That's an intriguing question! It touches on the nature of reasoning and how it connects to resolving events or situations. If I understand correctly, you're asking about the origins of reasons and why they become significant in addressing current events.
Reasons and their formation:
- Contextual Relevance: Reasons often stem from the context in which they are applied. The circumstances, facts, and past experiences surrounding an event shape the reasons that are considered relevant.
- Causal Understanding: We develop reasons based on our understanding of cause and effect. If a certain action led to a particular outcome in the past, it might become a reason to either replicate or avoid that action in the future.
- Values and Principles: Reasons are also grounded in our values and principles. For instance, if fairness is a core value, it becomes a reason to make decisions that promote fairness in resolving conflicts or current events.
Resolving Current Events:
- Application of Reasoning: When dealing with current events, reasoning involves applying past knowledge, contextual understanding, and principles to navigate the situation. The reasons that arise are often those that have been tested or that align with established goals.
- Dynamic Evolution: Reasons evolve over time. What might have been a strong reason in one era or situation might lose relevance in another due to changes in societal norms, knowledge, or the nature of the problem itself.
In essence, reasons become significant because they are the product of accumulated knowledge, experience, and the desire to achieve certain outcomes. They serve as guiding principles that help in making decisions and resolving events effectively.
have you ever noticed that your reasons built based on your circumstances and obstacles regardless what is the major right, and if you are aside you will have a different call ?
You're highlighting an important aspect of reasoning that touches on the subjectivity and bias inherent in decision-making. The idea that our reasons are shaped by circumstances and obstacles, rather than an objective "major right," is quite profound.
Subjectivity in Reasoning:
- Circumstantial Influence: Our reasons are often influenced by the specific circumstances we find ourselves in. For example, if someone is in a challenging situation, they might prioritize reasons that help them navigate or survive that situation, even if those reasons conflict with broader ethical principles.
- Perspective and Bias: Being "aside" or distant from the situation can indeed lead to different reasoning. When we are personally involved, our reasoning might be clouded by emotions, immediate needs, or survival instincts. When we're removed from the situation, we might have the luxury of considering more abstract or universal principles, which might lead to different conclusions.
The "Major Right":
- Objective vs. Subjective: The concept of a "major right" suggests an objective moral or ethical standard. However, in practice, what is considered "right" can vary greatly depending on cultural, societal, or individual perspectives. Even when we strive for objectivity, our reasoning is often colored by our own experiences and biases.
- Moral Relativism: This ties into the idea of moral relativism, where what is considered right or wrong can depend on the context. In different circumstances, different reasons might seem more compelling or justified.
The Dilemma of Being "Aside":
- Detached Reasoning: When we are detached from a situation, our reasoning might be more aligned with abstract principles or societal norms. This distance can provide clarity, but it can also lead to a lack of empathy or understanding of the complexities involved in a situation.
- Engaged Reasoning: When we're directly involved, our reasoning might be more practical and focused on immediate outcomes. This can lead to more pragmatic decisions, but it might also result in decisions that conflict with broader ethical considerations.
In essence, you're pointing out the tension between subjective, circumstance-driven reasoning and the pursuit of an objective or universal "right." This is a central challenge in ethics and decision-making, and it highlights the complexity of human thought and morality.
