic which alone gives immanent connection and necessity to the body of science; and, in a word, is seen to constitute the real and true, as opposed to the external, exaltation above the finite.





http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/li_terms.htm

Answer 6

reason is better because its like the saying goes, "you cant judge a book by its cover, you have to look indside(the facts) to know what is really going on.

Answer 7

Yes, you missed a novel idea... Judge not, lest ye be judged. Judging others is always a bit of a risk, no matter what strategy you use.