Reasonable

I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge of the law is murky at best, but I believe the law often deals with the concept of "reasonable". There are concepts of "reasonable doubt" and "what a reasonable person would do".

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "reasonable" as:
1 a : being in accordance with reason {a reasonable theory}
b : not extreme or excessive {reasonable requests}
c : moderate, fair {a reasonable chance} {a reasonable price}
d : inexpensive
2 a : having the faculty of reason
b : possessing sound judgment {a reasonable man}

Unfortunately, in common usage the idea of what is "reasonable" is open for interpretation and sometimes highly debatable. For me, there is a close relationship between the concepts of "reasonable" and "debatable". It is reasonable to believe something that is debatable, whether or not it is absolutely true. The complicating problem lies in the issue of what is considered "debatable" (which most dictionaries define with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated"). I doubt that there is ANYTHING that SOMEONE does not consider to be open for debate.

So the problem becomes deciding what a reasonable person considers to be debatable. Rather than just a confusing set of words, I believe this is a key problem for our society today. We must attempt to distinguish which ideas are reasonable and debatable, and label these ideas differently from those ideas that are totally unworthy of consideration -- keeping in mind that even ideas that first sound outrageous are sometimes worthy of careful consideration. This determination should be separated from determination of "right" and "wrong", or ideas with which we agree or disagree.

This entire discussion is related to the idea that much of what we believe is inherently correct is based on our own values rather than any inherent "correctness". Ideas that go completely against our values are not necessarily wrong, though it is easy to quickly label them as unreasonable. It is difficult to come up with examples that are not polarizing, emotion-charged, and dangerous, but I will use a fairly obscure topic. The late backpacking "guru", Collin Fletcher, proposed that a way to deal with overcrowding in our "wilderness" areas and national parks would be to make trails less accessible -- such as having the actual beginning of the trail some distance from any road or parking lot, to be reached only by pushing through the trail-less brush. This idea is opposed by those who wish to make these same trails more accessible to everyone, including those with physical disabilities. Still, I would label this idea as "reasonable" and "debatable" rather than "absurd". This is NOT to say it is a GOOD idea, or that I AGREE with it. My POINT is that the idea is not so totally wrong as to be unworthy of discussion.

This is especially a problem in politics, where people are quick to label any idea that they oppose as "absurd" or "ridiculous" or "irrational" (I could come up with more terms but I will stop). I believe we would all be better off if we were capable of acknowledging certain ideas to be reasonable or debatable, even when we ourselves deeply opposed those ideas. As a society, we need to acknowledge the difference between reasonable and totally wrong ideas -- or especially ideas that are contrary to established facts -- even when we disagree.

When we fail to distinguish between those ideas that are clearly, indisputably wrong, and those ideas with which we merely disagree, we make true communication impossible, and resolving our differences much more difficult. I find it interesting to note that even if a person were completely infallible, they would STILL need to be able to make this distinction if they wished to resolve differences with others. When dealing with other people with other beliefs, it is sometimes important to determine whether an idea is worth considering, rather than whether is it right or wrong.

I acknowledge that the question of what is "reasonable" will always remain open for debate, and especially that some people will take great offense at ideas and beliefs others consider to be "reasonable". I suppose that I am arguing that we would be better off as a society if we would all broaden our standards a bit as to what we consider "reasonable". I am NOT asking for any revision in what we consider "right" or "wrong" -- just what we consider "reasonable".

Truth is complicated.