This document discusses the power and limitations of human reason. It begins by praising reason as what separates humans from other animals, according to philosophers like Pythagoras, Socrates, and Aristotle. However, it then notes the limitations of reason, giving examples like paradoxes and Protagoras' student's dilemma that show logical ambiguities. While reason is necessary for society, absolute knowledge is beyond human capacity. Therefore, reason alone cannot determine universal moral standards, and we are left relying on legal standards.

1. Introduction
• I am Grady Watts. I am a fulltime assistant prof. of Philosophy at LSC
Cyfair.
• I have taught in the areas of Criminology, Philosophy, and
Humanities at Argosy University, Brescia University, Our Lady of the
Lake University, Ashford University and Lamar University.
• I have a Master of Science in Criminology and a Master of Arts in
Philosophy, two years of law school and 18 hours toward my Ph.D
• My Professional background is in Philosophy of law, Legal Ethics, and
Criminal Justice ethics
• I love the ALL community!

2. The power of Reason
• It is hard to think of the one aspect of the human experience that
qualifies us as a unique animal other than the capacity to
reason/think.

3. Reason and morality?
• However, can reason lead us to universal principles of morality,
considering the differences in moral views that exist in and outside of
our own culture?

4. In praise of reason
• Pythagoras: Math used the reasoning part of the soul and reasoning
would get us closer to the divine
• Socrates: Liberation from the dogmatic cave required
questioning/reasoning

5. In praise of reason
• Aristotle: reason is what separated us from other animals, and a
human could only flourish if they exercised what was properly
human.
• Locke: all of human conduct is based on the natural law and human
reason.

6. J.S. Mill
• Hedonistic calculus
• Maximize pleasure and minimize pain
• J.S. Mills addition
• Human pleasure is different than a pigs pleasure
• “better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”

7. Machiavelli
letter to Francesco Vettori, dated 13th December
1513
• "The evening being come, I return home and go to my study; at the
entrance I pull off my peasant-clothes, covered with dust and dirt,
and put on my noble court dress, and thus becomingly re-clothed I
pass into the ancient courts of the men of old, where, being lovingly
received by them, I am fed with that food which is mine alone; where
I do not hesitate to speak with them, and to ask for the reason of
their actions, and they in their kindliness answer me; and for four
hours I feel no weariness, I forget every trouble, poverty does not
dismay, death does not terrify me; I am incorporated entirely by
those great men.”

8. In praise of reason
• Current law: social necessity
• Negligence
• Duty ---- to act as a reasonable prudent person
• Breach
• Cause
• Damages

9. In praise of reason

10. In doubt of reason
• While reason is a part of our everyday life, it cannot be the vehicle to
get us to absolute knowledge.
• Paradox is an example of logical/reasoned ambiguities which evinces
the limits of reason

11. In doubt of reason
• Protagoras (a sophist so you know it will go wrong) once agreed with
one of his pupils that he could delay payment for his tuition until he
had won his first case.
• The agreement seemed sound, until the student was sufficiently
qualified to start offering his services professionally. He hung a sign
outside his office, but no business came his way.

12. In doubt of reason
• Frustrated, Protagoras decided to sue his former pupil.
• He reasoned that either:
• He would win the case, in which case his pupil would be required by the
courts to pay for his tuition,
• or he would lose, in which case his former pupil would have won his first case
and would therefore be required to pay for his tuition under the terms of
their original agreement.

13. In doubt of reason
• Counter: The pupil reasoned:
• either he (the former pupil) would lose that case, in which case he would still
never have won a case and would therefore not be required to pay under the
terms of their original agreement,
• or he would win the case and the court would rule that he did not have to
pay.

14. In doubt of reason
• Russell
• Our perspective of the world comes from the first person narrative which can
only be experience by that person.

15. Morality?
• Considering the weakness of reason to come to absolute knowledge
of any issue without ambiguity, it seems like the wrong vehicle to use
to achieve a theory for absolute moral principles.
• What about God as the proper justification of universal moral
principles?

16. Strengths
• If there is a God that provides moral standards, then it would solve
issues of moral cultural relativism, because God’s reason would be
superior to human reason.

17. The problem
• If it takes human reason to justify the existence of God since God is
not in physical form on earth, then we are caught in the same
conundrum of the impossibility of reason as a proper justification for
the existence of God.

18. Solution?
• Believe or not believe?
• If you have a belief in God, then of course it is proper for you to
follow those belief and the moral standards that are involved.
• However, there would be a problem with enforcing those standards
on others.

19. In doubt of reason
• Conclusion
• Reason is beautiful, and it is necessary for an ordered human society.
However, the human capacity to know is limited by the very nature that we
are human.
• Socrates: “I know, I know nothing”
• The only possibility for moral standard we are left it seems is with the
law.